I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Kaipātiki Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday, 9 March 2016 9.00am Kaipātiki
Local Board Office |
Kaipātiki Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Kay McIntyre, QSM |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Ann Hartley, JP |
|
Members |
Dr Grant Gillon |
|
|
John Gillon |
|
|
Danielle Grant |
|
|
Richard Hills |
|
|
Lorene Pigg |
|
|
Lindsay Waugh |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Blair Doherty Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
2 March 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 484 8856 Email: Blair.Doherty@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Kaipātiki Local Board area
Kaipātiki Local Board
Members
|
Kay McIntyre QSM Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – associate |
|
Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Parks and playgrounds (passive) – associate · Planning, policy and governance – associate |
|
Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – associate
|
|
Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Libraries – associate |
|
John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – associate |
|
Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events – associate · Transport and infrastructure – associate |
|
Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – associate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – associate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – associate |
|
Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – associate · Economic development – associate |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
1 Welcome 7
2 Apologies 7
3 Declaration of Interest 7
4 Confirmation of Minutes 7
5 Leave of Absence 7
6 Acknowledgements 7
7 Petitions 8
8 Deputations 8
9 Public Forum 8
10 Extraordinary Business 8
11 Notices of Motion 9
12 Open Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes Kaipātiki Local Board, Wednesday 10 February 2016 11
13 Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Review
This report was not available when the agenda was compiled. It will be distributed under separate cover.
14 Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarterly Report 27
15 Auckland Transport Update March 2016 to the Kaipātiki Local Board 43
16 Auckland Transport quarterly update to local boards - 1 October to 31 December 2015 51
17 Kaipātiki Local Board Quick Response Grants: Round Three 2015-2016 57
18 Outcomes of Onepoto Ponds De-Silting Project 61
19 Local Board Services Monthly Report 67
20 Community Led Small Build programme 79
21 Draft Business Improvement District Policy 2016 – local board feedback 83
22 Feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 91
23 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 95
24 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 107
25 Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update 111
26 Members' Reports 113
27 Governance Forward Work Calendar 115
28 Record of Kaipātiki Local Board Portfolio Briefings held in February 2016 119
29 Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops - Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 and Wednesday, 24 February 2016 133
30 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
31 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 141
24 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
a. 19 Athena Drive, Totara Vale 141
1 Welcome
2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:
i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and
ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.
Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 10 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 Kaipātiki Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public Forum
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Open Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes Kaipātiki Local Board, Wednesday 10 February 2016
File No.: CP2016/00013
Purpose
The open unconfirmed minutes of the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting held on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 are attached at item 12 of the Agenda for the information of the board only.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting held on Wednesday 10 February 2016 are attached at item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only, and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Open unconfirmed minutes for Kaipātiki Local Board meeting held Wednesday, 10 February 2016 |
11 |
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarterly Report
File No.: CP2016/03198
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update members on the schedule of work achieved and completed, aligned to Schedule 1 of the Kaipātiki Local Board contract delivery partnership.
Executive Summary
2. The attached report provides members with an oversight of Kaipātiki Local Board and Auckland Council’s shared community development partnership with the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust. The Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust leads and supports collaborative responses to improve community wellbeing in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust quarterly report. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarter Two Report - March 2016 |
27 |
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Auckland Transport Update March 2016 to the Kaipātiki Local Board
File No.: CP2016/03108
Purpose
1. This report provides an update on transport related issues raised by local board members during February 2016. It also includes general information about matters of interest to the Kaipātiki Local Board and the schedule of issues (refer Attachment A)
Executive Summary
2. This report covers matters of interest to the Kaipātiki Local Board relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, as well as and issues raised by members during the month of February 2016.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Transport March 2016 Issues Update to the Kaipātiki Local Board.
|
Comments
Local Board Auckland Transport Capital Fund
Chivalry/Diana/Chartwell Intersection Upgrade
3. The intersection upgrade works, partially funded by the local board, is now complete. The area will remain in Auckland Transport control until the current minor defects period has passed and any necessary miscellaneous works carried out.
|
|
|
|
News
Walking Access Commission Enhanced Access Fund
4. The Walking Access Act came into effect in 2008 to “provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors (including around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors”.
5. The Act enabled the establishment of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission (the Commission) as a Crown entity with a range of functions. One function gives the Commission responsibility for “administering a fund to finance the activities of the Commission, or any other person, in obtaining, developing, improving, maintaining, administering, and signposting walking access over any land”.
6. The Commission established the Enhanced Access Fund to facilitate the involvement of individuals and organisations in access projects across New Zealand.
7. Funding will be prioritised towards contributing to projects that help to secure certain and enduring access to the outdoors for future generations. For example, the cost of negotiation to secure access agreements, the legal or survey costs of obtaining access, and the cost of obtaining Resource Management Act consents.
8. Other priorities, in descending order, include:
· information including signs;
· developing and improving walking opportunities through installing gates, stiles and fences and the cost of obtaining professional reports such as engineering reports; and
· supporting community walking access projects, including infrastructure and administration.
9. Funding infrastructure including bridges and boardwalks is low priority.
10. As well as individuals the following groups and organisations are eligible to apply to the Enhanced Access Fund:
· community organisations;
· territorial authorities in combination with community organisations;
· umbrella/lead organisations applying on behalf of local groups;
· iwi/hapu;
· administering authorities of walkways; and
· access-related groups or organisation.
11. The Commission is keen to attract applications that show individuals, community groups and/or organisations working together to enhance outdoor access in their localities. In some situations the local authority may be best placed to coordinate the project and assist with completing an application.
12. Territorial authorities themselves are not eligible unless combined with a community organisation.
13. To achieve maximum impact from funding allocations the Commission prefers to see evidence of partnerships, including contributions from the applicant and other interested parties. Where other parties are involved applicants should provide letters of support showing how each individual, group or organisation will contribute to the project. This might involve financial assistance, non-cash support or both. Non-cash support could include materials, sponsored business services and/or volunteer labour.
Quay Street City Cycleway
14. The final design for the Quay St Cycleway has been announced with the cycleway opening in late May. The two-way separated cycleway, which will go from Lower Hobson St by Princes Wharf to Plumer St, will make it even easier to cycle into the city centre.
15. This cycleway is being fast-tracked so it will be constructed prior to works beginning on the City Rail Link in the downtown area. As these important works begin and the network of cycle routes in the city expands, the growth in the number of people cycling into the city centre is expected to continue.
16. People are choosing to cycle into the city because there is a certainty of travel time, it is cost effective and, for some people, it is quicker than driving or using public transport.
17. The pink Lightpath, Northwestern Cycleway, Grafton Gully Cycleway and Tamaki Drive are already popular routes for people cycling. Over the next three years Auckland Transport will add to these existing routes creating a network of cycle improvements that will give people better travel options.
18. Construction on the Quay St Cycleway will begin in early March. A short section of the cycleway from Queen St to Commerce St has yet to be finalised.
19. The cycleway will join with the existing Beach Rd Cycleway at Britomart Place. Future connections to the cycleway include Tamaki Drive Cycleway in the east and Nelson St Cycleway and Westhaven to City Cycleway at Lower Hobson St.
20. Central government is currently investing significantly in the Urban Cycleways Programme with the aim of growing the number of cycling trips by more than 30% over the next three years.
21. In recent years, there has been consistent growth in the number of people cycling in Auckland with a 7.4% increase over the past year.
Transport for future housing areas
22. The public are being given a unique opportunity to help plan transport for about 110,000 new houses planned for land which is currently greenfields.
23. Feedback will be used to help identify the transport networks needed during the next 30 years to support future urban areas in the northwest and southern Auckland, Warkworth and Silverdale.
24. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency are working together to identify the range of projects needed to support the new communities and business areas. It will build upon transport plans already in place to support growth in existing urban areas.
25. Six weeks of public consultation is getting underway, with two weeks of initial feedback on proposals in each future urban area. This commenced in southern Auckland on 18 February 2016.
26. Four weeks of further public consultation will start in April:
· Warkworth and Silverdale/Dairy Flat consultation - 25 February to 10 March; and
· Northwest Auckland consultation – 3 to 17 March.
27. Significant new transport infrastructure will be needed to support about 110,000 new houses and 50,000 new jobs in future urban areas which in sum will be a similar size to urban Hamilton.
28. Public feedback will be used to develop recommended transport networks that will help inform discussions between central government and Auckland Council on agreeing an approach to develop the city’s transport system - the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
29. This report is for the Kaipātiki Local Board’s information.
Māori impact statement
30. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.
General
31. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Auckland Transport’s budget and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.
Implementation
32. There are no implementation issues.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Kaipātiki Local Board Issues Raised by Members During February 2016 |
45 |
Signatories
Authors |
Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Auckland Transport quarterly update to local boards - 1 October to 31 December 2015
File No.: CP2016/03102
Executive Summary
1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months from 1 October to 31 December 2015, the detail of which is contained within Attachments A to E in this report.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Transport quarterly update to local boards. |
Significant activities during the period under review
Strategy and Planning
Transport for Future Urban Growth (TFUG)
2. Under the new business case approach AT has got approved funding to develop growth-related Programme Business Cases (PBCs) to identify the transport infrastructure needed within the next 30 years for the growth areas identified in Auckland Council's Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. The areas to be assessed are the Northwest, Southern, Northern and Warkworth areas. A multi-disciplinary and cross organisational team has been developed and is currently working from a co-located space on the four areas. Procurement is well advanced and consultant teams are on board with a number of workshops planned in January and February.
Central Access Strategy
3. A Strategic Case was jointly developed by the investment partners, and approved by NZTA in November 2015, agreeing the problems faced for access to the city centre. A PBC is underway to identify and agree a programme of options to address the problems, with a high level costs and benefits analysis.
Public Transport Development
Double Decker Network Mitigation works
4. Each route is in a different project phase. By June 2018, the following routes are planned to be completed:
· Mt Eden (31 March 2016);
· Northern Express 2 (30 Jun 2016);
· Great North (31 March 2017);
· Manukau (30 June 2017);
· Remuera;
· New North; and
· Onewa.
5. Botany bus route 500 (from Botany Town Centre to Britomart) has been cleared.
Public Transport Safety, Security and Amenity
6. This involves enhancing station safety, security and amenity. Current projects include completion of Ellerslie Station canopies, upgrade to Morningside Level Crossing and electronic gating at Manurewa Station. Programmed activities in various phases on these projects are:
· Ellerslie canopies will be completed January 2016;
· Morningside Level Crossing Improvement construction work planned for April/May 2016 and interim improvements were completed in November 2015; and
· Manurewa gates in early design stage.
City Rail Link
7. Enabling Works Contract 2, construction of pipe jack (services relocation) commenced (Albert Street) on 21 December 2015. Enabling Works Contract 1, Britomart to Lower Albert Street and Contract 2, Lower Albert Street to Wyndham Street, is to commence in May 2016. Main Works: Construction to start in 2018/19 FY subject to funding agreement with Government.
Public Transport Operations
Highlights for the quarter
· SuperGold Travel – a competitive tender process for SuperGold funding exempt ferry services from downtown Auckland to Matiatia Wharf, Waiheke – as per Ministry of Transport directive. The tender process resulted in two operators being eligible for SuperGold reimbursements from 1 January 2016. SuperGold card holders conversion onto HOP cards has commenced, for delivery by 1 July 2016. This will mean seniors will be required to use HOP cards to access free public transport SuperGold travel.
· Integrated Fares – just prior to Christmas, Thales delivered the first release of version 7.0 (customer facing enhancements) for Integrated Fares, ready for AT to commence testing. Some minor changes to zone boundaries were also approved to mitigate some passengers who would have had fare increases under integrated fares. Initial testing of version 7.0 has commenced. Integrated fares implementation is targeted for mid-2016. A late February 2016 annual public transport fares review will be implemented as a stepping stone to integrated fares.
· Ferry Improvements – Waiheke Ferry Services: strong growth has been experienced on the route during the year, reaffirming the route as being the most popular on the Auckland ferry network. A local initiative to display interpretative signage at Matiatia was delivered with the Waiheke Local Board in the last quarter, and way-finding signage was updated and replaced at Matiatia as well. Next quarter will see the installation of a purpose-built customer information/ticket office by Explore. Overall patronage to Waiheke has grown over 10% in the last 12 months with the combination of Fullers and Explore services.
Road Design and Development
SMART (Southwest Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit)
8. Future proofing of the SMART route on the Kirkbride (trench) intersection is progressing together with the infrastructure works by Highway Network Operations of NZTA. This element of the project is expected to be complete in 2022. AT is working with the East West team to ensure the projects are well aligned at the critical points. The indicative business case is being updated for light rail transit and heavy rail. The cycle strategy for the wider Mangere area is also underway.
AMETI – Pakuranga Road Busway
9. This involves provision of a signalised Panmure roundabout, two-lane busway, walking and cycling facilities, Panmure bridge upgrade and upgrades to existing bridge and local roads towards Pakuranga Town Centre. A completion date is subject to the outcome/approval of a revised delivery strategy by the AT Board by February 2016. The Notice of Requirement lodgement is ready to proceed, with lodgement pending the outcomes of cultural mitigation discussion. The expected lodgement date is mid-February 2016.
Tamaki Ngapipi Intersection Safety Improvements
10. This involves installation of traffic lights at the Tamaki Drive/Ngapipi Road intersection to address safety issues. The design aims to encourage shared use by reducing conflict points and maintaining efficient movement through the intersection. The AT Board has approved the preferred option, that allows five Pohutukawa trees to be retained, and this option will be taken forward to consenting and construction. Detailed design is underway to finalise the proposal for consenting.
Services
Community and Road Safety Programme
· Delivered alcohol checkpoints in partnership with NZ Police.
· Delivered child restraint checkpoints and Plunket promotions in partnership with NZ Police.
· Delivered safety messages to motorcycle riders regarding high visibility vests and training in Northcote.
· Delivered a targeted social media campaign for high risk young drivers in Henderson.
· Delivered a ‘Train the Trainer’ course to local community and NZ Police for Learners Licence in Henderson.
· Delivered learner and restricted licencing programmes to high risk young drivers in Mangere.
· Delivered a targeted social media campaign for high risk young drivers in Mangere.
· Supporting ACC and NZTA Young Drivers Signature programme in Mangere.
Commute Travel Planning
· Unitec Travel Plan – Unitec won the 'think outside the car award for creative excellence' for its cycling programme including installation of 10 covered, student-designed bike racks.
· Waitemata District Health Board was awarded the carpooling award at the AT Commute awards for its carpooling programme.
Travel Demand (2015/16 Year)
11. Transport Choice campaign – ‘Time to cool your love affair with your car' video campaign was promoted for eight weeks primarily via online media and the AT website. Promoted travel choice and encouraged Public Transport, Walking, Cycling, Carpooling and Flexi-working. Over 625,000 views of the videos are recorded – which is a high rate and demonstrates increased awareness.
Road Corridor Delivery
12. The Assets and Maintenance Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the road corridor. These include but are not limited to:
· the delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes;
· managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor;
· promoting design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network; and
· the development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of Auckland’s roading assets.
Road Corridor Delivery
13. In the 2015/2016 financial year AT is planning to deliver 37.7 km of pavement rehabilitation, 480.1 km of resurfacing (comprising 88.9 km of hotmix and 391.2 km of chip sealing), 75.7 km of footpath renewals and 82.7 km of kerb and channel replacement.
Table 1: Progress against Asset Renewal Targets
14. Pavement rehabilitation projects have been completed on Kohimarama Road, Ranui Station Road, Edmonton Road, Robertson Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Ormiston Road, Whitford Road, Glenbrook Road, Linwood Road, Clyde Road, Lakeside Drive, Maygrove Drive, Brigham Creek Road, Mokoia Road, Kahika Road, Diana Drive, Glenmore Road, South Head Road, Waitoki Road, Mahurangi East Road, Hector Sanderson Road and Blind Bay Road. Further projects are underway on College Road, Hunua Road, Roscommon Road, St George Street, Bairds Road and Cavendish Drive.
15. Contracts have been awarded to two suppliers for the provision of LED luminaires for the 2015/16 year. In the 2015/16 year approximately 11,000 of the existing 70W HPS lamps on the network will be replaced with LED luminaires and connected to the new central management system. Initially most will be in the central and north contract areas. The LED retrofit programme is being accelerated with the aim of completing the replacement of all the existing 70W HPS lamps by 1 July 2018 so as to maximise the available subsidy from the NZTA.
Road Corridor Access
16. Monitoring of Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) at work sites is continuing to ensure compliance with the approved traffic management plans and to identify opportunities for improvement. The average percentage of low risk sites for Quarter 2 is 94% (against the target of 90%).
17. With an anticipated dip in numbers for December, the Corridor Access Request (CAR) team continues to process around 1,300 applications per month. These requests are for AT operations (inclusive of City Rail Link) and various utility operators to access and maintain the assets sitting within the road corridor. Access is also sought by private operators and individuals who need to access the road network to undertake activities such as private water connections etc.
Strategic Asset Management and Systems
18. AT inherited an inventory of 117 permanent traffic counting sites across the Auckland region. These comprise inductive loops installed in the road pavement which detect passing vehicles through electro-magnetic induction. The loops provide details of traffic flows by vehicle category. In addition, AT can deploy pneumatic tubes installed across traffic lanes to undertake ad-hoc traffic counts. These are used where there are no permanent loops installed.
19. The information generated by the loops provides an ongoing record of traffic growth across Auckland, which is used to inform infrastructure design as well as providing current and trend information for the Auckland traffic and growth models managed by the Auckland Joint Modelling Applications Centre. The output from these models has been used in the development of the Integrated Transport Programme, defining AT’s road hierarchy for One Network Road Classification, and will be used for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP).
20. During the period October to December inclusive, a total of 493 traffic counts were undertaken using a mixture or permanent sites and pneumatic tubes. Additionally, 57 additional counts were undertaken over the Christmas holiday period to identify recreational traffic flows which may be significant at certain locations. Sixteen of these were on Waiheke and four on Great Barrier Island.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Schedule of activities undertaken for the quarter ending 31 December (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Traffic Control Committee decisions broken down by local board (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Local Board Advocacy Report (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Various Auckland Transport authors |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Kaipātiki Local Board Quick Response Grants: Round Three 2015-2016
File No.: CP2016/02252
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for round two of the Kaipātiki Local Board Quick Response Grants 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.
Executive Summary
2. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total quick response grants budget of $10,000. A total of $6,930 is currently available under the quick response grants, for the 2015/2016 financial year.
3. A total of $2,870 was allocated under quick response round one, leaving a total of $7,130 to be allocated for the remaining 2015-2016. A total of $200 was allocated under quick response round two, leaving a total of $6,930 to be allocated for the remainder of the 2015/2016 financial year.
4. Eight applications were received in this quick response round, with a total requested of $4,954.
5. The Kaipātiki Local Board considered an application from the Northart Society Incorporated at their meeting on 11 November 2015 under their local grants programme. The board resolved to defer this application to a later meeting pending further investigation (resolution number KT/2015/164). This application is now being presented to the local board for its consideration.
6. The Kaipātiki Local Board has a total of $128,000 in its community and events budget. A total of $99,862 was allocated under round one of the local grants, leaving a total of $28,138 to be allocated this financial year.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) consider the applications listed in the table below and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round
b) consider the applications listed in the table below and agree to fund, part-fund or decline the application from local grant round one.
|
Comments
7. 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 Kaipātiki Local Board adopted its grants programme on 15 April 2015 (see Attachment A).
8. The local board grants programmes 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.
9. The Kaipātiki Local Board will operate five quick grants rounds for this financial year. The third quick response round closed on 12 February 2016.
10. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total quick response budget of $10,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year. A total of $6,930 is available for the remainder of the year.
11. Eight applications were received for this quick grants round, requesting a total of $4,954.
12. The Northart Society Incorporated application was submitted to the Kaipātiki Local Grants, Round One, 2015/2016 for consideration. The board deferred this application, pending investigation into utilising an existing development budget (resolution number KT/2015/164).
13. Staff have undertaken investigation into existing development budgets and have not identified any available funds that can be utilised so the application has been brought back to the board for consideration.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
14. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Kaipātiki Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the priorities identified in the local board grant programme.
15. The local 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.” Therefore it is recommended that the board provides reasons as part of its decision making when declining funding requests.
Māori impact statement
16. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and 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. There are no applicants applying in this round that have identified as Maori, although one applicant has indicated that their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.
Implementation
17. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and the Kaipātiki Local Board Agreement.
18. Following the decisions made by the Kaipātiki Local Board as part of round three of the quick response grants programme, and round one of the local grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local boards decision.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Kaipātiki Local Community Grants Programme 2015-2016 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Kaipātiki Local Board Quick Response Round Three applications (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Northart Society application to Kaipātiki Local Grants Round One 2015/2016 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Kim Hammond - Community Grants Advisor |
Authorisers |
Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Outcomes of Onepoto Ponds De-Silting Project
File No.: CP2016/00115
Purpose
1. For the Kaipātiki Local Board to note the outcomes of the Onepoto Ponds De-Silting Project.
Executive Summary
2. There has been public concern regarding the accumulation of sediment in the ponds located in Onepoto Domain and the impacts of this on recreational amenity and the wellbeing of wildlife.
3. Key concerns expressed include:
· the depth of accumulated silt reaching surface levels in some areas of the ponds causing model yachts to run aground;
· odours in the domain; and
· a safety risk to pets and children.
4. To address these concerns Auckland Council carried out a de-silting project in December 2015 (see map of area in Attachment A). The objectives of this project were to remove 900 cubic metres of the estimated 3,400 cubic metres of sediment from the ponds and dredge them to a depth of 1.2 metres.
5. In summary, outcomes of the de-silting project included the following:
· 1,620 cubic metres of sediment removed from the ponds and inlets;
· main pond deepened to 450 millimetres at the edges and 1,200 millimetres in the centre;
· new fore bays constructed on each of the three main inlets;
· dewatered sludge moved to Redvale landfill and the site where sludge was stored in the park restored to previous standard;
· new aeration pump commissioned and installed; and
· outlet weir and flap valve facilities restored.
6. The removal of sediment will mean that the ponds can now be used by the model yacht clubs and odours will decrease.
7. It is also expected that the implementation of fore bays and the repair of existing trappings will have water quality benefits in the long term by simplifying and reducing maintenance requirements. For example, it will be possible to regularly remove sediment from the fore-bays, rather than de-silting the ponds.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) note the outcomes delivered through the Onepoto Ponds de-silting project. |
Comments
Background
8. The Onepoto Domain Ponds are highly used for recreational activities and have been prone to poor water quality and odour issues in recent years as a result of accumulated sediment and decayed vegetation.
9. To address this issue Auckland Council delivered a de-silting project in 2015. The development, outcomes and benefits of the project are summarised below.
Identifying the preferred option
10. An initial study was commissioned by North Shore City Council in 2009 to consider different options to address this issue. The criteria for selecting the preferred option included disposal logistics, disturbance to the domain, construction risk, and cost.
11. Emptying the ponds was not deemed to be viable due to tidal inflow from the north through groundwater.
12. A more detailed study and site survey in 2013 estimated the existing sediment volume at approximately 3,400 cubic metres and identified the preferred option to be removing approximately a third of this sediment from the ponds by dredging to a depth of 1.2 metres. The dredged sediment would be pumped into geotextile bags for dewatering on site followed by disposal to landfill.
13. This was the preferred option because it best balanced long-term effectiveness, risk, cost, and potential effects on the stability of pond banks. The report found that removal of all 3,400 cubic metres of silt in the ponds would cost approximately four times that of the preferred option.
14. It was agreed the work would be jointly funded from Auckland Council’s local parks and regional stormwater budgets.
Objectives and delivery of project
15. Having identified a preferred option, council then carried out more detailed design in 2014, applied for resource consent and engaged a contractor to deliver the works.
16. The objectives of the project included:
· removing 900 cubic metres of sediment from the ponds and dredging them to a depth of 1.2 metres;
· de-watering silt at the site; and
· installing fore bays at the main, western and eastern inlets of the ponds to improve maintenance access and reduce further sediment deposits in the main ponds.
17. Resource consent was granted in December 2014 and the physical works contract was awarded to CW Glasgow Limited in March 2015.
18. Physical works commenced in April 2015 and were completed in December 2015.
19. A total of 1,620 cubic metres of silt was removed. The quantities are broken down as follows:
· Ponds– 1,340 cubic metres; and
· Channels – 280 cubic metres (see map of the area in Attachment A).
20. The main pond was deepened to 450 millimetres at the edges and 1,200 millimetres in the centre and fore bays have been constructed on each of the three main inlets.
21. The dewatered sludge was firstly dried out on site and then removed from site and disposed to Redvale landfill. The dewatering area has been fully reinstated for recreational use.
22. A new aeration pump was commissioned and the outlet weir and flap valve facilities have been restored. These measures should improve the water quality by increasing oxygen saturation in the water and allowing for flushing.
Expected benefits
23. Safety around the pond edges has been enhanced with the cleaner edges. The new aeration pump and flap valve chamber set-up removes the need for people to enter the confined space of the chamber for maintenance purposes.
24. The fore bays will enable regular maintenance to be carried out, which will reduce the amount of sediment entering the main ponds. Restoring aeration and flushing capabilities will help reduce water quality issues. Maintenance of the pond fore bays will be ongoing and delivered through Auckland Council’s parks and stormwater units.
25. Odours from the silt which was at surface level in some areas prior to the project should be reduced. The reduction in silt will also have a positive ecological impact.
26. The recreational value of the domain has improved, especially for the model yacht clubs that frequently use the ponds for racing activities. Since the first part of the project was completed, council has received positive feedback from the New Zealand Radio Yacht Squadron around the increased depth of the ponds.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
27. The purpose of this report is to detail the scope of this project to the Kaipātiki Local Board and the outcomes achieved.
28. In an August 2013 report to the Kaipātiki Local Board it was stated that 900 to 1,500 cubic metres of silt would be removed and the pond would be dredged to a depth of 1.2 metres in the central areas at an estimated cost of $0.85 million to $1.0 million. The scope of the project has been successfully delivered.
Māori impact statement
29. It is recognised that stormwater works that impact on the mauri of waterways are of great significance to mana whenua in their kaitiaki role. This project has potential to contribute to improving the mauri of the ponds and waterways, and thus the cultural wellbeing of mana whenua.
30. Consultation was undertaken with mana whenua before any physical works were conducted. A number of iwi representatives participated in site visits, with formal written responses received from Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Maru who supported the project and were represented at the pre-construction site meeting and at the blessing of the site.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Map of the Onepoto Ponds project area |
63 |
Signatories
Authors |
Bevan Hartley - Stormwater Specialist |
Authorisers |
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Local Board Services Monthly Report
File No.: CP2016/03116
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the key activities of the Kaipātiki Local Board. The updates in this report relate to the following areas:
· Parks; and
· Policy and planning.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) approve the amended scope for the stage one of development at 136 Birkdale Road to include development of the car park, entry plaza and play space for $282,000. b) approve extending the purpose of $20,000 allocated to 136 Birkdale in July 2015 from its Planning and Development response fund (resolution number KT/2015/104) to include other required planning and professional services costs relating to 136 Birkdale Road, in addition to carpark development and site assessment. c) endorse the feedback (as outlined in Attachment A to the agenda report) to the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Better Urban Planning Issues discussion document. d) agree to hold an extraordinary meeting at 4.30pm on 27 April 2016 for the purpose of considering consultation feedback, and agreeing final Locally Driven Initiatives budgets and advocacy points for the Annual Plan 2016/2017. |
Comments
2. A number of Kaipātiki Local Board workshops and portfolio briefings were held in February. Records of these meetings are attached to separate reports on this agenda.
3. The following regional and sub-regional briefings/meetings took place in February:
· Unitary Plan Committee meeting - 3 February 2016;
· Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee workshop – 10 February 2016;
· Northern Busway meeting - 11 February 2016;
· Auckland Development Committee workshop – 11 February 2016;
· Transport for Future Urban Growth – 12 February 2016;
· Make a Difference Alumni Hui – 15 February 2016;
· Economic Development Committee – 16 February 2016;
· Auckland Development Committee workshop – 17 February 2016;
· Regional Strategy and Policy Committee weed management Political Advisory Group – 19 February 2016;
· Chairs’ Forum – 22 February 2016;
· Unitary Plan Committee meeting – 23 February 2016; and
· Community Empowerment Open Day - 29 February 2016.
4. The board's next workshops are scheduled for 16 and 23 March 2016.
5. The board's next community forum meeting will be held on 23 March 2016.
Strategic Updates
Parks
136 Birkdale Road
6. The aspirational masterplan plan for 136 Birkdale Road was approved in principal by the board at its 8 July 2015 business meeting, subject to further investigation on the feasibility of the North Shore Resource Centre (NSRC) location (resolution number KT/2015/104). Since the approval of the masterplan, the NSRC were granted a lease of an existing facility elsewhere in Kaipātiki at the board’s 09 December 2015 business meeting (Resolution number KT/2015/186).
7. At its 12 August 2015 business meeting, the board approved the Parks department work programme (resolution number KT/2015/116), which included stage one development of 136 Birkdale Road; namely the car park, play space and community gardens (priorities 1, 3 and 4 respectively).
8. The cost estimate for stage one work was $337,000; however the available budget from the Parks General Development budget was only $282,000. The Parks department were requested to investigate opportunities to address this shortfall, however have been unsuccessful in finding a source of additional funding.
9. At its 8 July 2015 business meeting, the board also allocated up to $20,000 from its Planning and Development response fund to progress the investigation of the carpark development (including a transport assessment report) and NSRC site assessment. With alternative locations for the NSRC still being explored, there were potential implications on investigatory reports should NSRC find an alternative location. A new location was found, and therefore the investigation was not completed and no funding was expended.
10. To address the funding shortfall, it is recommended that the previously allocated Planning and Development response fund allocation of up to $20,000 remains with the 136 Birkdale Road project, and that the scope of works is amended. The planning and development funding allocation would require a broadened purpose to cover costs of other required planning work and professional services incurred by the project.
11. It is proposed the scope of works is amended to replace the development of the community garden /food forest (priority 4) with the development of the entrance plaza (priority 2). In addition to the amended scope fitting within budget, it now aligns with the priorities identified in the masterplan. The community garden and food forest component, although removed from this stage of development, could be developed organically in the meantime by an interested community group, as occurred with the Beach Haven place-making group at Opaketai Beach Haven Gardens.
12. The above approach was discussed at an on-site meeting with local board members in February 2016.
13. The following table outlines the proposed changes of scope and budget implications. The cost estimates provided below are the same amounts included in the masterplan approved at the July 2015 business meeting.
Item |
Priority in masterplan |
Cost estimates of scope approved in August 2015 |
Cost estimate of amended scope proposed |
Car park |
1 |
$141,000 |
$141,000 |
Entry Plaza |
2 |
$0 |
$78,000 |
Play space |
3 |
$45,000 |
$45,000 |
Community Garden / Food Forest |
4 |
$113,000 |
$0 |
SUB-TOTAL |
|
$299,000 |
$264,000 |
Prof Services/ Consents |
n/a |
$38,000 |
$18,000 (+ $20,000 from Planning and Dev. response fund) |
TOTAL Parks budget |
|
$337,000 |
$282,000 |
Policy and Planning
Local Board feedback to Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Better Urban Planning Issues discussion document
14. Council has the opportunity to respond to the Productivity Commission's enquiry into the system of urban planning in New Zealand, as well as to make a submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill currently under consideration by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
15. The governing body has allocated decision-making responsibility to make submissions to central government on legislation, including official submissions from Auckland Council that incorporates the views of local boards. The Auckland Development Committee (ADC) will be deliberating council’s response to the Productivity Commission enquiry and its submission and the Bill at its 10 March 2016 business meeting. As part of that process the ADC will consider local board views to ultimately inform its responses to central government.
16. At its 10 February 2016 meeting, the board resolved to establish a working party, consisting of the Chairperson, the built environment lead, the regulatory, bylaws and compliance portfolio lead and associate, and Member Danielle Grant, to formulate the board’s feedback on both the Productivity Commission’s ‘Better Urban Planning Issues’ discussion document and the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (resolution number KT/2016/11). The full board then had an opportunity to review the feedback at a session on 24 February 2016.
17. The attached feedback (refer Attachment A) was finalised based on the board’s comments at the workshop and lodged prior to the closing date of 8 March 2016. The board is invited to retrospectively endorse the feedback to the ADC on the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the ‘Better Urban Planning Issues’ discussion document.
Annual Plan 2016/2017
18. Council is currently consulting on the Annual Plan 2016/2017, with submissions closing on Thursday 24 March.
19. The board must agree its final Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) priorities and advocacy points prior to advocacy discussions with the Governing Body scheduled for 6 and 9 May 2016. As the consultation feedback will not be collated and analysed in time for the regularly scheduled April business meeting, an extraordinary meeting is required.
20. It is recommended that an extraordinary meeting is held at 4:30pm on 27 April 2016, prior to the board’s Community Forum meeting scheduled to begin at 6pm, for the purpose of considering consultation feedback and agreeing final LDI priorities and advocacy points for the Annual Plan 2016/2017.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
21. Local board views are sought via this report.
Māori impact statement
22. There are no specific impacts on Māori arising from this report.
Implementation
23. There are no implementation issues identified in this report.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Kaipātiki Local Board feedback on Resource Management Amendment Bill and Better Urban Planning paper |
69 |
Signatories
Authors |
Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipātiki |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Community Led Small Build programme
File No.: CP2016/03573
Purpose
1. This report provides an update on the implementation of the Community Led Small Build programme.
2. This report also requests that Kaipātiki Local Board delegate one or more board members, to provide the local board’s views on new applications to the programme.
3. For Community Led Small Build projects, the Kaipātiki Local Board will have a decision-making role in relation to funding of projects, where projects are to be located on land, or in a facility that the local board is the land owner or has delegated decision-making.
Executive Summary
4. The Community Led Small Build 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.
5. 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. 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 board locally driven initiative (LDI) capex or business improvement district levies.
6. 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.
7. For all new applications in the Kaipātiki Local Board area, the 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 Kaipātiki Local Board to ensure that new applications can be progressed quickly.
8. If the project is planned to be located on land or in a facility that the local board is the land owner or has delegated decision-making on, local board consent will be sought through the standard processes and delegation protocols.
9. 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 $250,000 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); and
· the project creates an asset, usually on land owned or managed by council, that is accessible to the wider community.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the update on the Community Led Small Build programme. b) delegate a member to provide the local board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.
|
Comments
13. The Community Led Small Build 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.
14. The programme will predominantly support initiatives on land owned or managed by Auckland 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.
15. Council has to balance enabling community initiatives with ensuring use of council resources provides 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 therefore 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 $250,000 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); and
· 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).
16. 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 $250,000 threshold.
17. 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 more than 20% of the project cost.
18. 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; and
· ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council.
19. Projects will go through a simplified project management process with four 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.
20. 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.
21. The Grey Lynn Pump Track is a proposed sealed, all weather bike track at the northern end of Grey Lynn Park. The Waitemata Local Board supports the project and may provide funding.
22. The bunkhouse is proposed overflow accommodation for the Peter Snell Youth Village. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supports 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.
23. The Community Facilities department, established through the Services reshape, will be responsible for the 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.
24. Once the initial stages of the two pilot projects have been assessed early in 2016, the programme will be rolled out more broadly across all local board areas. The programme will be trialed for a year to assess its effectiveness in assisting community groups to deliver assets of value. Local boards and those community groups involved will be asked to provide their feedback as part of that evaluation.
25. 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; and
· launch activities and supporting ongoing use of the asset.
26. Local board input is important to ensure that the right community initiatives are supported. In particular, the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki 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.
27. A delegation is requested from the Kaipātiki Local Board to one or more 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.
28. If the Kaipātiki Local Board decides to support a community led initiative with funding, this needs to be managed through a separate process and needs to be formally approved by the local board. However, to reduce the demand on the community group, the accountability report (on final delivery of project) could be used for both for the local board funding requirements and the Community Led Small Build programme.
29. 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
30. 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.
31. An initial proposed approach was presented to local board chairs on 27 July 2015. Local board chairs were generally supportive of the approach, although questioned whether the $250,000 limit on project cost and the 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
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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.
35. 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.
Council will endeavour not to cause delay to a Community Led Small Build project over and above the necessary time required for consents, health and safety, legal and procurement processes.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Karen Titulaer - Senior Advisor Strategic Partnership |
Authorisers |
Roger King – General Manager - Commercial Services Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Draft Business Improvement District Policy 2016 – local board feedback
File No.: CP2016/03572
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. In May 2015, the 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.
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. The 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, which is collected using the 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. In December 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft policy for consultation.
6. The BID Policy 2016 includes two separate but linked parts:
· Part 1 – Policy : sets the rules, “the what to do”; and
· Part 2 – Policy Operating Standards: – “the how to do”.
7. Local boards, stakeholders and business associations that operate existing BID programmes have all had opportunities to input into the development of the BID Policy 2016.
8. Local boards are now being invited to provide formal feedback on the revised draft policy (refer to Attachment A and B of this report).
9. Feedback from the local boards will help shape the further development of the BID Policy 2016. It would be particularly useful to get local board views on a number of matters outlined below:
· Are local boards’ roles and responsibilities clear in respect of BID programmes?
· Should BID programmes below the $100,000 income per annum target rate normally have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?
· Are the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns 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.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy 2016; or b) delegate the chairperson and member(s) to provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) before the deadline on 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 of 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 the Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID Policy.
13. Local boards have the primary relationship with business associations operating the BID programmes in their area, including:
· 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; and
· as governors – local boards have significant decision-making responsibly for BID programmes. This includes recommending to the governing body to strike a BID programme target rate, and recommending BID programme establishments, expansions, amalgamations and disputes.
BID Policy 2016
14. In May 2015, the 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. The 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”; and
· Part 2 – Policy Operating Standards: – “the how to do”.
18. In December 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft BID policy for consultation. 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 that are operating BID programmes were invited to attend a number of workshops during September and November to discuss the key themes for the BID Policy change and the draft BID 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 BID 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 BID 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 business associations operating BID programmes, local boards and key stakeholders. The table below provides details of the key themes for change between the 2011 and 2016 BID policies, feedback received and the draft policy response to this feedback.
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 are concerned about the stated local board delegations. Draft policy response: Added wording to clarify the overall intent of the local board 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: · Local boards and Local Board Services staff expressed concern that some of the draft responsibilities of local board representatives on BID programme boards were not appropriate. Draft policy response: Draft roles were 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. There was mixed feedback from local boards - a majority were keen to keep audits but others requested a financial review or proportional requirement to BID programme size. Draft policy response: keep audits but:
· BID programmes with a target rate income of $100,000 per annum or greater would have audits every financial year; and · BID programmes with a target rate income under $100,000 per annum would have 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: · A number of business associations are concerned 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. There was 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 has been changed to $120,000 but there will still be an 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. During September to October 2015, local boards had provided feedback at the 19 workshops 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 BID policy (Attachment A and B of this report).
26. Feedback from local boards will help shape the further development of the 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. Should BID programmes below the $100,000 income per annum target rate normally have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?
iii. Are the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns 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 officer. A second joint workshop with the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee members, local board chairs and/or economic development portfolio holders will be held in mid-April, before seeking approval of the final 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 that was sent to local board members and councillors on 16 September 2015, outlining the purpose and proposed process for developing the policy;
· a briefing to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on 28 September 2015;
· officer attendance at 19 local board workshops during September and October 2015 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; and
· a second memo sent to local board members on 1 December 2015, which provided an update on the policy development process, a copy of the draft BID Policy 2016 and a summary of local board and business association feedback received 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 service delivery model are intended to become operational on 1 July 2016.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1 - Policy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Stephen Cavanagh – BID Partnership Advisor |
Authorisers |
Alastair Cameron – Manager CCO/ External Partnerships Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services Eric Perry – Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan
File No.: CP2016/03574
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. The public consultation timelines on the draft CDEM Group Plan is from 15 February to 18 April 2016.
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 CDEM Group Plan. The current CDEM Group Plan for Auckland is due to expire on 31 August 2016.
3. A draft CDEM Group Plan 2016-2021 has been developed for consultation (refer to Attachment A). The draft CDEM Group Plan is primarily centered on community empowerment and resilience across all social, economic, environmental and infrastructure environments.
4. This report asks the board to provide feedback on the draft CDEM Group Plan, with particular reference to the proposal for local boards to champion the development of local emergency management plans, and the role of elected members in a civil defence emergency.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) provide 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 the community. 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 on 31 August 2016.
7. The draft CDEM Group Plan has been developed as a framework for action which will form the basis for more detailed business planning and development of CDEM 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; and
· building resilient communities.
8. Local boards are well placed to help with leadership, championing resilience and local engagement in their respective communities. The draft CDEM 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 a further opportunity for local boards to determine their role in a civil defence emergency.
9. The actions described (in further detail on page 37 of Attachment A) 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. The public consultation timelines on the draft CDEM 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 CDEM Group Plan is due to be formally adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
11. Local board CDEM portfolio holders have been briefed on issues relevant to the draft CDEM 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 CDEM Group Plan.
12. Local board views on the draft CDEM Group Plan are being sought in this report. Subject to consultation, the 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 CDEM Group Plan during the statutory consultation phase.
14. In addition, the CDEM department is developing a Māori Responsiveness Plan to support a more proactive approach to engaging iwi and mataawaka in emergency management planning.
Implementation
15. The final CDEM Group Plan is to be adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016. The 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 CDEM Group Plan.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Process for developing the draft Group Plan (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Janice Miller - Manager Logistics |
Authorisers |
John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Local government elections - order of names on voting documents
File No.: CP2016/03462
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 the Kaipātiki 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 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 noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.
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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Order of candidate names on voting documents |
97 |
Signatories
Authors |
Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services |
Authorisers |
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
File No.: CP2016/02698
Purpose
1. This report seeks a decision on the following application for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act).
Executive Summary
2. An application for an exemption for swimming or spa pools has been received from the owner of:
· 19 Athena Drive, Totara Vale.
3. The application does not comply with the Act. Pool inspectors have inspected the property and consulted with the applicants. Full assessment reports are attached to this report.
4. The local board must resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions or decline the exemptions sought.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 19 Athena Drive, Totara Vale with the following conditions: i. that NZS 8500-2006 clause (a –k) is met at all times ii. that the steps are moved 1.2m away when the spa pool is not in use.
|
Comments
Background
5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected each property for which an application for special exemption from the Act has been received. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with the Act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in the attachments to this report.
6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. The applicants have been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act and they have chosen to seek a special exemption from those requirements.
Legislative implications
7. Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exemptions are granted by the local board.
8. The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool, or all or some of the immediate pool area including the pool itself. Specific detail on this is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool does not have a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.
9. An exemption can only be granted by the local board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if “satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children”, can an exemption be granted.
10. The definition of the immediate pool area, which is “the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool”, is a key consideration for granting an exemption.
11. Where a building forms part of the pool fence and there are doors opening into the pool area, the local board may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 and 10 of the schedule to the Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of six years.
12. When granting a special exemption the local board may impose reasonable conditions relating to the property or the pool or reflecting other relevant circumstances. These may include:
a) making the exemption personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption; or
b) granting the exemption for a fixed term irrespective of changes of ownership.
13. Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the local board by resolution. The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without informing the pool owner and giving them the opportunity to be heard.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
14. Local boards have delegated authority to approve exemptions to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act.
15. Before making an exemption, the local board must consider:
· the particular characteristics of the property and the pool;
· any other relevant circumstances; and
· conditions it may be necessary to impose.
16. The local board must also be satisfied that the exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.
17. The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline the application for special exemption.
18. If the application is declined the applicant will be required to fence the pool in accordance with the Act.
Maori impact statement
19. There are no particular impacts on Maori that are different from those of other pool owners.
Implementation
20. The decision must be made by resolution.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
19 Athena Drive, Totara Vale (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist |
Authorisers |
Wolfgang Nethe - Manager Compliance Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update
File No.: CP2016/00022
Executive summary
An opportunity is provided for Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members to update the board on Governing Body or Independent Maori Statutory Board issues, or issues relating to the Kaipātiki Local Board.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members’ verbal updates. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/00030
Executive summary
An opportunity is provided for members to update the Kaipātiki Local Board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive any verbal reports of members. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Governance Forward Work Calendar
File No.: CP2016/03597
Purpose
1. To present to the board with a 12 month governance forward work calendar.
Executive Summary
2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar, which is comprised of a schedule of items that will come before the board over the next 12 months. The governance forward work calendar for the Kaipātiki Local Board is included in Attachment A.
3. The calendar aims to support the local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities;
· clarifying what advice is required and when; and
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that items will arise that are not programmed at times. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) notes the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar. |
Comments
5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.
6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the Local Board Plan, Long-Term Plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.
7. This initiative is intended to support the governance role of local boards. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.
8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role” which are each described as follows:
· “Topic” describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the Annual Plan;
· “Purpose” indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates; and
· “Governance role” is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do, and examples of the seven governance categories are captured in the table below:
Governance role |
Examples |
Setting direction/priorities/budget |
Capex projects, work programmes, Annual Plan |
Local initiatives/specific decisions |
Grants, road names, alcohol bans |
Input into regional decision-making |
Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans |
Oversight and monitoring |
Local Board Agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects |
Accountability to the public |
Annual report |
Engagement |
Community hui, submissions processes |
Keeping informed |
Briefings, cluster workshops |
9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant council staff.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.
Māori impact statement
11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.
Implementation
12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Forward work programme for Kaipātiki Local Board |
115 |
Signatories
Authors |
Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor Kris Munday - Senior Advisor - Local Board Services |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Record of Kaipātiki Local Board Portfolio Briefings held in February 2016
File No.: CP2016/00047
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to record the Kaipātiki Local Board portfolio briefings held in February 2016.
Executive summary
2. In February 2016, the Kaipātiki Local Board held the following portfolio briefings:
· Arts and Culture – Thursday 4 February 2016;
· Built Environment – Thursday 18 February 2016;
· Community Development & Facilities – Wednesday 10 February 2016;
· Economic Development – Friday 19 February 2016;
· Events - Thursday 4 February 2016;
· Finance – Tuesday 9 February 2016;
· Natural Environment – Tuesday 16 February 2016;
· Sport, Recreation Services and Parks (active) – Tuesday 9 February 2016;
3. Portfolio briefing records are attached to this report.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the record of Kaipātiki Local Board portfolio briefings held in February 2016. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Kaipātiki Local Board portfolio briefing records February 2016 |
119 |
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
09 March 2016 |
|
Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops - Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 and Wednesday, 24 February 2016
File No.: CP2016/00038
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to record the Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops held on Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 and Wednesday, 24 February 2016.
Executive Summary
2. At the workshop held on Wednesday, 3 February 2016, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:
· Birkdale and Beach Haven Community Project;
· Panuku Development Auckland - High Level Project Plan; and
· Northcote Business Improvement District.
3. At the workshop held on Wednesday, 17 February 2016, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:
· Marlborough Park/ Wanita Reserve play and Birkenhead War Memorial park; and
· Regional priorities and environmental work programme 2016/2017.
4. At the workshop held on Wednesday, 24 February 2016, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:
· Glenfield Road Corridor Management Plan - Interim Cycling Improvements;
· Harbour Crossing Update; and
· Birkdale and Beach Haven Community Project.
5. Workshops records are attached to this report.
That the Kaipātiki Local Board: a) receive the records for the Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops held on Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 and Wednesday, 24 February 2016. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Kaipātiki Local Board workshop records for February 2016 |
133 |
Signatories
Authors |
Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Kaipātiki Local Board 09 March 2016 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a) note the confidential status of Attachment a to Item 24 for the following reasons.
24 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment a - 19 Athena Drive, Totara Vale
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. In particular, the report contains personal information. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |