Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 8

8 Deputations 8

9 Public Forum 8

9.1 Mayfair Retirement Village traffic concerns 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 9

12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 23 February 2016 11

13 Draft Business Improvement District Policy 2016 – local board feedback 33

14 Auckland Transport Update - March 2016 175

15 Feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 185

16 Community Led Small Build programme 255

17 Approval of Upper Harbour Local Board feedback on the Better Urban Planning review and proposed changes to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 261

18 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 263

19 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub 267

20 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool 269

21 Board Members' Reports 271

22 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 273

18 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a. 68 Oakway Drive, Schnapper Rock 273

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 23 February 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Mayfair Retirement Village traffic concerns

Purpose

1. The purpose of this item is to address the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding the traffic concerns the Mayfair Retirement Village have at 14 Oteha Valley Road and the surrounding area.

Executive Summary

2. Doug Astley and Pam Lawrinson from the Mayfair Village Residents Advisory Committee will be in attendance to discuss the traffic concerns around Mayfair Retirement Village, located at 14 Oteha Valley Road and the surrounding area.

3. A summary of the concerns have been provided by the Mayfair Village Residents Advisory Committee. (refer to Attachment A).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the presentation from Doug Astley and Pam Lawrinson from the Mayfair Village Residents Advisory Committee, regarding the traffic concerns of the Mayfair Retirement Village, and thank them for their attendance.

Attachments

a Traffic concerns near Mayfair Retirement Village ........................ pg 277

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Notices of Motion

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

Draft Business Improvement District Policy 2016 – local board feedback

File No.: CP2016/02129

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1 - Policy	3
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards	3

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh – BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron – Manager CCO/ External Partnerships

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

PDF Creator

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

Auckland Transport Update - March 2016

File No.: CP2016/02815

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community, matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides an update on:

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects;

· consultation documents on proposed safety improvements;

· local board requests on transport-related matters; and

· media.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report – March 2016.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

4. In 2015, the Upper Harbour Local Board provided several lists of potential Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.

5. The table below outlines an update on the board’s current projects:

ID#	Project Description	Progress/Current Status
480	Gills Road Pedestrian Bridge	Traffic operations are concluding design and estimation works for the pedestrian bridge and interim footpath to Living Stream Drive. A meeting to formulate a funding plan and timeline for the overall package of works is to be held in early March, at which point confirmation of the board’s contribution can be made.
026	Tauhinu Road Upgrade- kerb and channel	Has now been completed and the board has a saving of $110,000.
460	Kyle/Pitoitoi Road pedestrian safety	Has now been completed and the board has a saving of $5,000.

6. The following table summarises the Upper Harbour Local Board’s current allocation and spending of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Some of the figures will change slightly as final costs come in, but the board has approximately $100,000 of its 2012–2016 budget (4 years) left to allocate, before the end of the term.

Total funds available for term (including carryover from 2012/13)	$1,348,264
Total spent on completed projects	$872,108 *
Total of other committed projects	$257,434
Total left to allocate to spend by end of term	$218,722 **

Funds available from next term (16/17 Financial Year)	$ 337,066

* Still some minor costs to be invoiced

** Includes savings from Tauhinu Road and Kyle/Pitoitoi Road

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

7. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for its feedback. As the board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.

Consultation outcome for Proposed No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) restriction on Bushlands Park Drive, Albany

8. Consultation has been completed and mixed responses have been received regarding the proposal. Some people have concerns with the loss of on-street parking. After considering all the feedback, Auckland Transport will not be removing the on-street parking in front of property No. 119 Bushlands Park Drive. Attachment A shows the revised proposal and is for your information only.

9. There are some completion formalities with the proposed work which are currently being processed. Auckland Transport anticipate the works to be completed by mid-2016 or earlier.

Fernhill Way, Oteha – proposed speed humps

10. Safety concerns have been raised by the Oteha Valley School and local residents regarding the limited visibility available for pedestrians as they cross Fernhill Way at the intersection with Medallion Drive. This is particularly a problem when cars are travelling around the corner at speed.

11. In order to address this safety issue, Auckland Transport is proposing to install speed humps before the crossing in each direction, to ensure pedestrian visibility and a safe vehicular speed for vehicles approaching the crossing (refer to Attachment B).

Local board response

12. The chairperson was supportive of what is being proposed.

Media

Transport for Future Housing Areas

13. The public are being given a unique opportunity to help plan transport for approximately 110,000 new houses on land which is currently greenfields. Feedback will be used to help identify the transport networks needed during the next 30 years to support future urban areas in northwest Auckland, southern Auckland, Warkworth and Silverdale. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) 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. Six weeks of public consultation is getting underway, with two weeks of initial feedback on proposals in each future urban area.

14. Four weeks of further public consultation will start in April 2016.

15. Significant new transport infrastructure will be needed to support about 110,000 new houses and 50,000 new jobs in future urban areas a similar size to urban Hamilton. It is important we identify early what is needed so projects can be developed and be in place before new housing and businesses go in. Getting transport well integrated with the future communities to ensure they are well connected and great places to live will be a priority. Making sure jobs are easy for people to get to is also very important.

16. Auckland Transport Key Strategic Initiatives Project Director says a plan to support Auckland’s expected growth during the next 10 years is already in place, with a number of projects already complete, under construction or well advanced in planning. We are also working closely with developers to deliver new transport for Special Housing Areas as they are built. At this stage public feedback is needed on what people believe future residents’ transport priorities will be. We also want to know what people think about a menu of transport ideas being considered. It is a good opportunity for people to help guide what mix of transport projects need to happen. The NZTA’s Auckland Regional Director, Ernst Zöllner says the work is focused on identifying the additional new and upgraded transport infrastructure for future housing and business areas earmarked for land which is currently rural.

17. Improved transport will include a mix of public transport, new or upgraded roads, footpaths and cycleways, upgraded state highways and smarter use of existing infrastructure. The plans should give the public confidence that work is underway to provide transport for new housing and allow them to give feedback on the type of transport that future communities want and need.

18. After recommending transport networks the next stage will be to prioritise projects for inclusion in future investment programmes.

19. Public feedback will be used to develop recommended transport networks that will help inform discussions between the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council on agreeing an approach to develop the city’s transport system - the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

20. Have your say events will be held on the following dates:

· Southern Auckland consultation – 18 February to 3 March;

· Warkworth and Silverdale/Dairy Flat consultation - 25 February to 10 March; and

· Northwest Auckland consultation – 3 to 17 March.

Share the Path Campaign – February 2016

21. From mid-February to mid-March 2016 Auckland Transport is running a ‘Share the Path’ campaign to reduce user conflicts and increase safe and courteous use of shared paths in Auckland. There is over 180 kilometers of shared paths in Auckland, and the number of paths is set to increase significantly in the next 3 – 5 years with accelerated provision of cycling infrastructure, as well as the development of greenways.

22. User surveys carried out in mid-2015 revealed that people want to feel safe and confident using shared paths, and this depends on all users knowing what behaviour is expected of them.

Pavement decals

23. The pavement decals will be made with a non-slip surface.

Human size emojis

24. Human size emojis will be installed for three weeks at five paths around Auckland. The emojis will be accompanied by a small information board encouraging path users to share their photo on social media. These emojis will be promoted via Facebook and other social media channels. We’ll also be bringing these to life with activations, featuring Share the Path ambassadors and a branded cargo bike handing out bells and cycling resources.

25. The emojis will be installed near the path but not on the path, to avoid creating an obstruction.

26. The decals and emojis were installed 14 - 18 February.

27. Auckland Transport considered including the local board logos on the decals and the information board, however AT found the cost of having multiple designs, one for each local board involved in the campaign, was prohibitive.

28. Auckland Transport will be evaluating the campaign at the end of March. The campaign landing page at www.at.govt.nz/sharedpaths has been up and running by 16 February. This webpage can be shared on the local board Facebook pages to encourage park users to participate in the campaign.

Fairer costs for public transport

29. Minor changes to bus and train fares are being made in preparation for the change to a simpler zone based system in mid-2016. The changes were introduced on the 28 February and are a step towards making journeys which are the same distance by bus and train cost the same. Ferries are also working towards trips of similar distances having similar fares and better integration with buses and trains.

30. A 10 cent increase to adult AT HOP bus and train fares for stages 1 to 4 will help better align short and long distance fares. Currently those travelling a longer distance pay relatively more than those on short journeys. The increases reflect increases in operator costs, which are determined by an NZTA public transport industry indexation.

31. Stage fares for the Inner City Zone, Airport Zone and trains from Orakei to Britomart will be changed to be consistent with the new zone boundaries being introduced later this year. This means that the cost of a train between Orakei and Britomart will increase by $1.40 for an adult with a HOP card.

32. No changes to child, tertiary and accessible single fares will be made on bus and rail, except for the removal of the Inner City, Airport fare zones and changes from Orakei to Britomart.

33. To help the transition to simplified fares and further HOP integration on ferry services, some changes are being made to ferry products, including operator based products and the withdrawal of multi-trip products.

34. Operator costs have increased, meaning some small fare increases. Although petrol and diesel prices have dropped recently, fuel only makes up a small percentage of their costs. The wages are the largest expense by far. Currently about 53 percent of a fare is provided through government (NZTA) contributions and rates subsidies, so it is important to ensure fares help cover costs.

35. The change to simplified zone fares in mid-2016 will make it easier and cheaper to connect between different bus and train services with an AT HOP card. It will allow the introduction of the new public transport network, which will provide more frequent and more connected travel.

36. Mr Lambert says simplified fares and the new public transport network in South Auckland are just part of the major improvements to public transport this year.

37. Work on the City Rail Link has started, light rail investigations will make further progress, construction of Manukau Bus Station and the Pukekohe Station upgrade will begin, and the Otahuhu Station will open.

38. Latest figures show that public transport patronage is at an all-time high. Public transport patronage totaled 81.5 million trips for the 12 months to December 2015, an annual increase of 7.6 percent.

39. Following the introduction of new electric trains, rail patronage alone totalled 15.4 million trips for the 12 months to December 2015, an annual rise of 22.9 percent, which is an increase of 2.9 million journeys in one year.

40. Customer communications on the fare changes started on 2 February. The full details on the changes are on the Auckland Transport website.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

42. No specific issues with regard to the Maori impact statement are triggered by this report.

General

43. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Auckland Council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation

44. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Bushlands Park Drive, Albany - No stopping at all times restriction	3
b View	Fernhill Way, Oteha - proposed speed humps	3

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager , Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

Feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/02506

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021	3
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	3

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller - Manager Logistics

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

Community Led Small Build programme

File No.: CP2016/02305

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the implementation of the Community Led Small Build programme.

2. This report also requests that Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

b) delegate to [X] to provide the local board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Upper Harbour 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 support 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 support the project but are not providing funding, and the project is on land not owned or managed by council. The Peter Snell Youth Village bunkhouse is being used in the pilot to test a project that is not on council land. Accessibility is an important factor for projects not on council land. A fee to cover costs can be charged and assets can be secured when not in use. The Peter Snell Youth Village provides facilities to schools, youth clubs and holiday programmes, and provides an opportunity to test the accessibility criteria.

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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board decide 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.

36. 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.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Karen Titulaer - Senior Advisor Strategic Partnership

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 March 2016

Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2016/02695

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.

Executive Summary

2. An application for an exemption for swimming or spa pools has been received from the owner of:

· 68 Oakway Drive, Schnapper Rock.

3. The application does not comply with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. Pool inspectors have inspected the property and consulted with the applicant. The full assessment report is attached to this report.

4. The local board must resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions or decline the exemption sought.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 68 Oakway Drive, Schnapper Rock with the following conditions:

i. that NZS 8500-2006 clause (a –k) is met at all times; and

ii. that the steps be moved 1.2 metres away from the spa when it is not in use.

Comments

Background

5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the property for which an application for special exemption from the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been received. In this case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with the act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in Attachment A.

6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicant. The applicant has 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools 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 the consideration of:

· particular characteristics of the property and the pool;

· other relevant circumstances; and

· taking into account any conditions it may impose.

If the board is then satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children, an exemption can be granted.

10. The definition of the immediate pool area 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”, and 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. It may be 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:

· 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

· granting the exemption for a fixed term regardless 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 present a 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	68 Oakway Drive, Schnapper Rock (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Wolfgang Nethe - Manager Compliance

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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

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

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

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