Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

9.1 Living Without Violence - Harriet Crampton 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Councillor's Update 7

13 Auckland Transport Report - March 2016 9

14 Regional Facilities Auckland Second Quarter Report 2015-2016 17

15 ATEED performance reports to December 2015 37

16 Renewal of Community Lease. Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated, 2 Korora Rd, Oneroa. 49

17 Waiheke Local Board Events Priority Fund, 2015-2016 59

18 Alison Park Reserves Act Hearing Decision Report 81

19 Alison Park Concept Plan adoption 137

20 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 159

21 LGNZ conference and AGM 2016 171

22 Urgent Decision Report - Financial support for Living Without Violence 179

23 Professional Development - Environmental Defence Society's 2016 Conference Wild Places 191

24 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 193

25 Marine Protected Areas Submission 199

26 Waiheke Local Board Submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 207

27 Chairperson's Report 213

28 Governance Forward Work Programme 229

29 Waiheke Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings 233

30 Reports requested/pending 243

31 List of resource consents 251

32 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.

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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 3 March 2016, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 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 Waiheke 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 Living Without Violence - Harriet Crampton

Executive Summary

1. Harriet Crampton was in attendance to speak to the board about the needs of Living Without Violence.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Thanks Harriet Cramption for her attendance and presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Auckland Transport Report - March 2016

File No.: CP2016/04719

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 activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

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

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

· Response to Resolution WHK/2016/30

· Local Consultations

· Media

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport Report – March 2016.

Discussion

Response to resolution WHK/2016/30

4. At its 25 February 2016 business meeting, the Waiheke Local Board considered traffic management and parking design proposals from the developer for the 13-15 Belgium Street, Waiheke (Countdown supermarket) development and resolved as follows;

Resolution number WHK/2016/30

MOVED by Chairperson PA Walden, seconded by Deputy Chairperson R Ballard:

That the Waiheke Local Board:

d) approves the feedback to Auckland Transport on the associated roadside outside Countdown Supermarket dated 25 February 2016, noting the following board recommendations:

· given that the resource consent makes provision for a review of consented works up to 12 months post-opening, the board recommends that the consent holder will replace the deleted refuge in a new and optimal location, at its own cost if required;

· that 4m of the fence along the Countdown eastern boundary terminating at Belgium Street be removed or reshaped to allow pedestrians to view vehicle movements on the driveways on both sides of the fence;

· that steps are taken to ensure an unrestricted view for right-turning vehicles exiting the car park;

· due to concerns about the safety of cyclists and pedestrians which will result from the increased flow and complexity of vehicle traffic once the supermarket opens, request Auckland Council and Auckland Transport complete a comprehensive plan for the Belgium Street retail area including traffic management and accommodating cyclist and pedestrian networks.

· the above be referred to Auckland Council resource consents team for their consideration.

Response

5. AT staff met on site to see if cycle ways could be provided on both sides of road adjacent to footpath (reducing the flush median width to 2.6m) for possible inclusion in the roading plan (for the developer) and get the job done in conjunction with the developer’s roading works.

6. However, discussions with Walking Cycle engineers raised concerns that for providing cycle ways, other design issues need to be considered, for example road narrowing, raising of zebra crossings, on street parking management, additional required broken yellow lines which will result in Traffic Control Committee resolutions and there is a risk in a rushed process.

7. A shared path along the northern side of Belgium Street could be considered as this can be joined to the footpath on the western side of Wharf Road. But a cycleway along southern side of Belgium Street, even if provided, cannot be continued along Wharf Road because of the absence of footpath /shoulder on the eastern side of Wharf Road. The Walking Cycle Team recommend that this be considered as a possible Local board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) project, so the Board will need to consider this in terms of 10 year advocacy plan priorities.

8. Regarding the bus stop dimensions, AT’s public transport team advise that due to the planter box, the bus stop will still be an indented space and a 20m long by 11m wide by 15m high stop is the standard requirement. But it may be reduced subject to checking for bus chassis and wheel tracking curves. If it is not possible to reduce the bus stop dimensions after checking for tracking, another possible option may be if the parking space dimensions can be reduced subject to car tracking curves.

9. To allow better visibility towards oncoming vehicles from the customer driveway, AT’s assessment has been to swap the bus stop and car parking spaces (P15 spaces) locations. AT has advised the developer’s designers in this regards. However, at this stage, it is not clear if the designs have been amended.

Ferry patronage

10. Information for ferry services patronage arriving or depart from Matiatia and Kennedy Point is only available on a monthly basis and is not split down by arrivals or departures. At the time of agenda close, the information for February 2016 was not available and will be tabled for the Board’s information at the business meeting.

Bus patronage

11. Auckland Transport does not currently have the mechanisms set up to supply daily records, however can supply a monthly record of bus usage, with the following limitations:

· Fullers monthly pass holders get bus travel included

· There are a number of tourist passes that include bus travel

· As a result there is a risk that the bus drivers may not always record boardings (even with best intentions) and this could be worse during the very busy periods.

· These limitations are likely to change once simplified fares are introduced.

Recorded Bus Patronage for Waiheke Bus Company

Feb 2016 Patronage = 75,289.

For historical bus patronage tracking, please refer to attachment A.

Hauraki Gulf Islands Wharf Network revenue

12. This information was previously collected and reported on yearly, however will now be supplied on a 6 monthly basis, due to the reporting mechanisms currently in place, see attachment B.

AT HOP card - Super Gold concession

13. There presently is no AT customer service centre on Waiheke, therefore customers will have to travel to Britomart, or another customer service centre to have their Super Gold concession loaded. The Fullers ticket office is only a ticket office and is unable to load concessions.

14. With the upcoming Ministry of Transport requirement for Super Gold customers to have their concession loaded on an AT HOP card in order to be eligible to receive the concession, AT are currently looking at ways to make the process easier for customers, especially those living in more remote areas of the region.

Local Consultations

15. Consultation documents for the following proposal have been provided to the Waiheke 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.

16. 4 Pohutukawa Ave, Waiheke - Retaining for Parking Bay. Feedback was requested on an application for a retaining wall to support a parking bay at 4 Pohutukawa Ave, Waiheke. Retaining is mostly within the applicant’s boundary however it encroaches into the road reserve.

17. The Board’s feedback did not support the proposal and suggested that the appropriate mechanism for community consultation would be through Resource Consent notification. AT have raised issues with the design via a s92 request to Auckland Council who are considering the wider Resource Consent.

Media

18. AT liaised with Auckland Council Communications around the improvements to safety and access for students to the local Waiheke schools, in particular to highlight the wider improvement project creating cycleways and walkways connecting the island.

19. Further communications are being developed regarding the realignment of the ferry operator booths in the ferry terminal at Matiatia.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

21. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

General

22. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the council’s annual plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Historical bus patronage tracking	13
b View	Hauraki Gulf Island Wharf Network	15

Signatories

Authors

Anthony Lewis, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Renewal of Community Lease. Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated, 2 Korora Rd, Oneroa.

File No.: CP2016/02039

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Waiheke Local Board’s decision on the Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated’s lease renewal and its request to obtain a lease under the current Community Occupancy Guidelines at 2 Korora Road, Oneroa, Waiheke Island.

Executive Summary

2. Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated (the Gallery), has occupied the council owned facility within the Artworks complex on Waiheke since 1995 (Attachment A). The Artworks complex comprises four parcels of land which are held in fee simple by Auckland Council, with no impediment to the Gallery’s occupation.

3. The Gallery’s current lease commenced on 1 July 2004 providing two renewal terms of five years each until a final expiry on 30 June 2019. Rent was set at $500.00 Plus GST per annum. In 2010, the legacy Auckland City Council’s Community Services Committee approved the first renewal of the lease with a rent review of $500 per annum and a hybrid lease rental amount coming into effect from 1 July 2014.

4. The community and recreation lease policy in 2010 took commercial revenue above $100,000 into account when determining rent. A five percent charge on revenue above this figure resulted in additional rental above the standard $500.00 per annum. Rent increases of $1,980 plus GST per annum were approved from 1 July 2014, $3,960 plus GST from 1 July 2015 and $6,000 plus GST from 1 July 2016. (Attachment B).

5. The art gallery states that the rent increases are unsustainable for the organisation and has asked to remove the hybrid rental amounts and be granted a new lease agreement under Council’s community occupancy guidelines.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board approves

a) The grant of final renewal of the lease to the Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated at 2 Korora Road, Oneroa, Waiheke, on the following terms and conditions:

i) Term - 5 years commencing on 1 July 2014

ii) Rent - $1,980 plus GST from 1 July 2014

$3,960 plus GST from 1 July 2015

$6,000 plus GST from 1 July 2016 until final expiry of the lease

iii) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the current lease agreement .

Comments

6. The Gallery was first registered as an incorporated society in September 1995. Its income is derived from a range of sources, including art sales, subscriptions, sponsorship, fund raising and grants. The Gallery employs one full-time and three part-time staff in addition to the team of volunteers. It is open to the public 363 days a year.

7. The Gallery is committed to engaging with the Waiheke community to encourage the enjoyment of arts on Waiheke. It undertakes a wide range of activities including:

· Exhibiting the work of local artists

· Bringing national award winning exhibitions to Waiheke

· Working with community organisations such as the horizon Group for Disabilities

· Supporting festivals such as the Waiheke book Festival, Matariki and Seaweek

· Publishing the Waiheke Art Map

· Promoting the Artists open Studio tour.

· Hosting the annual Summer School

· Running an Artist in Residence programme

8. Headland Sculptures on the Gulf Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gallery. Its biannual outdoor sculpture exhibition attracted 45,000 visitors over a three week period in 2013 and the gallery itself records more than 4,000 visitors a month at the height of the summer season.

9. For the years ended 30 June 2013 and 2014, the Gallery’s net group income totalled $448,594 and $377,873 respectively. Overhead expenses for the same periods totalled $379,055 and $357,519, providing a net surplus of $69,539 for 2013 and $20,354 for 2014. The Gallery’s net group assets for 2013 and 2014 totalled $233,759 and $254,113 respectively.

10. In 2010, the legacy Auckland City Council’s community and recreation lease policy, took commercial revenue above $100,000 into account when determining rent. A five percent charge on revenue above this figure resulted in additional rental above the standard $500.00 per annum. In line with the terms of this hybrid policy the Gallery’s rent increases as follows:

· $1,980 plus GST from 1 July 2014

· $3,960 plus GST from 1 July 2015

· $6,000 plus GST from 1 July 2016 until final expiry of the lease.

The Gallery has expressed concern over its ability to pay the increased rent and is seeking a new agreement with a peppercorn rental in line with Council’s current community occupancy guidelines. This would also incur a subsidised operational fee of $25 per square metre as provided for in the guidelines. The Gallery’s lease space has been measured at 124 square metres.

11. The current community occupancy guidelines provide that if an organisation generates significant revenue over expenditure, then Local Boards can charge a percentage rent. As at 29 February 2016, the Gallery’s account with council is $4,395 in arrears.

12. Financial advice received from council staff has confirmed that if the Local Board agree to a surrender of the Gallery’s current lease and approve a new agreement under the current community occupancy guidelines, the Local Board would need to offset its budget to account for the loss of revenue. The revenue budgeted for the period 1 July 2015 until the final expiry of the lease on 30 June 2019 totals $21,960.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sports and community facilities.

14. Hybrid lease rentals were discussed at a workshop with the local Board on 31 July 2015. The Local Board indicated a preference for standardized lease rents, as per the current community occupancy guidelines.

15. Should the Local Board resolve to forego the revenue from rent, it may wish to consider cancelling the existing community lease agreement and establishing a Licence to Occupy embedded within the Gallery’s Funding Agreement. This would provide a simple, transparent process, containing the following provisions

i) Term –commencing 1 July 2014

ii) License fee - $1.00 per annum, plus GST if demanded

iii) Operational fee - $25 per square metre per annum.

iv) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Māori impact statement

16. The recommendations within this report are procedural and therefore do not impact on Maori.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Aerial View of Artworks and Gallery Plan	53
b View	2009 Lease Renewal with Rent Review	55

Signatories

Authors

Robyn Campbell - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Waiheke Local Board Events Priority Fund, 2015-2016

File No.: CP2016/02580

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for the Waiheke Local Board Events Priority Fund 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Waiheke Local Board has set a total events budget of $20,000. A total of $9,820 was allocated under previous rounds, leaving a total of $10,180 to be allocated for the remaining 2015-2016.

3. Six applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $28,942.41.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Application ID	Applicant	Funding for	Amount requested
WEPF1618-103	Piritahi Marae Trust	Towards the costs for the Tuwheratanga o Kia Piritahi - opening of Kia Piritahi meeting House in (need to confirm date)	$4,000.00
WEPF1618-104	Waiheke Mountain Bike Club	Towards the costs for the Round Rangihoua four hour challenge - 10th Anniverary event in June 2016	$3,000.00
WEPF1618-106	Tourism Waiheke	Towards the costs for the Small Business Tourism Assistance project between March 2016 to June 2016	$2,334.00
WEPF1618-108	Waiheke Community Art Gallery	Towards the costs of the Waiheke Winter Arts Festival and Matariki Exhibition in June 2016	$4,000.00
WEPF1618-109	Jassy Dean Trust	Towards the costs of the Waiheke Island Garden Safari events in June 2016	$9,999.00
WR1618-211	Onetangi Beach races Incorporated	Towards the set up and safety expenses for the Onetangi Beach Races event 2016	$5.609.41
		Total	28,942.41

Comments

4. The local board has decided to hold an Events Priority Fund to assist groups to provide events that make a positive contribution in the Waiheke local board area.

5. The Waiheke Board has set a total of $20,000 for the Events Priority Fund. A total of $9,820 has been allocated in previously, leaving a total of $10,180 to be allocated for the remainder of the 2015/2016 year.

6. Six applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $28,942.41.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

7. Local boards are responsible for the decision making and allocation of local board community grants. The Waiheke Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the Events Priority Fund criteria (see attachment A).

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

Māori impact statement

9. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori. Two applicants in this round have indicated their project targets Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

11. Following the Waiheke Local Board allocating funding for the Events Priority Fund, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waiheke Local Board Events Priority Fund criteria 2015/2016	61
b View	Waiheke Local Board Events Priority Fund application summaries	63

Signatories

Authors

Kim Hammond - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Alison Park Reserves Act Hearing Decision Report

File No.: CP2016/04337

Purpose

1. To confirm the Waiheke Local Board’s decisions following the hearing on the Reserves Act processes related to Alison Park to enable the former bowling club building to cater for community use. This includes the proposed minor variation to the Alison Park Reserve Management Plan and the reclassification of the building footprint.

Executive Summary

2. At its meeting held 22 October 2015, the board endorsed the Alison Park Concept Plan for public notification and undertaking the required Reserves Act processes to facilitate the community use of the building.

3. Thirty five formal submissions were received to these Reserves Act processes, and seven submitters spoke at the hearing on 3 March 2015.

4. A table of the submissions including the local board’s response deliberations and recommendations are attached in Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Endorse the minor variation to the Alison Park Reserve Management Plan in accordance with section 41(9) of the Reserves Act 1977, as set out in Attachment B, with the amended policy 9 as outlined in this report.

b) Supports the reclassification of the former bowling club building footprint, being approximately 330m² of Lot 237 DP22848 which comprises of 3.7603 hectares and is contained in Computer Interest Register 632271, from recreation reserve to local purpose (community buildings) reserve in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

c) Seek the endorsement of this reclassification of the building footprint from the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee.

d) Following this endorsement from the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee, undertake a formal survey of the building footprint and arrange the issue of a gazette notice declaring the reclassification.

e) Consider applying additional funding to cover the survey and Land Information New Zealand costs, should the quotes prove more expensive than the initial $6,000 allocated to this.

Comments

5. Alison Park, being Lot 237 DP 22848 comprising of 3.7603 hectares, is owned by the Crown through the Department of Conservation as a classified recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 as recorded by Gazette Notice No. 802785.1 (Part New Zealand Gazette, 5 April 1979, No. 28, page 1040), and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes.

6. Alison Park was not created as the required reserve contribution from an adjoining Crown owned state housing subdivision, but as a straight grant of land by the Crown to local government as a recreation reserve for the benefit of the local community.

7. The Local Board has supported the preparation of a new concept plan for Alison Park and a review of the future use of the former bowling club building. The bowling club had occupied the building for some 20 plus years and vacated this in 2012.

8. The board had strong feedback in the initial round of consultation on this project to make the building available for a wide range of community uses. To enable community use of the building the Board has supported the notification of:

· a minor variation of the Alison Park Management Plan 1995 in accordance with section 41(9) of the Reserves Act to remove reference to the Oneroa Bowling Club and to state the building will be leased to a community group or groups that would then make the building available through a booking system to wider community use. It also will mention the new concept plan and provide a link to this on the council website. Refer to Attachment B which shows all proposed changes to the plan.

· the reclassification of the building footprint, being of approximately 330m² of Alison Park, from recreation reserve to local purpose (community buildings) reserve in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act. Refer to Attachment C indicating the building footprint.

9. Notification of public consultation on these proposals commenced on 14 November 2015 and closed on 15 January 2016. Thirty five formal submissions were received, of which 23 supported the management plan variation and 7 opposed this, and 21 supported the reclassification and 9 opposed this.

10. It appears from some of the comments that the complex requirements of the Reserves Act have not always been fully understood by some of the submitters. The objections to the management plan variation and reclassification predominantly focus on the proposal to lease the building out, with the submitters wishing this to be part of the council booking system. A number of submitters also took the opportunity to comment on aspects of the wider draft Alison Park Concept Plan which was outside the scope of this submission process.

11. The local board has considered all the submissions to both processes and the decisions of these deliberations are included as an additional column in the submissions table in Attachment B.

12. In particular, the management plan variation proposes a change to policy 9 which covered the proposal to lease to the former bowling club building. Following the hearing the board has suggested this policy be amended to read:

Policy 9: To lease the former Oneroa Bowling Club building to a community group or groups that will:

a) Utilise the building for a range of uses that provide wide community benefit

b) Be required to provide access, at a comparable community rate, to other community groups or for social events on a fair and transparent basis.

Explanation

This building provides an ideal venue for a range of community uses. It is appropriate that a lease be provided to an established community group or groups that have the ability to manage and promote use of the building by the wider community on a bookable basis.

Implementation

· The granting of a lease will be conditional on the lessee enabling a wide range of community uses of the building.

· Any lease holder shall be bound by the provisions of this management plan.

· Any issues relating to liquor licensing within any leased part of the reserve shall be handled within the terms and conditions of the relevant lease.

· In the event a suitable community group or groups is not found to lease this building it will be managed through the council booking system.

13. This amendment has removed the reference in the implementation section of this policy to the EOI process which has now been undertaken and also to the tenure of any lease; as the board felt this may be too prescriptive and that they are likely to consider a lease of a shorter term initially.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. The Waiheke Local Board at its meeting held 22 October 2015, endorsed the notification of the Alison Park Concept Plan and included the Reserves Act processes that would enable community use of the former bowling club building as follows:

15. That the Waiheke Local Board:

d) supports the notification of a minor variation or review to the Alison Park Management Plan in accordance with section 41(9) of the Reserves Act 1977 to remove reference to the Oneroa Bowling Club and to state the building will be leased to a community group or groups that would then make the building available through a booking system to wider community use.

e) resolves that in accordance with of section 41(5A) and 41(9) of the Reserves Act that the public notification of the intention to undertake a minor review of the management plan was effectively covered by the initial round of consultation on the community’s views on the future of the building.

f) supports the public notification of a reclassification of approximately 330m² of Alison Park, being the footprint of the former bowling club building, from recreation reserve to local purpose (community buildings) reserve in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

16. The Local Board then resolved the hearing date and appointed hearing panel members to consider the submissions to these Reserves Act processes at their meeting on 25 February 2016 as follows:

17. That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Confirms a hearing be scheduled for Thursday 3 March 2016 from 5:15pm to hear submissions and objections to the proposed Alison Park management plan variation and reclassification of the footprint of the Oneroa Bowling Club to accommodate the proposed community use as per Reserves Act 1977 requirements.

b) Confirms the hearing panel will consist of all Local Board members.

18. Following the hearing the Waiheke Local Board Hearing Panel resolved:

That the Waiheke Local Board Hearing Panel:

a) Review all the submissions to the minor variation to the Alison Park management plan and the reclassification of the Oneroa Bowling Club building footprint.

b) Thanks the following submitters that requested to be heard on the Alison Park Reserve Act hearing:

· Anne Kilgour

· Gordon Cuthbert

· Dan Mellamphy and Jan Palmes

· Colin Beardon

· Ken Davis

· Les Baxter and Wendy Allison

· Brian Hall

· John Ewar

c) Provide recommendations to the 25 March 2016 Waiheke Local Board on whether or not to proceed with the proposed minor variation to the Alison Park Reserve Management Plan and the reclassification of the former bowling club building footprint from recreation reserve to local purpose (community buildings) reserve.

19. The panel deliberated on all the submissions, with their responses noted in the submission table, and confirmed they would proceed with the amended variation as outlined above and the reclassification to enable the community use of the building.

Māori impact statement

20. Ngati Paoa, NgaiTai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera and Te Patukirikiri were contacted at the initiation of this project in early June 2015. Ngati Paoa and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki expressed an interest and provided input into the preparation of the draft concept plan following a site visit to the park.

21. All iwi were then notified on 5 November 2015 over whether they wanted to be engaged over both the draft concept plan and the Reserves Act processes. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki and Ngati Paoa have provided support for the Reserves Act processes being undertaken to enable the local board to enter into a new lease of the building to a community group or groups. In the case of Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, this support is conditional on the future lessee making the building available to others at a reasonable rate.

Implementation

22. Every classification or reclassification of any reserve must be endorsed by the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee. A report to endorse the recommendations of the local board will be placed on the 18 May agenda.

23. Reclassification of every reserve must be defined by a survey plan if that reclassification involves any portion of an existing defined land parcel. The projects costs have included a contribution to the survey costs of $6,000, but further funding may need to be applied to this should the quotes prove more expensive than the initial funding allocation. Further detail on this will be provided at the meeting.

24. A survey plan is necessary so the council can issue a gazette notice declaring the reclassification. Issue of the gazette notice is part of the statutory process of the Reserves Act and will be arranged with Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) following the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee endorsement and will be managed by the Property Team.

25. In regard to the Reserve Management Plan this will be updated and will include reference to the new concept plan for the park.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Detailed submission summary and local board decision	87
b View	Alison Park Reserve Management Plan minor variation	101
c View	Building footprint to be reclassified	135

Signatories

Authors

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Alison Park Concept Plan adoption

File No.: CP2016/03890

Purpose

1. For the Waiheke Local Board to adopt the final Alison Park Concept Plan following the consultation on the draft plan.

Executive Summary

2. In May 2015 the local board initiated this project to prepare a concept plan for Alison Park and review the future use of the former bowling club building. Two rounds of public consultation have been undertaken in June and November resulting in two well-attended open days and significant feedback from the local community.

3. The final concept plan, shown in Attachment A, has been amended following the second round of consultation and a workshop with the local board. A summary of the feedback to the draft plan is included in Attachment B.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Adopt the final Alison Park Concept Plan.

b) Request officers to report back with a schedule of costs for implementation of the plan that will be considered through the Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan processes.

Comments

4. The public consultation on the draft plan commenced on 14 November 2015 and closed on 15 January 2016. Public notices were placed in the Waiheke Marketplace and Gulf News. Posters were placed on the park, posters and copies of the draft plan were available to view at the local board office and public library. Key stakeholders were sent an email and a flyer drop was undertaken to the immediate neighbors.

5. Information about the project and an online-survey were available on the Shape Auckland website. An open day was also held on the park on 14 November with a good community turnout with an estimated 30 attendees.

6. This project has also included notification of the Reserves Act processes required to enable community use of the former bowling club building, including a proposed minor variation to the Alison Park Management Plan and reclassification of the building footprint. The submissions to these processes and the decision of the hearing held on 3 March 2016 are included in a separate report on this March meeting agenda.

7. Fifty seven responses were received to the draft concept plan; most of these were through the on-line survey.

8. Responses were received from Waiheke Island Croquet Club, Piritahi Marae, members of the Friends of Alison Park, Headland Sculpture on the Gulf and Waiheke Family Services. It is evident from the feedback and attendance at the open day that a fair portion of the individual responses are from members of the croquet club. Ngati Paoa and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki were also engaged over this project.

9. A detailed summary of this feedback has been prepared which includes a breakdown of the respondent demographics, their feedback on each of the key proposals and any additional comments relating to the future of the park. This is included in Attachment B.

10. The key proposals in the plan and the support gauged from the community for these are outlined in the table below:

Key proposals in the draft Concept Plan	Support	Don’t support	Not sure
Enhancement of the main entrance way	66%	12%	18%
Upgrading the bowling green for multiple purposes, e.g. village green, croquet lawn, event and market space	64%	21%	11%
Opening up and extending the bowling green space into the park	50%	36%	12%
Use of the building for a wide range of community purposes	80%	11%	9%
Improved connections into the park	64%	18%	18%
Extend the track / path network	73%	12%	11%
Improve way-finding signage	73%	12%	14%
Provide interpretive signs	70%	11%	20%
Manage weed species	98%	2%
Expand native plantings	80%	4%	14%
Enhance food forest plantings	70%	5%	23%
Pruning the lower branches of trees to open up views into the park	71%	20%	7%
Enhance the sculpture experience	70%	16%	12%
Provide natural play elements	77%	12%	9%

11. In the feedback there were mixed views on whether the park should be meeting the needs of just the local community or be enhanced as a tourist destination. This included a variety of feedback on how much development the park should actually support with some noting they were happy with the park as it is. While others supported quite extensive development including utilising the bowling club site to develop an arts centre and developing a sculpture park.

12. There was strong support for the building to be used for community purposes but differing views on how this should be achieved. This is being dealt with through a separate process. No changes are proposed to the concept plan other than noting on the plan the building will cater for a wide range of community uses.

13. The most controversial proposals in the concept plan were around removing one of the greens and opening the greens up to the park. Members of the croquet club in particular requested the two greens remain and that any multiple use be undertaken in a way that protects the green’s surface. The trees that surround the greens provide shelter from the prevailing winds and it was proposed that only the trees to the east be removed to provide greater connection to the wider park. Given this strong feedback the plan has been amended to show two greens and limited connectivity to the wider park. In addition the reference to this being the village green has been changed to calling these “The greens.”

14. Respondents had varying views on the proposed enhancement of the entranceway. Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki and Piritahi Marae supported a waharoa and all asked to be involved in the design of this. This will be subject to a further development plan once funding is allocated to this and will draw on the feedback provided. A number of respondents objected to the proposal to remove the parking in association with the entrance development. However this can be replaced with further parking along Mako St and has been shown on the plan.

15. There was varying feedback on improving connections into the park and the development of the track network with people generally supporting this and commenting around the use of the park as a thoroughfare and potential to provide more of a circuit. A further track along Mako St has been added to the plan to provide this wider circuit.

16. Piritahi Marae and Ngati Paoa supported providing interpretation that references the significance of the Te Huruhi land block history.

17. Managing weed species received the highest amount of support and there was relatively high support for extending the native plantings, with a number of respondents also suggesting that consideration needed to be given to protecting views while others also suggested incorporating wild flower meadows or spring flowers into the park. The plan includes an action to develop a plant strategy and this feedback can be considered as part of this exercise.

18. While the proposal to enhance food forest plantings was supported, there was concern expressed in the feedback that guava moth could be a problem, that some species can be invasive and that the trees would need to be cared for. The action relating to the food forest / community garden potential near the entrance has been amended to state “Potential community gathering space and community garden/food forest. Located in close proximity to play area.”

19. In regard to the proposal to enhance the sculpture experience there were strong views supporting further sculptures in the park and strong views opposing them. Members of the art fraternity see the opportunity in the longer term for Alison Park to become an art hub with gallery, theatre, performing arts etc. replacing the current building plus ongoing development of the area as a sculpture park. Some respondents noted there was potential for a limited number of further sculptures along the path network; while others disliked the current sculptures or felt these could be better placed.

20. While the proposal to provide natural play elements in the park was quite well supported there were mixed views in the feedback on how this was best achieved. With the request to not open the park up along the south side, the proposed location of a play area will no longer work, so it is now proposed some play elements could be included either in the hollow below Mako St or in the area below the entrance where gathering places are proposed. The plan has been amended to show these as indicative play areas.

21. Respondents also supported the installation of exercise equipment, noting this could be for both adults and children. There were also requests for further seating and picnic facilities, which should be considered as part of any installation of play features and incorporated into the community gathering space. One respondent also suggested the park should have Smokefree signage and consideration be given to the provision of shade in the park.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

22. This Small Local Initiative Project (SLIPs) was initiated by the local board in late May 2015. An initial round of consultation was supported by the board in June with members attending the open day held on Saturday 27 June 2015. A workshop with members of the local board on 18 September 2015 discussed the feedback from the initial round of public consultation and iwi engagement and how this had informed the preparation of the draft concept plan.

23. The board endorsed the notification of the draft concept plan at their meeting on 22 October 2015 and members of the board attended the second open day held on 14 November. The feedback from this consultation was then work shopped with the board on 3 March 2016 and the draft plan has been amended to reflect that discussion.

Māori impact statement

24. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera and Te Patukirikiri were contacted about this project in June 2015. A site visit with representatives from Ngāti Paoa and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki was undertaken on 23 July 2015 and their feedback was incorporated into the draft concept plan.

25. All iwi were contacted again in early November prior to the second phase of consultation. A meeting was held with Ngai Tai in November and further follow up from the Ngati Paoa representative has been received. Their comments are included in the feedback summary and in particular were:

· Support a waharoa at the entrance and would like to be the designer for this

· Improve connectivity into and through the park - widen main path to at least 2.2m to make it comfortable to include cyclists

· Suggested use of mowing for the track down the spur and connector paths and supported retention of the open grassed areas

· Croquet should have use of two lawns as long as it does not impede the other uses, particularly markets – suggested need to undertake maintenance of the water tank

· Supportive of the building being leased to a community group

· Supportive of enhancing sculpture experience

· Supportive of natural play

· Supportive of enhancing the bush with native species, including management of weed species and crown lifting to open up views

· Don’t support rose garden as a feature in the entrance, but could be elsewhere as would bring something colourful into the park

· Support food forest but concern about maintenance of any planting

· Agreed to proposal to incorporate the traffic island into the park entrance and removing the few car parks in this area too

· Supported idea of exercise equipment.

Implementation

26. Budget required to implement the final concept plan has not yet been determined. Once the final plan has been approved a schedule of estimated costs will be developed and reported back to the local board. From this the board will be able to consider the priority projects and develop an implementation plan.

27. It is anticipated this will need to be funded over a number of years through the Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan processes and take into account the timing of renewal programmes.

28. Reference to the new concept plan has been made in the Alison Park Management Plan through the minor variation. Once the concept plan is adopted this will be placed on the council website.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alison Park Concept Plan	141
b View	Summary of feedback to the draft Alison Park Concept Plan	145

Signatories

Authors

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/04295

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Order of candidate names on voting documents	163

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

LGNZ conference and AGM 2016

File No.: CP2016/04301

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The programme also includes six Master Class sessions:

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

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

· Collaborative processes and decision-making

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

· Risk management and infrastructure.

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

Annual General Meeting

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

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

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

Costs

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

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

· Attendance at conference business sessions (Sunday-Tuesday)

· Satchel and contents

· Daily catering

· Simpson Grierson welcome cocktail function

· Fulton Hogan conference dinner and EXCELLENCE Awards function

· Closing lunch and refreshments.

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme	175

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick, Business Process Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Professional Development - Environmental Defence Society's 2016 Conference Wild Places

File No.: CP2016/02761

Purpose

1. This report informs the Waiheke Local board about the Environmental Defence Society’s (EDS) 2016 Conference ‘Wild Places’ to be held in Auckland on 9-11 August at the Viaduct Events Centre and invites the Local Board to give approval for Chairperson PA Walden to attend.

Executive Summary

2. The EDS 2016 Conference Wild Places and pre-conference workshop will be held in Auckland on 9-11 August.

3. The conference will explore New Zealand’s Wild Places and assess both emerging threats and exciting new opportunities. It will draw on insights from international and local experience, case studies and workshops. It will look creatively at the development of powerful new synergies between conservation and tourism and will explore novel management and funding initiatives.

4. The pre-conference workshop starts on Tuesday 9 August, followed by the opening of the two day conference on Wednesday 10 August including a conference dinner.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Approves Chairperson PA Walden’s attendance at the EDS 2016 Conference Wild Places and pre-conference workshop on 9-11 August 2016 at a cost of $795.65 (Exc. GST) for registration fees and the conference dinner to be funded from the FY15/16 professional development budget.

b) Notes that any additional expenditure will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

Costs

5. The Waiheke Local Board Professional Development budget for the 2015/2016 FY is $7500.

6. To date, $1778.75 has been allocated, leaving a balance of $5721.25. The registration fee for the two day conference is $647.83, the conference dinner is $73.91 and the pre-conference workshop fee is $73.91. This adds up to a total cost of $795.65 (Exc. GST).

7. After this expense there would be $4925.60 remaining in the FY 15/16 professional development budget.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

8. This is a report for the Waiheke Local Board.

Māori impact statement

9. There is no impact on Maori.

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Jessica Morris - Local Board PA/Liaison - Waiheke
Authorisers	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/04292

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Comments

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

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

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

· Knowledge through education

· Volunteer participation

· Emergency Management planning

· Business and organisational resilience

· Strong partnerships

· Response capability and capacity

· Information and communications technologies

· Build Back better

· A safe city

· Research

· Building resilient communities

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	197

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller – Manager Logistics, Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Authorisers

John Dragicevich – Civil Defence and Emergency Management Manager

Relationship Manager

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

24 March 2016

Waiheke Local Board Submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2016/04477

Purpose

1. To approve the Waiheke Local Board Submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.

Executive Summary

2. The government has invited submissions on the bill closing on March 14, 2016.

3. On Feb 14, 2016 Local Boards were sent a preliminary analysis of the bill and invited to make comments as input into the Auckland Council submission.

4. The Waiheke Local Board completed a submission which was tabled at the Auckland Development Committee Meeting on March 10, 2016 along with five other Local Board reports attached to the Auckland Council draft submission.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Notes the submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill as tabled at the Auckland Development Committee.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

5. The Local Boards informal views were captured through informal discussion and developed into a draft submission.

Māori impact statement

6. The Board will continue to engage with local Manu Whenua with regards to their ongoing development and advocacy around local planning issues.

Implementation

7. The Board’s submission will be attached to Council’s submission and submitted to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waiheke Local Board Submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill	209

Signatories

Authors	Mark Inglis - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Chairperson	Paul Walden
Deputy Chairperson	Becs Ballard
Members	Shirin Brown
	John Meeuwsen
	Beatle Treadwell

No.	Title	Page
a View	Workshop proceedings 17 February 2016	235
b View	Workshop proceedings 19 Febraury 2016	237
c View	Workshop proceedings 4 March 2016	239
d View	Workshop proceedings 8 March 2016	241

Authors	Sophie McGhee - Democracry Advisor
Authorisers	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor