Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 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 6

6 Acknowledgements 6

7 Item withdrawn 6

8 Item withdrawn 6

9 Item withdrawn 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Henderson-Massey Quick Response Grants: Round Two 2015/2016 7

13 Henderson Massey Additional Local Grant Multiboard Applications : Round One 2015/2016 53

14 New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Hy Development Limited at 14 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South 75

15 New road name approval for a road to vest, created by way of subdivision at 23-47 Westgate Drive 81

16 New community lease to The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated, Birdwood Winery Estate, 103 Glen Road, Ranui 87

17 Assignment and Variation of Lease to The Henderson Heritage Trust, Corban Estate Winery, 2 Mt Lebanon Lane, Henderson 95

18 New community lease to New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated, Tui Glen Reserve, 2 Claude Brookes Drive, Henderson 99

19 Renewal of community lease to Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated, Chapman Strand, 11 Chapman Road, Te Atatu Peninsula 107

20 Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) Performance Report for the Henderson-Massey Local Board for the six months ending December 2015 113

21 Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback 127

22 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 269

23 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 339

24 LGNZ conference and AGM 2016 351

25 Henderson-Massey Local Board feedback on proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 359

26 Henderson-Massey Local Board feedback on the Transport for Future Urban Growth project 369

27 Governance Forward Work Calendar 383

28 Evaluation of Results Based Accountability Pilot Project

This report was note available when the agenda was compiled and will be tabled at the meeting

29 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.

BOARD MEMBER	ORGANISATION	POSITION
Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chairman)	Ranui Sector Trial	Chair
Shane Henderson (Deputy Chairman)	Waitemata Community Law Centre	Employee
Brenda Brady, JP	Safer West Community Trust District Licensing Committee	Trustee Member
Peter Chan, JP	Cantonese Opera Society of NZ Asian Leaders Forum NZ-Hong Kong Business Ass. NZ-China Business Ass. Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA) Whau Coastal Walkway Trust	Member Member Member Member Advisor Trustee
Warren Flaunty, QSM	Westgate Pharmacy NorSGA Properties Westgate Pharmacy Ltd The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd Life North West Pharmacy Rodney Local Board Waitemata District Health Board Waitakere Licensing Trust Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass. Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Ass.	Contractor Director Director Director Director Elected Member Elected Member Elected Member Member Member
Will Flavell	Rutherford College Literacy Waitakere Board	Employee Member
Tracy Kirkley	District Licensing Committee Churches Education Commission	Member Contractor
Luke Wilson	NZ Police D.A.R.E. - West Waitakere Rotary – Board member Silver Fern Motor Sports - Board	Employee Member Board member Board member

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 3 March 2016, , 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 Item withdrawn

8 Item withdrawn

9 Item withdrawn

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.

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Henderson-Massey Quick Response Grants: Round Two 2015/2016

File No.: CP2016/00621

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present the applications received for round two of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Quick Response Grants 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has set a total community funding budget of $51,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year

3. A total of 37,188.61 was allocated in previous grant rounds from the community funding budget, leaving a balance of $13,811.39 for the remaining 2015/2016 financial year.

4. Sixteen applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $25,442

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) considers the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table One: Henderson-Massey Local Board Round Two Quick Response applications

App number	Focus	Organisation/Individual Name	Project	Total Requested
QR1605-213	Arts and Culture	Simon Gray	Developing a creative and connected community	$900
QR1605-218	Arts and Culture	Cristina Beth	The Peace Poppy Project Photographic Exhibition	$2,000
QR1605-234	Arts and Culture	Dance 24 Seven Ltd	Dance 24 Seven Hip Hop Classes	$2,000
QR1605-203	Community	Tuilaepa Youth Mentoring Service (TYMS)	TYMS Young People BridgeBACK Program	$2,000
QR1605-207	Community	Family Action	Assertive Community Outreach	$2,000
QR1605-216	Community	PHAB Association (Auckland) Inc.	West Auckland Social Clubs	$2,000
QR1605-220	Community	UpsideDowns Education Trust	Delivering the gift of speech to children with Down syndrome	$1,860
QR1605-222	Community	West Harbour Playcentre	Upgrading our outdoor sports equipment	$1,000
QR1605-224	Community	Massey Playcentre	Complete upgrade of natural outdoor play area	$1,740
QR1605-228	Community	Riverpark Action Group	Supporting trees for babies fruit trees, Woodside Reserve - adjacent to Woodside Community Garden, Massey	$896
QR1605-230	Community	Zeal Education Trust	Youth leadership and development camp for “Zeal Henderson” young people	$2,000
QR1605-237	Community	Action Education Inc.	Spoken word poetry workshops in west Auckland schools	$2,000
QR1605-209	Environmental	WeedFree Trust	Divich Ave Sustainable Neighbourhood Group	$1,999
QR1605-214	Environmental	WeedFree Trust	SunnyVale Sustainable Neighbourhood	$1,047
QR1605-206	Sports and Recreation	Ranui Swanson Auckland Football Club	To give disadvantaged kids, access to football	$2,000
	Total amount requested			$25,442

Comments

5. The implementation of the new Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and the Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted its grants programme on 20 April 2015 (see Attachment A).

6. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities;

· lower priorities for funding;

· exclusions;

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close; and

· any additional accountability requirements.

7. The Henderson-Massey Local Board will operate four quick response rounds and two local grant rounds for this financial year. The second quick response round closed on 28 February 2016.

8. The new community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the new council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters and Facebook pages, council publications, radio, local newspapers and community networks. Staff have also conducted a series of public workshops in local board areas, which have been attended by approximately 1000 people across the Auckland region.

9. For the 2015/2016 financial year, the Henderson-Massey Local Board set a total community grants budget of $51,000.

10. The local board has already allocated $37,188.61 leaving a balance of $13,811.39 for the remaining 2015/2016 financial year.

11. Sixteen applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $25,422

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Henderson-Massey Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

13. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

Māori impact statement

14. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

Implementation

15. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

16. Following the Henderson-Massey Local Board allocating funding for round two quick response grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Henderson-Massey Local Board Grants Programme 2015/16	11
b View	Henderson-Massey Quick Response, Round Two Application Summaries	13

Signatories

Authors

Fua Winterstein - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Henderson Massey Additional Local Grant Multiboard Applications : Round One 2015/2016

File No.: CP2016/03739

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present the multiboard applications received for Round One of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Local Grants 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Henderson-Massey Local Board set a total local community grants budget of $51,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. A total of $37,188.61 has been allocated to date in the first half of the financial year, leaving a balance of $13,811.39.

4. Six multiboard applications were received for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, with a total requested of $18,502.40. The six multiboard applications were not received within the reporting timeframe for Round One of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Local Grants, therefore the applications are now being presented to the local board for their decision-making.

5. The Henderson-Massey Local Board are now requested to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table One: Henderson-Massey Out of Round Multiboard Round One Local Grants applications:

Application Number	Focus	Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested
LG1620-33	Community	Autism NZ Inc. - Auckland Branch	Autism NZ Inc. Auckland branch operating costs	$2,000
LG1613-130	Community	Mind over Manner Ltd	Shifting Community Youth and Culture through Applied Theatre Practice workshops	$5,864.40
LG1611-143	Community	Shakti Asian Women's Centre Incorporated	Community Advocates Programme	$1,020
LG1606-153	Community	The Parenting Place - Attitude Youth Division	Youth development and mental health programmes for Auckland region schools 2015/2016	$4,000
LG1610-03	Sport and recreation	Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Centre (MERC)	Sport and recreation outreach program	$3,968
LG1619-123	Sport and recreation	Sport Waitakere	Waitākere Walking Festival, “Walk it Waitākere”	$1,650
		Total amount requested		$18,502.40

Comments

6. The implementation of the new Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and the Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted its grants programme on 30 April 2015 (see Attachment A)

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Henderson-Massey Local Board will operate two local grants and five quick response rounds for this financial year. The first local grants round closed 11 September 2015.

9. The new community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the new council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters and Facebook pages, council publications, radio, local newspapers and community networks. Staff have also conducted a series of public workshops in local board areas, which have been attended by approximately 1000 people across the Auckland region.

10. The Henderson-Massey Local Board set a total local community grants budget of $51,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

11. A total of $37,188.61 has been allocated to date in the first half of the financial year, leaving a balance of $13,811.39.

12. Six multiboard applications were received for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, with a total requested of $18,502.40.The six multiboard applications were not received within the reporting timeframe for round one of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Local Grants, therefore the applications are now being presented to the local board for their decision-making.

13. The Henderson-Massey Local Board are now requested to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Henderson-Massey local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

15. The board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

Māori impact statement

16. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

Implementation

17. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

18. Following the Henderson-Massey Local Board allocating funding for the additional multiboard local grants, round one, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Henderson-Massey Local Board Grants Programme 2015/2016	57
b View	Henderson-Massey Additional Multiboard application summaries	59

Signatories

Authors

Fua Winterstein - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Hy Development Limited at 14 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South

File No.: CP2016/02142

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board, for a new road name for a road created by way of Subdivision at 14 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South.

Executive Summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names Meritage Lane, Melbec Lane and Muscadelle Lane were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Local Iwi groups were consulted. Tame Te Rangi on behalf of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua supported the preferred choice of Meritage Lane.

5. The name Meritage Lane, proposed by the Applicant and the names Melbec Lane and Muscadelle Lane are recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) pursuant to Section 319(1)(j), of the Local Government Act 1974, approve the road name Meritage Lane, proposed by the Applicant, for the new road created by way of subdivision at 14 Bordeaux Parade , Te Atatu South, while noting that Melbec Lane and Muscadelle Lane also meet the road naming criteria.

Comments

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

7. In 2006, Auckland Council approved an Application for a combined land use and subdivision consent to undertake a subdivision creating 84 residential allotments at 14 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South. The subdivision contains a road that will provide 31 allotments with road access. The consent holder has proposed to label the road Meritage Lane (SUB2006-1301).

8. The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 14 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Meritage Lane	A blend of Bordeaux wines, including Merlot
First Alternative	Melbec Lane	Type of Bordeaux wine
Second Alternative	Muscadelle Lane	Type of Bordeaux wine

9. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012-2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to Section 319(1)9j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

12. Meritage Lane, Melbec Lane and Muscadelle Lane all meet the criteria set out in the Road Naming Guidelines.

13. As the Applicant’s preferred name Meritage Lane meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval as it complies with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Māori impact statement

14. The decision sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the World”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

15. Consultation with local Iwi was undertaken by the applicant and Tame Te Rangi for and on behalf of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua supported the name Meritage Lane. No other replies from iwi were received by the applicant.

16. Consultation with NZ Post was undertaken by the applicant and all suggested names were accepted.

Implementation

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

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

19. The decision sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Meritage Lane Diagram	79

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

New road name approval for a road to vest, created by way of subdivision at 23-47 Westgate Drive

File No.: CP2016/01684

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board for a new road to vest, created by way of a subdivision at 23-47 Westgate Drive, Massey (Council reference: LUC/2013/1660, SUB/2013/1662 and REG/2013/1667).

Executive Summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road name, ‘Tihema Lane’ (the applicant’s preferred road name), was determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Neon Limited (the applicant) sent correspondence to 7 local iwi groups, advising of the proposed name and asking for comments and alternative options for the name. Either support was provided, or no objections were raised. No alternative names were suggested by any of the iwi contacted.

5. Neon Limited has suggested ‘Tihema Lane’ as the name for the road, after the nearby stream.

6. The name ‘Tihema Lane’, proposed by the applicant, is recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, approves the road name ‘Tihema Lane’ proposed by the applicant, for the new road to vest created by way of a subdivision at 23-47 Westgate Drive, Massey.

Comments

7. The site is located at 23-47 Westgate Drive, Massey, and is legally described as Lot 2 DP 421151 (CT 480844), (as represented in figure one). Council granted consent on 21^st of January 2014 (LUC/2013/1660, SUB/2013/1662 and REG/2013/1667) for the creation of 19 residential sites, a balance area and a road to vest. This road naming application relates to this road to vest and is identified below in figure one. It would be created along the south of the proposed residential lots and would extend from Westgate Drive to Rush Creek Drive.

Figure one: Showing the portion of land where the road will be located (red), and the location of the nearby stream which the road is named after (blue).

Figure two: Location of proposed road.

8. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allows that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval. Neon Limited (the applicant) has the preferred name ‘Tihema Lane’ for the new road to vest, created by way of subdivision.

Decision Making

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

Assessment

10. The applicants proposed road name has been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines. The name adheres to the general principles and objectives. The significance of the proposed name is outlined in the table below.

Proposed road name

The significance of the proposed road name.

Tihema Lane

The proposed name is informed by the close proximity of the road to Tihema Stream, as pictured in figure one above. This name therefore reflects this natural feature within the Massey area.

The proposed use of ‘Lane’ accurately reflects the type of road being named.

The name has been accepted by Land Information New Zealand and New Zealand Post.

11. As the applicant’s preferred name (Tihema Lane) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

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

Māori impact statement

13. The decision sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome: ‘A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

14. The applicant consulted local iwi whose responses are summarized in the table below.

Table showing iwi responses to proposed road name ‘Tihema Lane’.
Iwi Group	Response
Te Akitai Waiohua	Deferred to Te Kawerau
Te Kawerau	Support the name
Ngāti Tamaoho	Support the name
Ngāti Te Ata	Support the name
Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara	Did not respond
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua	Deferred to Kaipara
Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei	Did not respond

15. Overall, the name was supported, with no further suggestions being provided. Those who did not respond raised no objections within the agreed time frame.

Consultation

16. Neon Limited sent correspondence to 7 local Iwi, advising of the proposed street name and asking for comments and alternative options. These are summarised above.

17. New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) have commented that the proposed name ‘Tihema Lane’ meets their criteria and standards.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

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

Legal and Legislative Implications

19. The decision sought from the Henderson – Massey Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

20. The Development Programme Office Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jian Chen - Senior Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

John Dunshea - General Manager Development Programmes Office

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

New community lease to The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated, Birdwood Winery Estate, 103 Glen Road, Ranui

File No.: CP2016/03507

Purpose

1. This report seeks Henderson-Massey Local Board approval for the grant of a new community lease to The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated, Birdwood Winery Estate, 99 Glen Road, Ranui.

Executive Summary

2. The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated (the Club) had a community lease with Waitakere City Council from 1 April 2000 for a term of 10 years to 31 March 2010. The Club are currently holding over on a month by month basis under the Property Law Act 2007.

3. The improvements on the site are owned by the Club.

4. The club is located on part of Birdwood Winery Estate with the land being described as Section 2 SO 477190 and Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 50606 (Attachment A). Section 2 is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977. Lot 1 is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

5. There is sufficient mention of the BMX lease in the approved Te Rangi Hiroa Reserve Management Plan 2002 to grant a lease under Section 54 (1) of the Reserves Act to the BMX Club over portions of both Section 2 SO 477190 and Lot 1 DP 50606 to trigger Section 54 (2A) (a) of the same Act and exempt Council from having to give further public notification or iwi consultation.

6. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own improvements have an automatic right to apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term without the need for a public expression of interest process.

7. The Club wishes to exercise this right and has applied for a new community lease for the site on Birdwood Winery Estate.

8. This report recommends the granting of a new community lease to The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated. It is recommended that the lease is for a period of ten years with one right of renewal for a further term of ten years, as specified in the Auckland Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) grant a new community lease to The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated for part of Section 2 SO 477190 and part Lot 1 DP 50606, Birdwood Winery Estate, Ranui, on the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 10 years commencing 17 March 2016 with one 10-year right of renewal;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

iii) The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan as approved be attached to the lease document (Attachment B);

b) approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Comments

9. The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated (the Club) had a community lease with Waitakere City Council from 1 April 2000 for a term of 10 years to 31 March 2010. The Club are currently rolling over on a month by month basis.

10. The improvements on the site are owned by the Club.

11. The club is located on part of Birdwood Winery Estate with the land being described as Section 2 SO 477190 and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 50606 (Attachment A). Section 2 is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977. Lot 1 is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

12. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own improvements have an automatic right to apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term without the need for a public expression of interest process.

13. The Club wishes to exercise this right and has applied for a new community lease on Birdwood Winery Estate.

14. The Club was registered as an Incorporated Society on 13 September 1982 and is an affiliated member of BMX New Zealand. The objectives of the Club are to promote the amateur sport of BMX racing.

15. Since the club’s inception in the 1970’s, the Club remains a dedicated BMX cycling hub and currently has over 73 members with many more participating on a casual basis. The Club wishes to grow its membership and raise the standard of BMX riders across the West Auckland region.

16. Recent funding has been secured which will allow the Club to develop the track and its facilities into a great local resource that can host regional and national events.

17. A condition of the lease is that maintenance of the leased area will be the responsibility of the Club. Auckland Council will mow the areas in the approved landscape plans.

18. The lease remains consistent with the Youth Park Development.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The issues involved in this report have been considered by the Henderson Massey Local Board portfolio holders.

Māori impact statement

20. There are no significant changes to or impacts for Maori associated with the recommendations in this report.

Implementation

21. There are no additional cost implications for Auckland Council.

22. Council staff has sought input from relevant council departments.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated lot description	91
b View	Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan	93

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Name and Location of Land/Facility	Te Rangi Hiroa/Birdwood Depot
Name of the Community it serves	Waitakere community
Local Board Area	Henderson-Massey Local Board area
Name of Community Group	The Waitakere City BMX Club Incorporated
Contact person	Stefan Winstanley
Name of Community Lease Advisor	Michelle Knudsen

Auckland Council and Local Board Priorities	Performance Measure	Target	Achievements
Local Board Outcome A good life for young and old Auckland Plan Outcome An Auckland of prosperity and opportunity	Membership fees are reasonable Members under the age of 25 Members over the age of 25 Making the track available:- - To club members - To members of the public Promote the facility	Fees set in line with other comparable clubs in the region Provide a list of members under the age of 25 Provide a list of members over the age of 25 Up to 20 hours per week At all times – except when used by the Club Develop three promotional initiatives List the initiatives developed Illustrate how these initiatives were implemented
Local Board Outcome We are an eco-city Auckland Plan Outcome A beautiful Auckland that is loved by its people	Encourage sustainable practices to members	Auckland Council recycling bins must be available at all times Report environmental problems to Auckland Council Ensure leased area is kept clean and all litter removed after events
Local Board Outcome A community where we know our neighbours, work together on issues and value diversity Auckland Plan Outcome A fair, safe and healthy Auckland	Maintain leased area First aid qualified club warden on-site during club hours	As per the terms and conditions outlined in the Deed of Lease One qualified first aid warden

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Assignment and Variation of Lease to The Henderson Heritage Trust, Corban Estate Winery, 2 Mt Lebanon Lane, Henderson

File No.: CP2016/02332

Purpose

1. This report seeks the approval of the Henderson-Massey Local Board to the assignment and variation of lease for The Henderson Heritage Trust, Corban Estate Winery, 2 Mt Lebanon Lane, Henderson.

Executive Summary

2. The former Waitakere City Council entered into a Deed of Lease with The Henderson Heritage Trust on 9 November 2005. The Deed of Lease commenced on 9 November 2005 and provides for a lease term of 34 years and 364 days with final expiry on 8 November 2039. The trust owns the historic St Michaels Church.

3. The land is described as being part of Lot 3 DP 208135 comprising 6.6699 hectares (Attachment A). Lot 3 is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

4. The Henderson Heritage Trust is in the process of amalgamating with The Falls Hotel Preservation Trust and forming a new trust called The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust.

5. The objectives of The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust are substantially identical to the Henderson Heritage Trust, as are the trustees.

6. The change in legal entity status of the Henderson Heritage Trust will constitute an assignment of lease, and will be recorded in a Deed of Assignment on the ADLS form prepared by the Assignee (The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust) with appropriate variations as required by Council.

7. This report requests Council’s consent to an assignment of lease from the Henderson Heritage Trust to the Norcross Falls Heritage Trust.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) grant consent as landlord, for entry into a Deed of Assignment of Lease from The Henderson Heritage to The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust;

b) grant consent on the condition that Council’s reasonable costs for landlord consent are met by The Henderson Heritage Trust.

Comments

8. The former Waitakere City Council entered into a Deed of Lease with The Henderson Heritage Trust on 9 November 2005. The lease which commenced 9 November 2005 provides for a term of 34 years and 364 days with final expiry on 8 November 2039. The trust owns the historic St Michaels Church.

9. The Henderson Heritage Trust is in the process of amalgamating with the Falls Hotel Preservation Trust and forming a new trust called The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust.

10. It is the intention of the Henderson Heritage Trust to dissolve itself and transfer its assets to the Norcross Falls Heritage Trust.

11. The objectives of The Norcross Falls Heritage Trust are substantially identical to the Henderson Heritage Trust, as are the trustees.

12. The change in legal entity status of the Trust will constitute an assignment of lease, triggering the requirement for a variation of the lease to legitimise the leasing position to accord with the forming of the new Trust.

13. The objectives of the Henderson Heritage Trust are to acquire, relocate and restore historic buildings in the Henderson area for the benefit of the public and to allow the said historic buildings to be used for purposes beneficial to the community.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. The issues involved in this report have been considered by the Henderson-Massey Local Board portfolio holders.

Māori impact statement

15. There is no significant change or impact for Maori associated with the recommendations in this report.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Lot 3 DP 208135 description	97

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

New community lease to New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated, Tui Glen Reserve, 2 Claude Brookes Drive, Henderson

File No.: CP2016/02336

Purpose

1. This report seeks Henderson-Massey Local Board approval for a grant of a new community lease to New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated, Tui Glen Reserve, 2 Claude Brookes Drive, Henderson.

Executive Summary

2. New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated (the Association) had a community lease with Auckland Council from 1 February 2011 for a term of five years to 31 January 2016. Since this date the terms of the lease to the Association has run on a month by month basis. The storage shed on site is owned by Auckland Council.

3. The land is described as being Section 1 SO 371015 comprising 7560 square metres contained in Part NA24C/26 and classified as a local purpose (community buildings) reserve and subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

4. The Association has applied for a new community lease on the terms and conditions provided for in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines (the Guidelines) adopted 1 July 2012.

5. The application to lease has been assessed by staff and the Association meets all the criteria as outlined in the Guidelines.

6. At the expiry of a lease on a council owned building it is good practice to review alternatives for the use of the premises and an expression of interest process may be undertaken to gauge interest and best use.

7. The Association use half of the Council owned shed for storage and the Henderson-Massey Local Board has indicated support for the provision of a new lease to the Association without the need for an expression of interest process.

8. This report recommends that a new community lease including a Community Outcomes Plan be granted to the Association for a period of five years from 17 March 2016 with one five year right of renewal in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) grant a new community lease to New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated for part of land described as being Section 1 SO 371015 comprising 7560 square metres contained in Part NA24C/26 and classified as a local purpose (community buildings) reserve (Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

· Term – 5 years commencing 17 March 2016 with one 5 year right of renewal;

· Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

· Maintenance fee - $250.00 plus GST per annum;

· Access to unmetered water supply fee - $150 plus GST per annum.

· New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan are attached to the lease document (Attachment B);

b) approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

9. The Association had a lease with Auckland Council from 1 February 2011 for a term of five years to 31 January 2016. Since this date the terms of the lease to the Association has run on a month by month basis. Auckland Council own the storage shed.

10. The Association has use of half of the Council owned storage shed on part of Tui Glen Reserve and access to an unmetered water supply. A condition of the lease is that the Association allows Council staff and its contractor’s access to the section of the shed used by Council. Council will charge a set fee for the unmetered water supply.

11. The Association has been registered as an Incorporated Society since the 23 August 2013.

12. The Association wishes to continue its occupation of Tui Glen reserve for the purposes of operating a member’s only motor caravan park.

13. The Association is a membership based organisation representing the interests of private motor caravan owners in New Zealand. Its purpose is to foster and advance the motor caravan movement by providing relevant services and information, promoting fellowship, vehicle safety, road courtesy and protection of the environment.

14. Members receive benefits including, but not limited to, discounts on services and products, free and low cost overnight sites, a dedicated insurance scheme and a range of handy publications. Fellowship, camaraderie and information sharing are also valued attributes.

15. One of the greatest assets of the club is the strength of its volunteer base. This is reflected in the enthusiastic support of everyday members who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get involved to ensure the success of initiatives such as the annual Spring Clean which encourages members nationwide to mobilise and help clean up a specific location within their area.

16. The Association has strengthened their relationships with external partners and stakeholders by initiating a working group which is consulting with sustainability experts to ensure more is done to protect the environment.

17. Due to the service provided by the group detailed in this report, the Henderson Massey Local Board has indicated support for the provision of a new lease to the Association.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. The issues involved in this report have been considered by the Henderson Massey Local Board portfolio holders.

Māori impact statement

19. There is no significant change or impact for Maori.

Implementation

20. There are no additional cost implications for Auckland Council.

21. Council staff has sought input from relevant council departments.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Section 1 SO 371015 description	103
b View	New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan	105

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Name and Location of Land/Facility	Tui Glen Reserve, 2 Claude Brookes Drive, Henderson. Old Parks Depot
Name of the Community it serves	New Zealand Motor Caravan Association members
Local Board Area	Henderson-Massey
Name of Community Group	New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated
Postal Address	PO Box 72147, Papakura 2244
Contact person	James Imlach – Resource Management Planner
Name of Community Lease Advisor	Donna Cooper

Auckland Council and/or Local Board Outcomes

Performance Measure

Target

Achievements

LB Outcome 3:

A community where we know our neighbours, work together on issues and value diversity

Community organisations bring knowledge and passion

AP 1.2 Improve the Education, Health and Safety of Aucklanders, with a focus on those most in need

Promote the Associations purpose which is to foster and advance the motor caravan movement by providing:

- Relevant services and information

- Promoting fellowship

- Vehicle safety

- Road curtesy

- Protection of the environment

Provide evidence on how the Association promotes its purpose

Promote Tui Glen Reserve in the Associations handbook or on its website

Advise the number of registered Association members

Advise the number of requests for access to the Tui Glen site

LB Outcome 5:

We are an eco-city

Involve communities in caring for their environment

AP 7 – Acknowledge that nature and people are inseparable

Environmental care

Ensure that the leased area is clean and tidy and free of any litter or rubbish

Ensure the lease area in kept weed-free and in a good and tidy condition

Provide evidence of how the Association encourages its existing members and the rental industry to have its vehicles reach the standard to be certified self-contained

All new members of the Association motorhome or caravan must be certified self-contained

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Renewal of community lease to Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated, Chapman Strand, 11 Chapman Road, Te Atatu Peninsula

File No.: CP2016/02339

Purpose

1. This report seeks Henderson-Massey Local Board approval to rescind part of resolution 1064/2010 to grant a renewal of lease to the Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for five years.

Executive Summary

2. On the 5^th August 2010 the Henderson Community Board resolved to grant a renewal of lease to the Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated, located on part of Chapman Strand, Te Atatu Peninsula.

3. In 2010 advice was received by the Henderson Community Board that a renewal of lease be granted to Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for five years, in accordance with Council’s Community Leases Policy.

4. Under the premise of Clause 20 of the Club’s Deed of Leased dated 9 December 1975, a renewal of lease for a further term of 33 years should have been recommended to the Henderson Community Board:

‘in the opinion of the Council that the said land or any part thereof is not required for other purposes then the Council will consider the granting of a renewal of these presents for a further term of thirty-three (33) years on such terms and conditions as shall be agreed upon by both parties excepting this present right of renewal’.

5. Council is bound to observe what was contracted back in 1975 and Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees that a renewal of lease should have been granted to the Club for a further term of 33 years.

6. The Club has observed and performed the covenants and conditions of their lease agreement and Council has indicated that they do not require the land for any other purposes.

7. This report recommends formally rescinding part 4. of resolution number 1064/2010 approved by the Henderson Community Board on 5 August 2010 and granting a renewal of lease to the Club for a further term of 33 years from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2041.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) rescind part 4. of resolution number 1064/2010 made by the Henderson Community Board on 5 August 2010 granting a renewal of lease to the Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for five years

b) grant a renewal of lease to Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated subject to the following terms and conditions:

· Term – 33 years commencing 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2041;

· Rent - $250.00 plus GST per annum

c) approve all other terms and conditions outlined in the existing lease dated 9 December 1975.

Comments

8. On the 5^th August 2010 the Henderson Community Board resolved to grant a renewal of lease to the Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated, located on part of Chapman Strand, Te Atatu Peninsula.

9. In 2010 advice was received by the Henderson Community Board that a renewal of lease be granted to Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for five years, in accordance with Council’s Community Leases Policy.

10. Under the premise of Clause 20 of the Club’s Deed of Leased dated 9 December 1975, a renewal of lease for a further term of 33 years should have been recommended to the Henderson Community Board:

11. Council is bound to observe what was contracted back in 1975 and Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees that a renewal of lease should have been granted to the Club for a further term of 33 years.

12. The Waitemata Harbour Foreshore Reserve Management Plan adopted September 2007 recognises the club was formed in 1957 and Incorporated in 1962. The Club’s constitution entitles any person interested in yachting, allied aquatic sports and activities and resident in and around the Metropolitan Auckland area to apply for membership.

13. The Club has been at Chapman Strand Reserve for over 50 years and their lease is for the building footprint only thereby not restricting public access to the reserve.

14. The Club has observed and performed the covenants and conditions of their lease agreement and Council has indicated that they do not require the land for any other purposes.

15. Council staff has sought input from relevant council departments.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. The issues involved in this report have been considered by the Henderson-Massey Local Board portfolio holders.

Māori impact statement

17. There is no significant change or impact for Maori.

Implementation

18. There are no additional cost implications for Auckland Council.

19. Council staff has 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	Attachment A	111

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/02405

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to invite local boards to provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

Executive Summary

2. The 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 December 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) or,

b) delegate to the Chair and member(s) to provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) before the feedback deadline of 31 March 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 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 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 December 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 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 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 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 chairs 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 work-shopped 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 Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua Department 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	133
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2	175

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/02537

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 current CDEM Group Plan for Auckland is due to expire in June 2016.

3. A draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan 2016-2021 (draft Group Plan) 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 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 Henderson-Massey 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 CDEM Act. 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 CDEM 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 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 Group Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021	273
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	337

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller - Manager Logistics

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03716

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:

(i) alphabetical order of surname

(ii) pseudo-random order

(iii) random order.

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

4. Random order means an arrangement where 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 noted above, outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) recommend to the governing body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in:

(choose one only)

EITHER: alphabetical order of surname

OR: pseudo-random order

OR: random order.

Comments

Background

7. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001, clause 31 states:

(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 and 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; it is easier to use and 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 this 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 might be expected)?

· 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 benefits to the voter noted above, 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.

Māori 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	Local government elections - order of names on voting documents attachment	343

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

LGNZ conference and AGM 2016

File No.: CP2016/04010

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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) nominate 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) confirm 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	LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme	355

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Process Manager

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 March 2016

Henderson-Massey Local Board feedback on proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

File No.: CP2016/04098

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to provide the Henderson-Massey Local board to formally resolve on its feedback to the proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Executive Summary

2. In February 2016 the government released a consultation document on its proposals for fresh water reforms.

3. Government is seeking feedback on proposed changes to the way fresh water is managed. The reforms aim to improve management of fresh water to deliver better environmental and economic outcomes and better outcomes for iwi.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) Notes its feedback (attachment A) to the proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Discussion

4. The reforms consider amending the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management regarding the impacts of:

· significant infrastructure

· mandatory macroinvertebrate monitoring

· water quality requirements in intermittently opening and closing lagoons

· the meaning of ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’)

· stock exclusion

· the economic use of fresh water.

· iwi rights/interests

· freshwater funding

Consideration

Local board views and implications

5. Auckland Council intends making a submission.

6. Henderson-Massey Local Board discussed the proposed amendments at their workshop on 8 March 2016 and provided input to the preparation of the council submission. The board is now formally providing this feedback as an annex to the Auckland Council submission, via resolutions from this report.

Maori impact statement

7. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the propriety right guaranteed to iwi and hapu by the Treaty of Waitangi was the exclusive right to control access to and use of the water while it was in their rohe (boundary, district, region, territory or, area). However, the tribunal also accepted that the treaty changed Maori rights by giving the Crown governance powers, which includes the right to manage fresh water in the best interests of all. The tribunal found that Maori still have ‘residual property rights’ today.

8. Te Mana o Te Wai is a core concept for fresh water. It represents the innate well-being and vitality of a water body and its ability to provide for the health of the water, the environment and the people.

9. Two proposals are included in the consultation document that aim to provide context and give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai as the underpinning platform for community discussions on freshwater values, objectives and limits.

10. The proposals have been developed through engagement between Government Ministers and the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group. Both parties acknowledge the proposals do not address all aspirations of iwi/hapu, nor does the engagement represent all iwi/hapu/Whanau perspectives.

Implementation Issues

11. Local Board input to the Auckland Council submission was provided on 11 March 2016.

12. Formal local board feedback as an annex to the submission is due by 15 April 2016.

13. All submissions on the consultation documentation are due by 5.00pm Friday 22 April 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Henderson-Massey local board Fresh water reform 2016 - feedback	361

Signatories

Authors	Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Vanessa Neeson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Shane Henderson
Members	Brenda Brady, JP
	Peter Chan, JP
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Will Flavell
	Tracy Kirkley
	Luke Wilson

Authors	Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau