I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9.30am Upper Harbour
Local Board Office |
Upper Harbour Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Lisa Whyte |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Brian Neeson, JP |
|
Members |
Callum Blair |
|
|
John McLean |
|
|
Margaret Miles, JP |
|
|
Christine Rankin-MacIntyre |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Neda Durdevic Democracy Advisor
6 April 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 486 8593 Email: neda.durdevic@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
|
Portfolio Activity |
Responsibilities |
Board Lead/s and Alternate |
1 |
Governance |
· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan |
Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
|
2 |
Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management . |
· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery |
Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only) |
3 |
Events / Arts and Culture
|
· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy |
Margaret Miles |
4 |
Community and social well-being / Local Facilities
|
· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management |
Callum
Blair
|
|
Portfolio Activity |
Responsibilities |
Board Lead/s and Alternate |
5 |
Libraries |
· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library |
Christine Rankin-MacIntyre |
6 |
Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)
|
· Stewardship of sports parks · Stewardship of recreation facilities · Relationship with sports clubs · Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline) · Design and maintenance · Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways · Skateparks · Track Network development |
Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte |
7 |
Town Centres |
· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage |
Margaret
Miles |
8 |
Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development
|
· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · 2nd harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan |
John McLean |
9 |
Natural Environment . |
· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security |
John McLean |
10 |
Economic Development / Financial oversight
|
· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy |
Lisa
Whyte |
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
1 Welcome 7
2 Apologies 7
3 Declaration of Interest 7
4 Confirmation of Minutes 7
5 Leave of Absence 7
6 Acknowledgements 7
7 Petitions 7
8 Deputations 8
8.1 The Cancer Society - Smokefree Policy 8
8.2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission 8
9 Public Forum 9
10 Extraordinary Business 9
11 Notices of Motion 9
12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 11
13 Auckland Transport update - April 2016 23
14 New Road Name Approval For Subdivision at 143 Albany Highway,
Albany
Council Subdivision File Ref SA-3023771 31
15 New Road Name Approval for 79 and 95 Gills Road, Albany
Council Subdivision File Ref SA-3023194 37
16 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 45
17 Board Members' Reports 49
18 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub 51
19 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool 53
20 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
21 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 55
16 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
a. 3 Hobson Heights, Lucas Heights 55
b. 25B Churchouse Road, Greenhithe 55
1 Welcome
2 Apologies
An apology from Member Margaret Miles has been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:
i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and
ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.
Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 22 March 2016, as a true and correct record.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
8 Deputations
Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
Purpose 1. The purpose of this item is for the Cancer Society to present evidence and findings to the Upper Harbour Local Board, which may help form feedback on the Smokefree Policy review. Executive Summary 2. Camilla Gould from the Cancer Society will be in attendance to present evidence and findings that may assist the Upper Harbour Local Board in providing feedback on the Smokefree Policy review. 3. A toolkit will be shared with the board on how and when to include the smokefree clause in licenses, leases, contracts, grants and agreements as part of the local board role in helping to strengthen the smokefree policy, and ensure effective implementation.
|
Recommendation/s That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the presentation from Camilla Gould from the Cancer Society and thank her for her attendance.
|
Purpose 1. The purpose of this item is to present the Walking Access Commission to the Upper Harbour Local Board. Executive Summary 2. Margaret Horsburgh from the Walking Access Commission will be in attendance to introduce herself, and discuss the role of the Walking Access Commission and where it may be able to add value to developments in Auckland.
|
Recommendation/s That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the presentation from Margaret Horsburgh from the Walking Access Commission and thank them her for her attendance.
|
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.
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 22 March 2016
File No.: CP2016/04586
Purpose
The open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Tuesday, 22 March 2016, are attached at item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 are attached at item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only, and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
22032016 Upper Harbour Local Board unconfirmed minutes |
2 |
Signatories
Authors |
Neda Durdevic - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
12 April 2016 |
|
Auckland Transport update - April 2016
File No.: CP2016/05246
Purpose
1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters, and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport activities in the local board area.
Executive Summary
2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community. Matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community are also included in the report.
3. In particular, this report provides an update on:
· Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects;
· consultation documents on proposed safety improvements;
· Upper Harbour Local Board requests on transport-related matters; and
· media.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Transport update – April 2016.
|
Comments
Monthly overview
4. Auckland Transport attended a meeting on 8 March with staff from council’s Parks department to talk through the issues around parking restrictions in and around Kell Park, Albany.
5. Auckland Transport also attended a workshop on the 15 March seeking feedback from the board on Transport Future Urban Growth.
6. Auckland Transport attended a site meeting with the Upper Harbour Local Board transport portfolio holder and ward councillors to talk to the Greenhithe Residents Association about the issues of congestion at the Upper Harbour Drive and Albany Highway intersection.
Local Board Transport Capital Fund
7. In 2015, the Upper Harbour Local Board provided several potential Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.
8. The table below outlines an update of progress on the board’s current projects:
ID# |
Project description |
Progress/Current status |
480 |
Gills Road Pedestrian Bridge |
Auckland Transport will contribute $550,000 towards the design, consenting and construction of the footpath and the boardwalk. The board has previously allocated $250,000 towards the construction of the footbridge. However, it is estimated that the construction and consenting is likely to be in the region of $300,000 for the footbridge. The Upper Harbour Local Board made a decision to allocate a further $50,000 to the construction of the footbridge, at the 22 March board meeting. |
026 |
Tauhinu Road Upgrade kerb and channel |
Has now been completed and the board has a saving of $110,000. |
460 |
Kyle/Pitoitoi Pedestrian Safety |
Has now been completed and the board has a saving of $5,000. |
9. The following table summarises the Upper Harbour Local Board’s current allocation and spending of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Some of the figures will change slightly as final costs come in, but the board has approximately $60,000 of its 2012 - 2016 budget (4 years) left to allocate, before the end of the term:
Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) Financial Summary |
|||
Total Funds Available in current political term (four years including 2012-13) |
$ 1,348,264 |
|
|
Spent to date on completed projects |
$ 987,831 |
|
|
Committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction |
$ 300,000 |
0% |
Percentage of these commitments spent to date. |
Total budget left that needs to be allocated to new projects and spent by the end of the current political term. |
$ 60,433 |
The current four year budget is not fully committed. More projects need to be approved. |
|
Total of projects assessed to a Rough Order of Cost stage but not approved by the board. |
|
||
Funds
available from the next political term |
$ 337,066 |
This is the full 2016-17 Upper Harbour LBTCF budget. |
Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements
10. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for its feedback. As the board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.
Apollo Drive and Orbit Drive Intersection – Pedestrian Crossings Facilities
11. Auckland Transport is implementing a Safer Communities Programme in the area surrounding Murrays Bay Intermediate, which includes Apollo Drive.
12. Auckland Transport’s Safer Communities Programme is intended to provide safety and accessibility for all road users. This programme’s objective directly aligns with Auckland Council’s vision of making Auckland one of the world’s most livable cities. The focus of the programme is now aimed to reach out to wider communities.
13. Auckland Transport sought feedback from the local board on a proposal to install new pedestrian crossing facilities at the Apollo Drive and Orbit Drive intersection. The board, through the transport portfolio holders, raised questions around the need to install two pedestrian crossing facilities and the loss of carparks.
Albany Highway North Upgrade update
14. Fulton Hogan Limited has been awarded the contract to deliver the upgrade, which covers a 3.8km stretch of highway from the Schnapper Rock Road/Bush Road intersection in the south, to the Albany Expressway in the north. The work is expected to take up to two and a half years to complete. The highway will more than double current capacity, with a new transit lane in each direction, on and off-road cycle routes and wider footpaths, a new bridge over the Oteha Stream and the replacement of three major roundabouts with signalised intersections.
15. The plan is to:
· complete all major works between Bush Road and Rosedale Road in early March 2016;
· complete all main drainage lines for the project in early March 2016;
· re-open Schnapper Rock Road north in its final configuration in late March 2016; and
· install the new Days Bridge beam sections in early April 2016.
16. Night works will include road repairs and line marking as required.
Attwood Road, Chatham Avenue - central road markings
17. A request has been received through the board from the Paremoremo Ratepayers and Residents Association, for Auckland Transport to investigate installing central road markings on Attwood Road and Chatham.
18. UPDATE: Auckland Transport is investigating this request and will report findings back to the board and Paremoremo Ratepayers & Residents Association once completed.
Clarks Lane and Hobsonville Road lights update
19. The traffic signals at the corner of Clarks Lane and Hobsonville Road were made operational on 7 March.
Airport Road, Whenuapai request for maintenance
20. Auckland Transport has investigated the maintenance issues and has installed subsoil drains to help deal with the water run-off. The constant potholes are caused by heavy vehicles that use the area as a turn-around or freight swap area. To solve these issues, Auckland Transport would need to install bollards or wooden posts to prevent vehicles entering the empty piece of land and permanent repairs to the road would be required. However, this will require funding which there is none available this financial year.
Greenhithe Road re-seal works between Churchouse Road and Orwell Road
21. The Greenhithe Road re-seal works between Churchouse Road and Orwell Road are currently on hold as Auckland Transport will not be sealing the road until Watercare has completed installation of their pipe.
Collins Park to Sunnyview footpath update
22. Auckland Transport has instructed our consultant to undertake design work. This repair has been classified as a ‘structure’ repair as it is linked to both a retaining wall and power poles. Auckland Transport will need to wait until the design is completed, before any commitment can be made to initiating the repair, due to budget constraints.
Rosedale Road and Bush Road - phasing of lights
23. At the request of a local board member, Auckland Transport was asked to look at the phasing of the lights at the intersection of Rosedale and Bush Road, due to the lengthy queues during busy periods.
24. UPDATE: Auckland Transport is investigating this request and will report our findings back to the board, once completed.
Mayfair Retirement Village traffic concerns
25. Residents from the Mayfair Retirement Village attended public forum during the 8 March business meeting, requesting Auckland Transport investigate the traffic concerns that are occurring near the village.
26. UPDATE: Auckland Transport is investigating this request and will report findings back to the board and the Mayfair Retirement Village once completed.
Luckens Road / Marina View Drive / Renoir Street – visibility concerns
27. Concerns have been raised by a local resident about the visibility for vehicles entering Renoir Street at the intersection with Luckens Road/Marina View Drive, West Harbour.
28. UPDATE: Auckland Transport investigated this issue and our observations indicate that even when cars are parked on the inside of the bend of Renoir Street, visibility to oncoming traffic is unobstructed from the position that drivers turn right into the side road. The crash history at this location was also analysed as part of the investigation and this has revealed there have been no reported crashes at this intersection within the last 10 years. Taking everything into account, Auckland Transport is unable to justify the installation of broken yellow lines on the bend opposite Renoir Street.
Upper Harbour Drive and Albany Highway Intersection traffic congestion
29. The Greenhithe Residents Association group has expressed major concerns about the traffic congestion on Upper Harbour Drive, since the cycle lane has been introduced. The board, along with the two ward councillors, request Auckland Transport investigate options that will reduce the congestion on Upper Harbour Drive.
30. UPDATE: Auckland Transport is investigating this request and will report findings back to the board, the two councillors and the Greenhithe residents once completed.
160 Hobsonville Point Road - car parking issues
31. A request has come through the board for Auckland Transport to investigate the parking issues that are occurring on Hobsonville Point Road.
32. UPDATE: Auckland Transport is investigating this request and will report findings back to the board once completed.
Media
Transport for New North Western Auckland Housing
33. A north western busway, new park and rides, an alternative corridor parallel to State Highway 16 through Kumeu/Huapai, extended commuter rail services and state highway improvements, are all part of potential transport plans, to support large numbers of new houses in north west Auckland.
34. The public have a unique opportunity to help set the direction for the transport needed during the next 30 years for future communities around Whenuapai, Red Hills, Kumeu, Huapai and Riverhead. These areas are currently rural land outside urban limits.
35. This is part of a six week public consultation process on potential transport solutions for future urban growth areas in north west, north and south Auckland. Consultation in north west Auckland took place between 3 to 17 March, focussing on what transport priorities should be, and a range of potential projects. Four weeks of further public consultation will start in April.
36. The feedback will be used to identify the transport network needed to support the area’s growth during the next 30 years. This is a joint project between Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
37. The recommended networks will also be used to inform discussions between the government and Auckland Council on agreeing an approach to develop the city’s transport system (the Auckland Transport Alignment Project).
38. A map of a range of potential improvements to the north west transport network is attached as Attachment A to this report.
Project underway to improve safety on SH16 Trigg Road
39. The Huapai community will be the first to benefit from a series of safety improvements the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are carrying out on SH16.
40. Several improvements will be made to the Trigg Road, State Highway 16 intersection in Huapai starting this week.
41. The work which will include extending the 60km an hour speed limit by an extra 100 metres, installing a new right hand turning lane and relocating a power pole, is expected to take around a month to complete.
42. There have been three serious injury crashes at the intersection in the past five years.
43. As part of the NZTA’s short term safety focus, further improvements will also be made at other locations on SH16 later this year including Kahikatea Flat Road, Pipitiwai to Mt Rex Road, intersection widening at Joyce Adams Place intersection and guardrail installation at Kiwitahi Road.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
44. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.
Māori impact statement
45. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.
General
46. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.
Implementation
47. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Transport for new North Western Auckland housing map |
2 |
Signatories
Authors |
Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager , Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport Eric Perry – Relationship Manager |
12 April 2016 |
|
New Road Name Approval For Subdivision at 143 Albany
Highway, Albany
Council Subdivision File Ref SA-3023771
File No.: CP2016/04922
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a road name, for the new private road being constructed to serve 10 lots within the subdivision being undertaken by the applicant NZ Winners Trust, at 143 Albany Highway, Albany.
2. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of Land Information New Zealand.
Executive summary
3. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the council.
4. The applicant, NZ Winners Trust has submitted the road names ‘Korari Way’, ‘Jefferson Way’ and ‘Kaipatiki Way’ as their preferred road names.
5. The applicant has consulted with local iwi groups. The feedback received from local iwi groups included alternative names ‘Pukeahau Way’, ‘Purei Way’ and ‘Ohahukura Way’.
6. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:
· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;
· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or
· an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in an area.
The criteria also encourages the use of Maori names. Names also need to easily identifiable and intuitively clear thus minimising confusion.
7. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road name ‘Jefferson Way’ is not deemed to meet all of the assessment criteria as it does not appear to have any particular environmental, historical or thematic identity to the area.
8. The name ‘Kaipatiki Way’ is not supported by NZ Post and accordingly is not deemed to meet the assessment criteria due to it creating duplication with the same name in the Glenfield/Birkenhead postal district.
9. The names ‘Korari Way’, ‘Pukeahau Way’, ‘Purei Way’ and ‘Ohahukura Way’ are deemed to align with the assessment criteria.
10. The guidelines suggest that as a short enclosed road it could be referred to as a Close, Way or Mews.
11. The applicant has requested that their preferred names be presented for the Upper Harbour Local Board’s consideration.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) consider for approval, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, either of the proposed road names Korari Way, Jefferson Way, Pukeahau Way, Purei Way and Ohahukura Way for the new private road constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by NZ Winners Trust, at 143 Albany Highway, Albany. |
Comments
12. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred road names for the board’s approval.
13. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of Land Information New Zealand.
14. The private road to be named services 10 lots and is approximately 125m long and 4.5m wide.
15. The applicant has proposed the road names as listed in the table below.
16. The local iwi have suggested alternative names that are also listed in the table below.
Preference |
Proposed New Road Name |
Meaning |
Preferred Name |
Korari Way |
Well known species of plant throughout New Zealand, particularly for enhancing wetland areas. |
First Alternative |
Jefferson Way |
Non specific – name of one of the developers and a relatively common male name. |
Second Alternative |
Kaipatiki Way |
Original Maori name of “Lucas Creek”. Translates to “eat flatfish” |
Iwi Proposed Alternative Names |
Okahukura Way |
Original Maori name for Albany Basin. Translates to “the place of rainbows”. |
Purei Way |
Well known species of plant throughout New Zealand, particularly for enhancing wetland areas. |
|
Pukeahu Way |
Sacred hill. |
17. A map showing the location of the private road is attached (refer to Attachment A).
Decision making
18. The Auckland Council, by way of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to the local boards, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.
Assessment
19. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect a historical or ancestral linkage to an area, reflect a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature, or reflect an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in an area. The criteria also encourages the use of Maori names. Names also need to easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.
20. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.
21. The applicant’s first alternative name, ‘Jefferson Way’, is not considered to meet the assessment criteria of the road naming guidelines, in that it does not appear to reflect any particular local environmental landscape or biodiversity feature, any historical or ancestral linkage to the area, or any existing thematic identity in the local area.
22. It is noted that the name ‘Kaipatiki Way’ is not favoured by NZ Post due to it creating duplication with the same name in the Glenfield/Birkenhead postal district.
23. That said, the applicant suggested their preferred names meet other aspects of the criteria, which requires road names be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion. The applicant also suggested the road names are more in harmony with other road names in the area and requests that they be considered.
24. The alternative names suggested by local iwi are considered to generally align with the assessment criteria.
25. Given the private road is a relatively short enclosed road; the guidelines suggest it could be referred to as either Close, Way or Mews.
26. Notwithstanding all of the applicant’s preferred names do not meet all of the assessment criteria, their names ‘Korari Way’ and ‘Jefferson Way’, along with the alternative names suggested by local iwi, ‘Pukeahau Way’, ‘Purei Way’ and ‘Ohahukura Way’, are put forward to the Upper Harbour Local Board for consideration.
Consideration
Significance of decision
27. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.
Maori impact statement
28. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome, “a Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.
Consultation
29. The applicant has consulted with local iwi on the proposed road names and sought feedback on alternative names. The local iwi has provided three alternative names.
30. New Zealand Post was consulted and indicated that all proposed road names are acceptable except ‘Kaipatiki Way’, due to it creating duplication with the same name in the Glenfield / Birkenhead postal district.
Financial and resourcing implications
31. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s Administrative Charges.
Legal and legislative implications
32. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.
Implementation
33. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name, and prior to the completion of the subdivision.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
143 Albany Highway Private Road location map |
2 |
Signatories
Authors |
John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
12 April 2016 |
|
New Road Name Approval for 79 and 95 Gills Road,
Albany
Council Subdivision File Ref SA-3023194
File No.: CP2016/05075
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for road names for one public and four private roads being constructed to serve 120 lots in the subdivision and multi-unit development being undertaken by BCH Investments, at 79 and 95 Gills Road, Albany.
2. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of Land Information New Zealand.
Executive summary
3. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the council.
4. The applicant, BCH Investments, has chosen three different themes for the names reflecting either rivers (or in the case of ‘Waka Street’ river transport), within New Zealand, mountains worldwide or rooms and art exhibition sites in the Palace of Versailles, France.
5. It is anticipated a continuous theme would apply for all road names depending on what theme may be chosen by the board.
6. The applicant has submitted the road names of ‘Aoraki Street’, ‘Waka Street’ or ‘Versailles Place’ as proposed names for the public road, which fits with the road naming guidelines.
7. The applicant has also submitted the following road names for the four private roads:
· ‘Annapurna Street’, ‘Manawatu Street’ or ‘Paix Drive’ for private road No 2;
· ‘Ketu Street, ‘Rangitaiki Street’ or ‘Hercule Court’ for private road No 3;
· ‘Chomo Street’, ‘Mohaka Street’ or ‘Abondance Way’ for private road No 4; and
· ‘Makalu Street’, ‘Waihou Street’ or ‘Dauphin Way’ for private road No 5.
8. The guidelines suggest that the public road be referred to as a Street or Place, and that private road No’s 2, 3 and 5 be referred to as Crescents or Courts, and private road No 4 be referred to as either a Close, Way, Mews. The road types have therefore been amended in the recommendation to read Street, Crescent or Way.
9. The following names are recommended for consideration by the board:
· ‘Aoraki Street’, ‘Waka Street’ or ‘Versailles Street’ for the public road;
· ‘Annapurna Crescent’, ‘Manawatu Crescent’ or ‘Paix Crescent’ for private road No 2;
· ‘Ketu Court’, ‘Rangitaiki Court’ or ‘Hercule Court’ for private road No 3;
· ‘Chomo Way’, ‘Mohaka Way’ or ‘Abondance Way’ for private road No 4; and
· ‘Makalu Crescent’, ‘Waihou Crescent’ or ‘Dauphin Crescent’ for private road No 5.
10. The applicant has advised they prefer to use a mountain theme and as such their preferred names are ‘Aoraki Street’, ‘Annapurna Street’, ‘Ketu Street’, ‘Chomo Street’ and ‘Makalu Street’. All of the submitted names are however being presented for the board’s consideration.
11. The applicant has consulted with local iwi groups. The feedback received from these groups has varied from indifference to opposing all of the Maori themed names aside from ‘Waka Street’. This is on the basis that none of the names appear to be directly connected to, or have direct whakapapa to Tamaki Makaurau, or to the specific area where the names are proposed. Concern has been expressed by one iwi as to the uplifting of possible names from other areas and how that could be seen to be disrespectful to Maori Tikanga.
12. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:
· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;
· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or
· an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in an area.
The criteria also encourages the use of Maori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.
13. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the names do not appear to have any particular environmental or historical identity to the particular area; however, they do create a thematic identity and are considered suitable.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) Consider for approval, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, either of the proposed road names; i. Aoraki Street (Public Road 1), Annapurna Crescent (Private Road 2), Ketu Court (Private Road No 3), Chomo Way (Private Road No 4) and Makalu Crescent (Private Road No 5); or ii. Waka Street (Public Road 1), Manawatu Crescent (Private Road 2), Rangitaiki Court (Private Road No 3), Mohaka Way (Private Road No 4) and Waihou Crescent (Private Road No 5); or iii. Versailles Street (Public Road 1), Paix Crescent (Private Road 2), Hercule Court (Private Road No 3), Abondance Way (Private Road No 4) and Dauphin Crescent (Private Road No 5); for the public and private roads being constructed within the subdivision and multi-unit development being undertaken by BCH Investments, at 79 and 95 Gills Road, Albany. |
Comments
14. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred road names for the board’s approval.
15. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of Land Information New Zealand.
16. The public and private roads to be named will service 120 residential lots.
17. The applicant has proposed the road names as listed in the table below, although the road naming guidelines suggest that private road No’s 2, 3 and 5 be referred to as Crescents or Courts, and private road No 4 be referred to as either a Close, Way, Mews. The road types have been amended in the resolutions to read Street, Crescent or Way.
18. It should also be noted that the local iwi have not suggested any alternative names.
Preference |
Proposed new public road (No 1) name |
Meaning |
Preferred name |
Aoraki Street |
Tallest mountain in New Zealand commonly known as Mt Cook. |
First alternative |
Waka Street |
Name of Maori water craft. |
Second alternative |
Versailles Place |
Palace of Versailles. |
Iwi proposed alternative names |
None |
|
Preference |
Proposed new private road (No 2) name |
Meaning |
Preferred name |
Annapurna Street |
Worlds 10th highest mountain in Himalayas. |
First alternative |
Manawatu Street |
Major river in southern North Island. |
Second alternative |
Paix Drive |
Room in Palace of Versailles. |
Iwi proposed alternative names |
None |
|
Preference |
Proposed new private road (No 3) name |
Meaning |
Preferred name |
Ketu Street |
Worlds 2nd highest mountain on China-Pakistan border. |
First alternative |
Rangitaiki Street |
Longest river in Bay of Plenty region. |
Second alternative |
Hercule Court |
Room in Palace of Versailles. |
Iwi proposed alternative names |
None |
|
Preference |
Proposed new private road (No 4) name |
Meaning |
Preferred name |
Chomo Street |
Mountain in Tibet. |
First alternative |
Mohaka Street |
River in east central region of Hawkes Bay. |
Second alternative |
Abondance Way |
Room in Palace of Versailles. |
Iwi proposed alternative names |
None |
|
Preference |
Proposed new private road (No 5) name |
Meaning |
Preferred name |
Makalu Street |
World’s 5th largest peak east of Mt Everest. |
First alternative |
Waihou Street |
River in northern North Island. |
Second alternative |
Dauphine Way |
Room in Palace of Versailles. |
Iwi proposed alternative names |
None |
|
19. Maps showing the location of the proposed roads are attached (refer to Attachment A).
Decision making
20. The Auckland Council, by way of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to the local boards, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.
Assessment
21. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.
22. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect a historical or ancestral linkage to an area, reflect a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature, or reflect an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in an area. The criteria also encourages the use of Maori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear thus minimising confusion.
23. The applicant has consulted with local iwi groups. The feedback received from these groups has varied from indifference to opposing all of the Maori themed names aside from ‘Waka Street’, on the basis that none of the names appear to be directly connected to or have direct “whakapapa” to Tamaki Makaurau, or to the specific area where the names are proposed. Concern has been expressed by one iwi as to the uplifting of possible names from other areas and how that could be seen to be disrespectful to Maori Tikanga.
24. The applicant has chosen three different themes for the names reflecting either rivers, (or in the case of ‘Waka Street’, river transport) within New Zealand, mountains worldwide or rooms and art exhibition sites in the Palace of Versailles, France.
25. Following assessment against the road naming criteria albeit the names do not appear to have any particular environmental or historical identity to the area, they do however create a thematic identity and are considered suitable.
26. The following names are therefore recommended for consideration by the board:
· ‘Aoraki Street’, ‘Waka Street’ or ‘Versailles Street’ for the public road;
· ‘Annapurna Crescent’, ‘Manawatu Crescent’ or ‘Paix Crescent’ for private road No 2;
· ‘Ketu Court’, ‘Rangitaiki Court’ or ‘Hercule Court’ for private road No 3;
· ‘Chomo Way’, ‘Mohaka Way’ or ‘Abondance Way’ for private road No 4; and
· ‘Makalu Crescent’, ‘Waihou Crescent’ or ‘Dauphin Crescent’ for private road No 5.
27. All of the proposed road names are deemed to meet council’s road naming guidelines.
Consideration
Significance of decision
28. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.
Maori impact statement
29. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.
Consultation
30. The applicant has consulted with local iwi on the proposed road names and sought feedback on alternative names.
31. The local iwi has not provided any alternative names.
32. New Zealand Post has been consulted and has advised that all of the proposed road names are acceptable.
Financial and resourcing implications
33. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s Administrative Charges.
Legal and legislative implications
34. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.
Implementation
35. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name and prior to the completion of the subdivision.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
79 and 95 Gills Road Albany - Road location maps |
2 |
Signatories
Authors |
John Benefield – Senior Subdivisions Advisor |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
12 April 2016 |
|
Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
File No.: CP2016/05503
Purpose
1. This report seeks a decision on the following applications for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act).
Executive Summary
2. Applications for an exemption for swimming or spa pools have been received from the owners of:
· 3 Hobson Heights, Lucas Heights; and
· 25B Churchouse Road, Greenhithe.
3. The applications do not comply with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. Pool inspectors have inspected the properties and consulted with the applicants, and full assessment reports are attached to this report (under separate cover – confidential).
4. The local board must now resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline the exemptions sought.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board : a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 3 Hobson Heights, Lucas Heights, with the following conditions: i. that the latching devices are kept in good working order; and ii. that council supplied warning stickers are fitted to the inside of each door. b) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 25B Churchouse Road, Greenhithe, with the following conditions: i. that the condition of the self-closing device and latch are maintained in good working order at all times.
|
Comments
Background
5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected each property for which an application for special exemption from the Act has been received. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with the Act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in Attachment A (under separate cover – confidential).
6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. The applicants have been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the act and they have chosen to seek a special exemption from those requirements.
Legislative implications
7. Compliance with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exemptions are granted by the local board.
8. The act requires pool owners to fence their pool, or all or some of the immediate pool area including the pool itself. Specific detail on this is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool does not have a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.
9. An exemption can only be granted by the local board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances, and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children, can an exemption be granted.
10. The definition of the immediate pool area, which is “the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool”, is a key consideration for granting an exemption.
11. Where a building forms part of the pool fence and there are doors opening into the pool area, the local board may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 and 10 of the schedule to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. It may be exempt if the local board is satisfied that compliance with the act is impossible, unreasonable, or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated, prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of six years.
12. When granting a special exemption the local board may impose reasonable conditions relating to the property or the pool, or reflecting other relevant circumstances. These may include:
· making the exemption personal to the applicant so that upon sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption; or
· granting the exemption for a fixed term irrespective of changes of ownership.
13. Any exemption granted, or condition imposed, may be amended or revoked by the local board by resolution. The rules of natural justice would, however, dictate that this action should not be taken without informing the pool owner and giving them the opportunity to be heard.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
14. Local boards have delegated authority to approve exemptions to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act.
15. Before making an exemption, the local board must consider:
· the particular characteristics of the property and the pool;
· any other relevant circumstances; and
· conditions it may be necessary to impose.
16. The local board must also be satisfied that the exemption would not significantly present a danger to young children.
17. The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline the application for special exemption.
18. If the application is declined the applicant will be required to fence the pool in accordance with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
Maori impact statement
19. There are no particular impacts on Maori that are different from those of other pool owners.
Implementation
20. The decision must be made by resolution.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
3 Hobson Heights, Lucas Heights (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential |
|
bView |
25B Churchouse Road, Greenhithe (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist |
Authorisers |
Sally Grey - Manager Weather Tightness & Compliance Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/04589
Executive summary
An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.
[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the verbal board members’ reports. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Neda Durdevic - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub
File No.: CP2016/04587
Purpose
1. This holding report serves to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with the facility to make decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub’s design, fit out and construction as and when required.
Executive summary
2. The Albany Community Hub is a project approved for construction in the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial year as part of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025. As such detailed design, internal fit out and construction decisions will be required by the Upper Harbour Local Board on an ongoing basis until the project is complete.
3. This holding report serves to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with the ability to make those decisions as and when required.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the holding report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Karen Marais - Local Board Services |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool
File No.: CP2016/04588
Purpose
1. This holding report serves to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with the facility to make decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool’s fit out and construction as and when required.
Executive summary
2. The Albany Stadium Pool is a project approved for construction in the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial year as part of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025. As such internal fit out and construction decisions will be required by the Upper Harbour Local Board on an ongoing basis until the project is complete.
3. This holding report serves to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with the ability to make those decisions as and when required.
That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) receive the holding report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Karen Marais - Local Board Services |
Authorisers |
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager |
Upper Harbour Local Board 12 April 2016 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Upper Harbour Local Board:
a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
16 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment a - 3 Hobson Heights, Lucas Heights
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. In particular, the report contains personal information. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
16 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment b - 25B Churchouse Road, Greenhithe
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. In particular, the report contains personal information. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |