Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

Members were 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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Weedfree Trust and EcoMatters Environment Trust– Employee
Greg Presland	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member · Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust - Trustee
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee
Saffron Toms	NIL
Denise Yates	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Committee member · EcoMatters Environment Trust – Trustee · Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 February 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 Update from Ward Councillors

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Piha Stream Erosion Management

File No.: CP2016/00001

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board on the revised approach to manage erosion on the banks of Piha Stream in order to provide protection to nearby council and community infrastructure.

Executive Summary

2. Piha Stream is one of the most ecologically diverse in the Auckland region and is the only stream in Auckland known to contain lamprey/piharau.

3. Erosion along an embankment of Piha Stream is threatening the security of the Piha Fire Station, the West Coast Gallery and a building owned by the Ministry of Education.

4. At their 25 September 2014 business meeting, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board approved option one in the Piha Erosion Control Report (gabions, edgesaver sock and planting of native vegetation) to manage the erosion along the stream embankment, with an associated cost estimate of $350,000.

5. During the consent process for option one, it was determined the ecological impact of the gabion baskets was too large to gain resource consent.

6. An alternative approach that provides long-term security for the buildings, whilst still maintaining the riparian and aquatic habitat, has been identified by Cardno (NZ) Ltd (Attachment B). The option consists of rock toe protection, rock or log weirs and vegetation planting.

7. The estimated cost for the alternative approach is $345,000. No budget is currently allocated to undertake detailed design, consent requirements or physical work.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Approves the use of rock toe protection, and vegetation planting in place of gabion baskets, with rock or log weirs, for the management of erosion on the embankment of Piha Stream to provide protection for the West Coast Gallery, a Ministry of Education building and the Piha Fire Station.

Comments

Background

8. The embankment of Piha Stream alongside the West Coast Gallery, a Ministry of Education building and the Piha Fire Station, has been eroding over a number of years.

9. The erosion is currently threatening the security of these buildings, in particular the West Coast Gallery, where the vertical bank-top edge of the stream is now between 5 and 7.5 metres away.

10. At their Business Meeting held on the 25^th of September 2014, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board approved option one in the Piha Erosion Control Report (gabions, edgesaver sock and planting of native vegetation) to protect council, community and private assets.

11. Option one had an estimated cost of $350,000 and of the five options initially suggested, it was the favoured option following a public drop in day at Piha.

12. Parks progressed option one through detailed design to the stage where a resource consent could be lodged.

13. During the resource consent process it was identified that the impact of the gabion baskets on the stream’s ecology would be more than minor, due and the lack of ecological benefit that gabion baskets provide in an ecologically valuable stream system.

14. The impact on the ecology of the stream meant that the gabion basket design was no longer viable option.

Piha Stream Ecology

15. Piha Stream is home to at least nine species of native fish species including:

· inanga

· banded kokopu

· short-jawed kokopu

· koaro (all whitebait species)

· red fin bully

· lamprey

· short fin eel

· torrent fish

· endemic long fin eel (tuna)

16. It is somewhat unusual for a stream to contain so many native fish species and this makes Piha Stream one of the most diverse fisheries in the Auckland region.

17. Only two other populations of short-jawed kokopu species are known to occur in the Auckland region (all are found in the Waitākere Ranges). Short-jawed kokopu like pools with large boulders, an uncommon habitat type in Auckland, but one that is abundant further upstream in Piha Stream.

18. Usually koaro and torrent fish co-exist in Piha Stream’s fast flowing sections of broken water (riffles). Neither species is common in the region, again because this habitat type is relatively scarce in Auckland.

19. Piha Stream is also the only Auckland stream known to contain lamprey/piharau.

20. At the ends of their lives lamprey move from the ocean into Piha Stream to build a nest and spawn. Lampreys nurture their fertilised eggs and amocete larvae in the nest for a full year, until they are large enough to fend for themselves. After leaving the nest, the amocete larvae spend a period concealed in streambed substrates in often low elevation stream sections before finally heading out to sea.

Ecological Impacts of gabion basket design

21. When taking into account the ecological considerations, the gabion basket design will potentially have a negative impact on freshwater ecology of Piha Stream and hence run counter to a number of provisions in the statutory framework.

22. A memo outlining the statutory framework and the potential impact of the proposed gabion basket on the aquatic and riparian habitat is included as Attachment A. The memo has been summarized below.

Auckland Council Water Sensitive Design

23. Broadly speaking the water sensitive design advocates to:

· Utilise and maintain, enhance or restore natural freshwater systems.

· Minimise hydrological changes to, and the adverse effects of land use development on, natural freshwater systems.

· Mimic natural processes and minimise the requirement for hard constructed infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff.

· Maintain, enhance or restore amenity, open space and other community and cultural values.

24. Unfortunately gabion baskets are a hard engineering approach that provides limited scope for mimicking natural riparian processes. Therefore, the effect will be to alter, rather than maintain and restore, the form and function of the stream bank.

Auckland Council District Plan

25. Relevant also are the ecological stream works provisions in the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) where they refer to natural environments: Coastal Natural Area and Riparian Margin. Policies under Part 5 of the plan are listed below.

· Policy 1.5: that activities and structures are managed in a way that avoids further clearance and damage to native vegetation along riparian margins.

· Policy 1.6: that activities and structures should be designed and carried out so that they do not impede or adversely affect the potential for the regeneration of native vegetation along riparian margins.

· Policy 1.9: that activities should be carried out in a way that avoids modification to the structure and form of watercourses, riparian margins and coastal edges. Particular regard should be had for avoiding the piping and culverting of streams and the effects of any earthworks.

26. This is significant because the gabion basket design will:

· Not avoid the clearance of native riparian vegetation.

· Likely impede the natural regenerative potential of riparian vegetation.

· Permanently disrupt the natural zonation of stream bank vegetation and riparian bank processes.

27. Furthermore, the gabion basket design will not avoid piping the small ephemeral tributary on the first bend (which would be culverted through the gabion baskets). It cannot be ruled out that inanga use this tributary and wetland complex for spawning in. Hence, there was no certainty that a culvert here would not modify the saline wedge and therefore inanga spawning success.

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

28. The relevant WRHAA objectives include:

· Protect, restore and enhance the area and its relevant heritage features.

· Manage aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values, landscape values, and amenity values.

29. The gabion basket proposal will permanently modify and diminish aquatic habitat along this stream reach (see further detail below) and will not allow aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems to be managed in a way that protects and enhances indigenous habitat values for freshwater fauna (and so runs counter to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area objectives).

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

30. The Piha Stream area has been identified as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) in the PAUP.

31. The PAUP objectives include protecting areas of significant indigenous biodiversity values from the adverse effects of development. Any adverse effects are to be avoided in the first instance, remediated where they cannot be avoided, or mitigated where they cannot be avoided or remedied.

32. The proposal does not avoid adverse effects on freshwater habitat/fauna values and the proposed amenity planting and eel hotels did not adequately mitigate for the loss of habitat/spawning ground therefore did not represent a like for like offset.

Stream Bank Protection - Alternative Approach

33. Parks West engaged Cardno (NZ) Ltd to investigate an alternative bank protection option that will still provide the long term security for the adjacent buildings, while maintaining the riparian and aquatic habitat and processes.

34. Carndo’s report is included as Attachment B. The report uses modelling and field testing to identify that there are a number of alternatives that would provide protection (equivalent to the gabion baskets) to the buildings while still minimising ecological impacts.

35. The report provides for a design concept and cost estimate for a suitable alternative to gabion baskets. The concept involves bank battering, with rock toe protection, rock or log weirs and the planting of riparian vegetation.

36. This approach has the support of Auckland Councils Biodiversity team as it still provides for the steams ecology while protecting the adjacent buildings.

Local Board views and implications

37. It was noted in the Business Meeting held on the 25^th of September 2014 that there is a desire in the community to retain the grassy area next to the West Coast Gallery to enable access to the stream if feasible. This will be incorporated into the detailed design.

38. Further public engagement has not been undertaken for the alternative approach due to the limited options available to armour this stream bank while conserving the streams ecological integrity. Key stakeholders will continue to be updated as the project progresses.

Māori impact statement

39. Iwi were invited to provide feedback in the initial stages of consultation for the Piha Stream erosion project. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngati Te Ata responded that they do not require consultation and the remaining iwi did not provide a response.

40. As mana whenua of the Piha area, Te Kawerau a Maki were asked to provide comment on the change of design. They have provided feedback in support of the revised option as it is more in line with Te Kawerau a Maki’s values in terms of a strong focus on ecological function and manipulating the environment through design.

Implementation

41. Attachment B (chapter 2.2) identifies that if no action is taken to mitigate the erosion then the stream bank will continue to erode by an annual average of 0.97m³ and 0.79m³ at the two sites analysed along the Piha Steam embankment. Therefore, it is important that the erosion management solution can be implemented in the near future in order to provide security to the adjacent buildings.

42. The estimated cost for the alternative approach is $345,000 which includes detailed design, consenting fees, project management, physical works and contingency.

43. Parks development budget was allocated to this project in 2014/15 financial year. However this was not able to be carried over into the 2015/16 financial year, meaning there is no parks budget currently allocated to this project.

44. Following the Local Boards endorsement of the new approach, Parks will implement this project as funding becomes available.

45. Funding options for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board include LDI capex funding or sponsorship funding. Should the erosion continue to a point where the structural integrity of the buildings are at an immediate risk, emergency funding would need to be utilised to implement this approach.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Memo- Proposed Streamwork Piha Stream	15
b View	Cardno Report - Bank Stability and Cost Effectiveness of Bank Protection Alternatives for Piha tream, Piha	23

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn White - Parks Advisor - Waitakere Ranges

Authorisers

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

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Memo (2 March 2015)

To: Stuart Brooke

cc: Jacinda Woolly

From: Matt Bloxham

Hi Stuart

MEMO PROPOSED STREAMWORKS PIHA STREAM

I have reviewed the ecological assessment provided with the project brief and scope and have the following comments to make regarding the streambank protection proposal for Piha Stream. It should be noted that the assessment does not constitute a full ecological assessment of affects, so much as suggestions on how the effects of the gabion wall may be mitigated to an extent.

Background

The Waitakere Local Board’s concern regarding the lateral adjustment of Piha Stream (actual and potential), subsequent streambank decay, localized slumping and anticipated accelerated erosion risk to community/council infrastructure led the Local Board to commission an investigation that would set the direction for proposed remedial works. The assessment carried out by Soil and Rock Consultants advocated for the use of gabion baskets to “prevent erosion of the Piha [true right hand] streambank in the vicinity of the West Coast Art Gallery and the Fire Station”.

The application suggests that the proposal will “achieve a long-lasting erosion solution which can also provide for in-stream ecological enhancement and planting of native vegetation into the upper part of the structure that provides a balance between stream hydraulics, stability and ecological stream function”. This submission will show that by compromising ecological stream function and not adequately providing for in-stream enhancement, this balance is unlikely to be achieved.

Ecological planning provisions

Auckland Council Water Sensitive Design

In working towards the design solution, it is vital to give effect to Auckland Council’s stated water sensitive design approaches, articulated through the PAUP and which are to be applied:

“to land use planning and development at complementary scales including region, catchment, development and site. Water sensitive design seeks to protect and enhance natural freshwater systems, sustainably manage water resources and mimic natural processes to achieve enhanced outcomes for ecosystems and our communities”0F^{^[1]}.

Broadly speaking the water sensitive design approaches advocated for include1F^{^[2]}:

1. Utilise and maintain, enhance or restore natural freshwater systems.

2. Minimise hydrological changes to, and the adverse effects of land use development on, natural freshwater systems.

3. Mimic natural processes and minimise the requirement for hard constructed infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff.

4. Maintain, enhance or restore amenity, open space and other community and cultural values.

All are relevant and applicable to this project but expressly provisions 1-3. Unfortunately by using hard engineering approaches (and not mimicking natural riparian processes), potentially altering rather than maintaining and restoring the streambank, the present proposal runs counter to water sensitive design approaches.

Auckland Council District Plan

Relevant also are the ecological stream works provisions in the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) where they refer to natural environments: Coastal Natural Area and Riparian Margin. Policies under Part 5 of the plan include:

1. (policy 1.5) That activities and structures are managed in a way that avoids further clearance and damage to native vegetation along riparian margins.

2. (policy 1.6) That activities and structures should be designed and carried out that they do not impede or adversely affect the potential for the regeneration of native vegetation along riparian margins.

3. (policy 1.9) That activities should be carried out in a way that avoids modification to the structure and form of watercourses, riparian margins and coastal edges. Particular regard should be had for avoiding the piping and culverting of streams and the effects of any earthworks.

The proposal does not avoid the clearance of native riparian vegetation but more crucially:

1. Gabion baskets impede the natural regenerative potential of riparian vegetation (and will permanently disrupt the natural zonation of streambank vegetation and riparian bank processes).

2. The proposal will effectively remove the streambank feature and will modify the structure and form of the watercourse.

3. And the proposal will not avoid piping the small ephemeral tributary on the first bend (which will be culverted through the gabion basket). While this wasn’t discussed on site, this is another area where appropriate planting could achieve long-term stabilisation without impinging on ecological function. It cannot be ruled out that inanga use this tributary and wetland complex for spawning in. Hence, there would need to be certainty that a culvert here would not modify the saline wedge and its influence on inanga spawning movements and spawning success.

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area - (which is protected under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008) (WRHAA). The WRHAA objectives relevant to this proposal include to –

(a) Protect, restore and enhance the area and its relevant heritage features.

(b) Ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting part of it…

(h) Manage aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values, landscape values, and amenity values.

The proposal will permanently modify and diminish aquatic habitat along this stream reach (see further detail below) and will not allow aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems to be managed in a way that protects and enhances indigenous habitat values for freshwater fauna (and so runs counter to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area objectives).

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) – Significant Ecological Area (SEA)

The area has been identified as an SEA (part of a much larger SEA). The PAUP objectives include protecting areas of significant indigenous biodiversity values from the adverse effects of development. Any adverse effects are to be avoided in the first instance, remediated where they cannot be avoided, or mitigated where they cannot be avoided or remedied. Any residual adverse effects that are more than minor are to be offset through restoration and enhancement actions that achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain (through like for like offsets) in indigenous biodiversity values and ecological function.

The proposal does not avoid adverse effects on freshwater habitat/fauna values and alternative less ecologically degrading options are available. The proposed amenity planting and eel hotels do not represent adequate remediation/mitigation for the loss of habitat/spawning ground and do not represent a like for like offset.

Potential impacts

AC Biodiversity’s primary concerns center on the gabion basket’s potential freshwater and riparian ecological impacts at both a meso-habitat scale and at a reach scale.

Reach scale impacts

Inanga make up anywhere between 95-99% of the whitebait catch nationally. Inanga rear and reproduce in low elevation habitat close to the coast. A reduction in low elevation wetland and lotic (running water) habitat, has led to a recent reclassification of inanga’s threat status and the species is now listed as ‘in decline’. A lack of spawning habitat in modified coastal streams is widely acknowledged as a bottleneck to the whitebait fishery.

Inanga spawn in streams and wetlands close to the saline/freshwater interface. To spawn effectively inanga require access to tidally submerged marginal (riparian) vegetation (such as provided by streambanks and wetlands). By offering a broad cross section, densely vegetated low-grade streambanks provide comparatively more spawning habitat than for example vertical bare banks such as provided by vertical gabion baskets. Where AEEs for activities in lowland reaches fail to identify and account for inanga spawning habitat, a precautionary approach should be taken that uses best practice soft engineering treatments to accommodate inanga’s spawning requirement.

Gabion baskets impacts: meso-habitat

It is possible that the submerged component of gabion baskets will provide limited refugia for aquatic invertebrates and juvenile fish life stages, and ‘eel condos’ habitat for adult eels. However, artificial refugia are best used in streams that have been extensively modified and where options for creating natural aquatic and riparian habitat have been exhausted. It is important also that the habitat provided is appropriate to and provides for the majority of resident fish species in the said reach including for the most numerically dominant native fish species. Inanga are generally the most common galaxiid species in low elevation wetlands and stream sections and Piha Stream is unlikely to be an exception (schools of inanga were seen on the day of our visit).

In freshwater ecosystems, the interface between freshwater and dryland is one of the most productive for aquatic life. This is particularly so for lowland freshwater ecosystems, such as the Piha Stream site, where upland treed canopy cover (and the shade it provides) becomes progressively less important with downstream movement than herbaceous trailing edge and submerged plant cover. Fish assemblage structure (i.e. taxonomic composition and relative abundance patterns) is strongly related to habitat structure (Bunn et. al. 2002) and abiotic and biotic variables (Dedual et. al. 2011).

The habitat requirements of individual fish species can be broadly broken up into habitat guilds. Several studies conducted in natural streams under experimental conditions suggest that fish do not select habitat independently of flow (Dedual et. al 2011). Small-bodied native fish aggregate more around specific habitat types, which for pelagic species such as inanga tends to be vegetative cover, primarily overhanging vegetation but also macrophtye beds (Richardson et. al. 2002).

In one inanga study, the removal of trailing edge plant cover and woody debris from the study site resulted in a significant reduction in fish biomass. As well as providing overhead cover, bank vegetation was found to protect habitat structure for inanga. Once bank vegetation and woody debris were removed, the pool habitat that inanga showed a strong preference for was replaced with higher velocity run habitat, which resulted in inanga vacating this reach (Richardson 2002). Homogenizing bank habitat, by for example creating a continuous gabion wall, can also lead to oversimplification of in-channel habitat.

Compared with other bank stabilsation methods, gabion baskets reduce the extent of productive vegetated edge habitat critical to some lowland fish species as the dominant vertical elements in gabion baskets exist in an unvegetated state. While gabion baskets may, as suggested above, provide habitat for short fin eels, there limited capacity to support vegetation will create sub-optimal habitat for species such as inanga. And because natural succession cannot be guaranteed to occur on the gabion baskets’ limited horizontal surfaces, any vegetation planted here may have a limited life-span.

The extent of vegetative cover in the bank cross section is even more critical in reaches affected by tidal influence (such as this site) as the varial zone elongates vertically as banks are exposed during outgoing tides. In brackish environments, constant wetting and drying of vertical lower bank sections often prevents vegetation from establishing here. However, in natural lowland systems, low bank angles and trailing edge vegetation provides cover at all but the lowest tidal sequences.

By introducing an artificially enlarged and unproductive varial zone, the proposed gabion baskets will lead to more frequent and pronounced dissociation of edge flow/trailing edge habitat. The concern also is that by potentially deflecting erosive flows, the reach will be further compromised for inanga given that bank decay and over-steepening of the true left bank may occur (pers. comm. Yasenko Krpo2F^{^[3]}).

The design life of gabion baskets may, as the application states, be as short as 25-50 years. The life of gabion baskets placed in coastal environments is likely to be at the lower end of this scale. It is for this reason that the Stormwater Unit is removing gabion baskets from a number of the schemes it controls (pers. comm. Richard Challis3F^{^[4]}). Once compromised, gabion baskets have to be removed outright and replaced.

Preferred approaches for avoiding alteration to Piha Stream

Resituate building(s)

Morphologic adjustments are part of a streams natural process and the council GIS aerial images show the original parcel boundary describes a very different course from the present stream path.

Council and Ministry of Education and Auckland Council buildings impinge on Piha Stream’s floodplain.

A more sustainable approach discussed at the meeting was to resituate the art gallery further away from the stream (and if necessary on nearby park land)4F^{^[5]}. However, Local and Sports park staff explained that the Parks Management Plan (PMP) lacked the flexibility to accommodate such changes. Further discussion with parks staff has confirmed that this interpretation may be incorrect. The suggestion is that PMPs have to remain relevant and this may mean they have to change (pers. comm. Neil Olsen). In the interests of preserving waterways of high natural character, such as Piha Stream, the preference is that at-risk buildings should be relocated if this is at all possible.

Other stream stabilization options

Biodiversity takes issue with the suggestion5F^{^[6]} that because gabion baskets are present elsewhere in the stream, further placement of gabion baskets in Piha Stream is warranted because doing so would not be introducing a new and incompatible element. Such logic generally results in previous rounds of streambed and streambank modification being used to justify ever more extreme bank and streambed armoring treatments.

Fully evaluating alternative options runs central to the consent process and is no less important in this instance given that:

· Contrary to the advice received by the Local Board, installation of gabion baskets in this lowland reach will result in adverse ecological and visual effects (the visual impact of the gabion basket will be to domesticate the true right bank).

· Sufficient consideration of alternatives has not occurred.

While Soil and Rock Consultant’s project scope report does not refer to other options, the application does. Variously these include easing bank angles (on over steepened bank sections), installing riprap, streambank planting and incorporating high flow bypasses into the design. The application indicates however that none of these options were investigated exhaustively and that information on alternative methods was not required because the proposal will have no significant adverse effects.

The Biodiversity Team sees significant advantage in thoroughly exhausting all possible soft engineering options because in almost every respect, these provide substantially greater opportunity than gabion baskets for simulating riparian streambank and aquatic habitat and ecological processes.

If streambank stabilization is deemed necessary some of the options the Biodiversity Team would like to see investigated further include pulling back the bank and armouring the bank toe at the upstream bend. There is sufficient space to pull back the bank on the uppermost bend without compromising the Ministry of education building. If armoring the toe is desirable, rock placed at the toe should be 600mm or greater in size and installed so it is partially buried below streambed level (pers. comm. Yasenko Krpo). Hardening the toe, easing streambank angles and planting exposed sections presents much greater opportunity to integrate bank protection measures with the natural stream-scape and mimic natural riparian processes.

If it is desirable from an engineering standpoint to extend the revetment up the bank, it is vital that the whole cross section is not armoured as this just puts excessive load on the toe (pers. comm. Andrew Simon6F^{^[7]}). Either way the revetment used should be one that provides habitat and support riparian vegetation and riparian successional processes. For example, rock rip rap used in low elevation reaches will impact inanga unless revegetated successfully. A method is available and can be provided for rehabilitating rock rip rap with vegetation. This method provides significantly more potential for vegetating the whole streambank profile and ensuring trailing edge cover for fish (including potentially spawning vegetation for inanga) and aquatic invertebrates over most (if not all of) the tidal sequence.

Creating a wider channel cross section by pulling back the bank could also reduce the erosive energy of floodwaters downstream by increasing the channel capacity (pers. comm. Yasenko Krpo).

Relaxing the batter and armouring the bank toe could be done in combination with installing pressure vains (rock groynes) to deflect and centralize flows and a high flow path at the base of the oxbow (such as shown below). The high flow bypass would only take flows in large events so that the oxbow would continue to function during normal flows. If necessary, the excavated high flow by pass could be deepened slightly and partially back filled with sand to act as a low-resistance plug/fuse that would yield during extreme flood effects (pers. comm. Yasenko Krpo).

oxebow image for eainz presentation

Figure 1: Rather than excising oxbows completely, In Oropi (Western Bay of Plenty) a shallow swale was created providing overflow path during times of flood. This provided a solution to erosion issues occurring around the bridge abutments and allowed the oxbow to be retained.

The Biodiversity Team looks forward to exploring these options more with the Local board and Local and Sport Parks.

Kind regards

Matt Bloxham

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Changes to the West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Subsidy Scheme

File No.: CP2016/03280

Purpose

1. To seek approval and changes from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for the West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy, being delivered in 2015/2016 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. The lagoons on the west coast of Auckland at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga (Bethells) often test unsafe for swimming due to faecal contamination. This is a problem for residents and visitors who often swim in the lagoons.

3. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board have identified improving water quality in the west coast lagoons as an aspiration in their 2014 Local Board Plan.

4. To achieve this aspiration the board resolved on 14 May 2015 (Resolution WTK/2015/1) to:

Approve a ‘West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy’ scheme with a total budget of $50,000 to be delivered in the 2015/2016 financial year, meaning that any eligible home owner living in the catchments of the Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga (Bethells) lagoons and wishing to upgrade their septic tank could apply for a subsidy of up to $2,500 from 1 July 2015 onwards.’

5. To date there has been uptake of only one subsidy.

6. A workshop was held with the board on 25 February 2016, to inform board members that the scheme was tracking towards having lower uptake than anticipated. As a result of this workshop it is recommended that the board approve the following changes to the ‘West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy’ scheme:

· Increase the subsidy that is available from $2,500 to $5,000 and make this subsidy only available until 30 April 2016.

· Fund three septic tank management workshops with a total budget of $7,500

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Approves the following changes to the ‘West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy’ scheme:

· Increase the subsidy that is available from $2,500 to $5,000 and make this subsidy only available until 30 April 2016.

· Fund three septic tank management workshops up to a budget of $7,500

b) Approves that the one applicant who has received the subsidy to date, is paid $2,500 to reflect these changes to the subsidy.

Comments

7. The lagoons at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga are often not safe to swim in because of faecal contamination. This is of particular concern because they are perceived as safe places for children to swim and play. Council research suggests that the contamination comes from a range of sources, including poorly performing septic systems, dogs, birds and livestock.

8. To make the lagoons safe for swimming and to avoid affecting local tourism, it is critical that residents and visitors reduce the contamination that they are causing. A comprehensive education programme is required, alongside incentives for people to take affirmative action, such as improving their septic system.

9. At a regional level Auckland Council has developed an action plan to improve the water quality at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga lagoons. The plan will include a wide range of actions, from incentives to enforcement, and will focus on a number of sources of pollution.

10. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has also identified ‘improving water quality in the west coast lagoons, by working with local communities’ as a priority in their Local Board Plan.

11. To achieve this outcome the board approved a ‘West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy’ scheme with a total budget of $50,000 to be delivered in the 2015/2016 financial year, meaning that any eligible home owner living in the catchments of the Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga (Bethells) lagoons and wishing to upgrade their septic tank could apply for a subsidy of up to $2,500 from 1 July 2015 onwards.

12. The board has also committed $50,000 for the next financial year 2016/2017 in their draft local board budget for this project.

13. To date only one subsidy has been paid out, one further application was withdrawn and no more applications have been received. Several homeowners have expressed an interest in the subsidy and five eligible homeowners have received notices from council that they must replace their systems due to major faults. Even with this level of interest and other promotion both planned and underway, it is likely that the full subsidy allocation of $50,000 will not be spent.

14. Anecdotally, the most likely reason for the low level of uptake is that the subsidy is not sufficient to incentivise the significant investment required in replacing a septic system.

15. A workshop was held with the board on 25 February 2016, to inform board members that the scheme was tracking towards having lower uptake than anticipated. To address this low uptake, two changes are proposed to the board with the remaining 2015/2016 budget: an increase in the West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy scheme from $2,500 to $5,000 and to fund three septic tank management workshops. These projects are described in more detail below.

West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy scheme – budget up to $42,500, 2015/2016 financial year

16. It is recommended that the board increase the subsidy for the West Coast Lagoons Septic Tank Upgrade Subsidy scheme from $2,500 to $5,000.

17. The subsidy would be funded by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for a total value of up to $40,000 until 30 April 2016.

18. The subsidy scheme would be open to all applicants living in the target area and it would reimburse applicants for part of the cost of replacing their existing primary treatment septic tank (i.e. old technology) once they had been granted building consent for an improved system.

19. For the one applicant who has received the subsidy, it is recommended that they are paid $2,500 to reflect these recommended changes to the subsidy.

Septic tank management workshops – budget $7,500, 2015/2016 financial year

20. It is recommended that the board fund three septic tank workshops to help homeowners to understand the importance of having a properly functioning on-site wastewater system and how best to achieve that through upgrades, maintenance and good management.

21. The workshops would be held at Bethells, Piha and at another location more readily accessible to those who may not live full-time in the target areas, such as at Titirangi. It is proposed that the workshops would be hosted by EcoMatters Environment Trust, a wastewater engineer and any other relevant council staff or industry representatives. An incentive would be provided to encourage people to attend the workshops.

Next steps and risks

22. If the board approves these two changes, the increase in the subsidy would begin immediately. The subsidy scheme will be open for applications until 30 April 2016.

23. If the changes to the scheme prove successful then there is potential for it to be extended and offered to the public in the 2016/2017 financial year as well.

24. If the uptake of this subsidy continues to be low and the subsidy allocation of $40,000 is not spent by the 30 April 2016, Infrastructure and Environmental Services will not have the capacity to deliver a new project for the local board within the 2015/2016 financial year with the outstanding funds. If the budget is not completely expended, the local board may wish to:

· Reallocate the outstanding funds to an existing project already being delivered through the board’s locally driven initiatives budget 2015/2016

· Reallocate the outstanding funds to the Local Board’s community grants programme

· Acknowledge that this budget will be underspent as a result of the low uptake

25. Board members will be kept updated about this, through the environmental portfolio and regular update reports.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

26. This report puts forward two changes to an existing project for the local board to consider for approval. As described above, these changes have been developed based on feedback from board members and give effect to outcomes identified in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan.

Māori impact statement

27. It is recognised that improving the health and mauri of waterways is of key importance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment. Te Kawerau a Maki and other iwi have regularly expressed the importance they place on healthy waterways and, in particular, the need to prevent them being contaminated with human waste.

28. Te Kawerau a Maki are represented on the steering group for the west coast lagoons project and have endorsed the draft action plan to clean up the lagoons, which includes this subsidy proposed by the board.

Implementation

29. If approved the subsidy will only be available until the 30 April 2016. This is to ensure that the Local Board will have sufficient time to decide how they wish to spend or reallocate the remaining budget before the end of the 2015/2016 financial year if uptake of the subsidy continues to be low.

30. The septic tank subsidy scheme will be administered within existing council resources, through the regional environmental funding and incentives team.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Foster - Relationship Advisor

Phil Brown - Land and Water Advisory Team Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Approval for ballot purposes of the proposed expansion area of Glen Eden Business Improvement District

File No.: CP2016/02640

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the expansion area of the Glen Eden Village Business Improvement District

Executive Summary

2. Glen Eden Village Business Association (GEVBA) Business Improvement District (BID) currently has a targeted rates budget of $45,000 to serve commercial properties along a part of West Coast Road and those surrounding Glen Mall. This amount has not increased since the BID was formed in 2009.

3. The BID is interested in expanding their boundaries to provide services to additional adjacent commercial properties, and increase their budget. This increase would make services more efficient by serving a larger area.

4. An expanded BID area would raise approximately $83,000 in total targeted rates.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Approves for ballot purposes the proposed expanded Glen Eden Village Business Improvement District area as indicated on the attached map (Attachment B).

Comments

5. The GEVBA Business Improvement District (BID) was established in July 2009. Since then there has been no expansion in area and no increase in their targeted rate revenue of $45,000.

6. In the ensuing years, costs of programmes have gone up, and issues in Glen Eden have become more complex. An increase in the targeted rates budget through expansion would allow the BID to provide better service to the area’s businesses without raising targeted rates, and provide more effective security enhancements for a wider area than can be served now.

7. At their Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 13 October 2014 the Glen Eden Business Association approved a special resolution to investigate expansion of their BID.

8. At their AGM of 21 September 2015 GEVBA approved two alternative budgets, one in the event that expansion was successful, the other in case the expansion did not take place.

9. GEVBA’s current budget from BID targeted rates is $45,000. If expansion is successful the targeted rates budget would increase to approximately $83,000, depending on capital values of business properties at the time the expanded district is operative (planned for 1 July 2016).

10. The rate on the dollar for the expansion area will be the same at the rate for the existing area, which will not change.

11. At its meeting of 11 June 2015 Waitakere Ranges Local Board approved an allocation of $10,000 to GEVBA for costs associated with the proposed expansion. (Resolution WTK/2015/105)

12. A map showing the existing Glen Eden BID and the expansion area has been prepared. It is drawn to include commercially-rated properties adjacent to the current BID area. The expanded area will allow services to be provided to more members without a proportionate increase in cost. The map is included in this report as Attachment B.

13. Glen Eden BID executive committee and town centre manager have engaged businesses in the expansion area through direct meetings and newsletters. This gauges interest in expanding the BID to include their property and determine their primary concerns about doing business in Glen Eden. (Attachment A lays out the timeline of actions through the expansion process.)

14. This engagement process will continue until the end of the balloting period.

15. Following this engagement, the Glen Eden BID executive committee will propose a programme of services that meets the expressed needs of the businesses in the expansion area as well as those of current members.

16. Council officers have been working with GEVBA staff to assure compliance with council BID policy and provide technical assistance.

17. A ballot of businesses and property owners will take place in late March/early April of this year. The results of the ballot will be available immediately but a formal report will be made to the local board, tentatively at their 12 May 2016 meeting.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. Auckland Council officers have briefed the Waitakere Ranges Local Board economic development portfolio holder on the BID expansion process, and discussed alternatives to reduce cost and complexity of the process.

19. Waitakere Ranges Local Board allocated a $10,000 grant to GEVBA at their business meeting held on Thursday, 11^th June to support the business association to expand the current BID area. (Resolution WTK/2015/105)

20. With a successful ballot, council officers will recommend that the local board approve the expansion, and extension of the BID targeted rate to the properties in the expansion area.

21. The local board will make its recommendation to the Governing Body which will strike the targeted rate and the expanded BID will become operational 1 July 2016.

22. In the event of a failed ballot, the process will end.

Māori impact statement

23. Maori businesses are being consulted in the same manner as other businesses in the area. Maori businesses will benefit to the same degree as other businesses if the expansion is successful, which will therefore contribute to Maori well-being.

Implementation

24. The Glen Eden Business Association is proceeding with the consultation process to determine support for expansion. If there is evidence of sufficient support, a formal ballot will be held.

25. Council’s BID policy requires three public meetings before the balloting begins. These are scheduled for March 2016.

26. The ballot will be completed mid- to late-April and the local board notified of the outcome.

27. The local board will be asked to approve the expansion, and recommend that the expansion be confirmed by the Governing Body.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Actions Leading to Glen Eden Business Improvement District Expansion	99
b View	Proposed expanded Glen Eden Village Business Improvement District area	101

Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Gillian Plume - Team Leader BID Partnership

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Attachment A:

Actions leading to Glen Eden Business Improvement District Expansion

Date

Action

Purpose

Notes

October 2014	Glen Eden Business Association passes special resolution at their Annual General Meeting.	Approves expansion of the BID and the general boundary. Target July 2016 for expansion to be operative.	Exact boundary to be finalised during consultation.
11 June 2015	Waitakere Ranges Local Board allocated $10,000 to the Glen Eden Business Association.	Costs to be incurred for the expansion process.	Resolution WTK/ 2015/105
October/ November 2015	Initial contact with property owners. Contact is on-going.	To advise of proposed expansion and begin to develop database of property owners and businesses.	Database is used for mailing ballots.
October/ November 2015	Initial contact with business tenants. Contact is on-going.	To advise of proposed expansion and begin to develop database of property owners and businesses.
January 2016	Follow-up letters to property owners. Confirm public meeting dates.	Notify of public meetings, and request current contact information.
January/ February 2016	Personal contact with all businesses and available property owners.	Understand concerns of business community, determine possible programmes, and provide information about the expansion.
February 2016	Public meeting dates advertised in Glen Eden Village Voice and Western Leader	As required by council BID policy.
February - April	Promotional campaign by the BID	Encourage support and voting
9 March 2016	First public meeting at 5:30, Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office.	First of three public meetings as required by council BID policy.
17 March 2016	Second public meeting, drop-in format. 10:00 to 12:00 pm, and 4:00 to 6:00 pm, Safety Hub.	Second public meeting.	Helps people with different schedules to get information.
22 March 2016	Final public meeting before ballot, at 5:30, Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office.	Third of three public meetings.
30 March to 20 April	Balloting	Independent Election Services, Inc. compiles votes and reports final result.	Balloting is confidential.
12 May ? Second Thursday?	Waitakere Ranges Local Board Meeting	Formally report results of ballot and ask for approval of BID formation if ballot passes. If ballot fails, process ends.	Local Board passes on recommendation to Governing Body to expand Glen Eden targeted rate area.
1 July 2016	If approved, expanded BID becomes operational.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Community Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02192

Purpose

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

2. This report also requests that Waitakere Ranges Local Board delegate to 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 Waitakere Ranges Local Board will have a decision making role in relation to funding of projects or where projects are to be located on land or in a facility that the local board is the land owner or has delegated decision making.

Executive Summary

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

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, as such at least 80% of the funding or resources need to come from the community with no more than 20% from rate payer sources, for example, local boards LDI Capex or business improvement districts.

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 Waitakere Ranges 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 Waitakere Ranges 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 $250k or less (including valuing in-kind contributions but not including consent fees)

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

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

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

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the update report on the Community Led Small Build programme

b) Delegates to a member(s) to provide the Local Board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

Comments

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

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

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

· straight forward and standalone projects

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

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

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

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

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 $250k 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

· Ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council

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

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. 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.

21. 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.

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

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

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

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

· Potentially providing up to 20% funding

· Providing input into the assessment of new applications

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

· Launch activities and supporting ongoing use of the asset

25. Local board input is important to ensure that the right community initiatives are supported. In particular the Waitakere Ranges 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 Waitakere Ranges Board Plan. The capacity of the community group to deliver the project is also a factor that local board input may be asked for.

26. A delegation is requested from the Waitakere Ranges 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.

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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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 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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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 Partnerships

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/02168

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

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

b) Delegates to the chair and member(s) to provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) before the feedback deadline of 31 March 2016.

Comments

BID programmes

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

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

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

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

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

BID Policy (2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation to date

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

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

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

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

Differences between BID Policy 2011 and 2016 and feedback received

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

Key themes for change, feedback received and draft policy response

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

Local board feedback on BID Policy (2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1	115
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2	157

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03454

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

(i) alphabetical order of surname

(ii) pseudo-random order

(iii) random order.

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

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

(choose one only)

EITHER: alphabetical order of surname

OR: pseudo-random order

OR: random order.

Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

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

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

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

(b) all voting documents use that order

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

2013 elections

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

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

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

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

Options for 2016

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

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

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

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

· impact on vote share. (Did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected)?

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local government elections - order of names on voting documents attachment	255

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2016/03031

Purpose

1. To present to the board with a governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for your board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Notes the attached updated Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Comments

5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

· Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

· Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Governance Forward Work Programme Calendar March 2016	265

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 March 2016

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Submission on the Proposed New Marine Protected Areas Consultation Document

February 2016

This submission is in response to the open invitation from the Ministry for the Environment to comment on the proposed Marine Protected Areas Act.

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board (‘the local board’) wishes to provide the following information and comment with respect to the consultation.

1. We support the need to amend the Marine Reserves Act 1971. The current legislation is too restrictive in only allowing marine reserves for scientific purposes; we welcome the possibility to create marine reserves for the purpose of protecting and restoring biodiversity.

2. We support the need for a new approach to marine protection given the failure of current legislative frameworks to protect New Zealand’s marine environments and that current legislative provisions are somewhat limited e.g. under current legislation marine reserves can only be established for the purpose of scientific study.

3. We do not support the proposed objectives of the new Act as drafted. We believe that where environmental protection is in conflict with economic growth objectives, environmental outcomes should take precedence (see objective 2 p.15 of the consultation document). It is imperative that there is a wider set of objectives specifically around environment, water quality and sedimentation. We support a marine protection regime that protects eco-systems and species for their intrinsic value first and foremost.

4. We support legislation that can deliver a meaningful network of representative no-take Marine Reserves (fully protected areas). We particularly need more, and larger, no-take reserves in our coastal waters close to population centres where pollution and fishing pressure have seriously degraded the marine ecosystems.

5. This legislation should be applied to the whole of New Zealand's marine environment including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Extended Continental Shelf. The proposed scope is a major weakness and the 2 mile limit is not a natural boundary for the protection of marine biodiversity and habitat. Marine life does not recognise these boundaries. Our territorial sea constitutes only 4% of our seas, with much of our marine biodiversity contained in the Exclusive Economic Zone.

6. A resilient economy requires a vigorous, healthy environment. Therefore it is important that areas for consideration for long term protection of the marine environment should not be constrained by petroleum or mineral mining, or other economic interests. In addition, no-take Marine Reserves provide significant opportunities for sustainable business ventures in underwater tourism and eco-tourism.

7. The approach is heavily skewed to favour the interests of the fishing sector at the expense of a sustainable approach to maximising environmental protection.

8. We do not support including Recreational Fishing Parks in this legislation as they have no known conservation value and do not protect or enhance biodiversity. Tools for the sustainable management of fisheries are already available in the Fisheries Act.

9. If Recreational fishing parks are to be included in the legislation they must include a representative network of no-take Marine Reserves within them a) to give them conservation value and b) to enhance the recreational opportunities for snorkellers, divers etc.

10. If Recreational fishing parks are to be included in the legislation we do not support the proposed compensation scheme for commercial fishing affected by the creation of said recreational fishing parks.

11. If Recreational fishing parks are to be included in the legislation we do not support continued commercial fishing for some species within those parks due to potential impact on entire ecosystems.

12. We fully support all existing no-take marine reserves being transitioned, with all their current protections, to the new legislation. Protections should only be increased, and consideration should be given to whether their current boundaries are adequate. For example, there is recent evidence that some species are reducing within the Goat Island marine reserve because of overfishing at the boundaries.

13. We support the inclusion of a Treaty clause in the Act.

14. We support the creation of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary as a Marine Reserve within the proposed MPA legislation.

15. The board does not support the proposed fishing park in the Hauraki Gulf, since recreational fishing is a significant contributor to the continued decline of fish species in the Gulf. Furthermore the document is not clear about whether new “no-take” marine reserves can be developed within a recreational fishing park. The Hauraki Gulf needs more ‘no-take’ areas to be established.

16. Before considering areas for fishing and mineral extraction we should know more about them, so we applaud the Government’s commitment of $31.3 million over 5 years to the Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge.

17. Enquiry process:

Ø We support the board of enquiry process as it is evidence-based, and do not support the collaborative process. An enquiry process depoliticises the approach and provides a clear pathway for the public in general to understand the process and submit on what happens. Some elements however, need careful consideration. It must be clear that board members are objective, with specialist evidence-based skills and experience, rather than being drawn from established interests. A pool of people with relevant skills and experience should be available for Ministers to pick from.

Ø The lead Minister for considering proposals should always be the Minister of Conservation or the Minister for the Environment, rather than the Minister for Primary Industries.

Ø We also note that there is no information regarding rights of appeal or challenge to decision-making. It is also not explicit whether anyone can make a proposal, which should be the case.

Ø We support identifying a clear trigger a trigger for a review to happen, and do not support the collaborative approach as outlined for the review process.

Ø The frequency of reviews should be built in. Where there is a likelihood of adverse environmental effect they should happen more often.

18. The principal of restoration, – for example ‘fallow’ fields, or ‘quarantine’ to allow areas to recover and be restored should be pursued in making changes to the Act. This is the idea that things change and that areas could be pulled out of use for a period of time to allow them to recover to an acceptable standard.

19. Local authorities should be recognised as stakeholders who should be involved in the development of networks of NMPAs.

20. Marine and coastal areas protected in council RMA plans, for example the significant ecological areas (coastal) in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, should be covered by the MPA Act, so there is the ability to align MPAs and council planning instruments.

21. Given the robust body of scientific data for the Hauraki Gulf and strong support from Gulf stakeholders, the board strongly recommends that the Act makes provision for the continuation of local efforts to establish a network of MPAs in the Hauraki Gulf and the wider Auckand region, as per recommended by Waiheke Local Board. We understand that Waiheke Local Board wishes to carry out research on public opinion regarding establishment of marine protected areas, and ‘no take’ reserves in particular, around and between the islands in the Auckland region, and particularly of areas bordering the gulf. We fully support this.

22. We additionally note that the lack of detail on the implementation of proposals makes it difficult to respond to some points, and more should have been included. Some proposals lack an evidence base to establish what the outcome of actions would be.

[1]^-2 Taken from the Proposed Unitary Plan Part 4 – Definitions.

[3] Yasenko Krpo works as a senior engineer in the Stormwater Unit’s Principal-Commercial Management and Partnerships team.

[4] Richard Challis works as a senior stormwater specialist in Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit.

[5] An Auckland Council river engineer who attended the meeting suggested neither the fire station nor the Ministry of Education building were at any risk from bank failure and the art gallery was in no immediate risk.

[7] Andrew Simon works as a fluvial-geomorphologist for Cardno ENTRIX.

Chairperson	Sandra Coney, QSO
Deputy Chairperson	Denise Yates, JP
Members	Neil Henderson
	Greg Presland
	Steve Tollestrup
	Saffron Toms

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau