I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 19 May 2016 6.00pm Local Board
Office |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Simon Randall |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Chris Makoare |
|
Members |
Josephine Bartley |
|
|
Brett Clark |
|
|
Bridget Graham, QSM |
|
|
Obed Unasa |
|
|
Alan Verrall |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Philippa Hillman Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
10 May 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 570 3848 Email: philippa.hillman@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
8.1 Deputation : Panmure Business Association (Clifton Court) 5
8.2 Deputation : Panmure Business Association (Panmure Basin Fun Day) 6
8.3 Deputation : Maungarei Community Christian Trust 6
9 Public Forum 6
10 Extraordinary Business 6
11 Notices of Motion 7
12 Governing Body Member's Update 9
13 Change to the operational model for the Riverside Community Centre 11
14 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Performance Report for nine months ending 31 March 2016 15
15 Auckland Transport Quarterly Report 61
16 Local Board Dog Access Review 87
17 Tree planting on Maungakiekie 147
18 Central Facility Partnership Joint Advocacy Positions 149
19 Contributions Policy Variation A 153
20 HEART Movement Membership 171
21 Governance Forward Work Calendar 175
22 Record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Workshops - April 2016 179
23 Board Members' Reports 185
24 Chair's Report to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 189
25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
26 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 191
1 Welcome
2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 April 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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. Providing Maungarei Community Christian Trust the opportunity to present to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board regarding the Riverside Community Centre. Executive summary 2. As per standing orders the Chairman has approved the deputation request from Maungarei Community Christian Trust to present regarding the Riverside Community Centre. |
Recommendation/s That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) thanks Russell Grainger and Brian Saipe, representing the Maungarei Community Christian Trust for their 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.
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Governing Body Member's Update
File No.: CP2016/08429
Executive Summary
Providing the Governing Body Member, Denise Krum, the opportunity to update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on projects, meetings, events and issues she has been involved with since the last meeting.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) receive the Governing Body Member’s report. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Change to the operational model for the Riverside Community Centre
File No.: CP2016/08690
Purpose
1. To confirm an operational model for the Riverside Community Centre, and approve an additional $30,000 from the Locally Delivered Initiatives (LDI) fund to strengthen the operations of the centre and to further engage the local community.
Executive Summary
2. The Maungarei Community Christian Trust (the Trust) last year indicated it could no longer continue to deliver the ongoing operations and services from the Riverside Community Centre (the centre) with the available level of funding, $54,701 per annum.
3. In October 2015 the Local Board resolved (Resolution MT/2015/168) to increase the level of funding by allocating the full year’s grant over a shorter period of nine months. In February 2016, an additional $18,000 (Resolution MT/2016/15) was allocated to ensure the current service level continued for 2015/2016.
4. The Local Board also requested staff commence work to review, understand and address the long-term direction of the centre.
5. The review focused on understanding current literature and research in and around the Riverside area. It highlighted that to improve the outcomes for the Riverside community, there would need to be long-term, coordinated support for the centre and any community organisation or agency delivering programmes there. From this work, a range of possible operational models are identified.
6. Staff recommend an interim approach to the management of Riverside Community Centre. It is proposed that the centre be operated directly by council for a two year period. This would enable council to further understand operational issues and at the same time increase the service delivery by providing additional programme activities to the community. Within the two year period, staff will work with the community to co-design a longer term operational model.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) resolve that Riverside Community Centre be managed in-house for a period of two years commencing on 1 July 2016; b) provide within the 2016/2017 year, a one-off amount of $10,000, from its locally driven initiative fund, to initiate engagement with the local community to develop a co-design process for the long-term delivery of a community-led model; c) provide within the 2016/2017 year, an additional amount of $20,000, from its locally driven initiative fund, towards base operating costs and some targeted programmes for Riverside Community Centre. |
Comments
7. In August 2015 the Maungarei Community Christian Trust (the Trust) indicated it could no longer continue to deliver the ongoing operations and services from the Riverside Community Centre (the centre) with the current level of funding of $54,701 per annum.
8. In October 2015 the board resolved to increase the level of funding by allocating the full year’s grant over a shorter period of nine months.
9. In February 2016, an additional $18,000 was allocated to ensure the current service delivery level for 2015/2016 continued.
10. The Trust has indicated that to continue to operate the centre it would require a funding increase of $20,000 per annum, bringing the annual grant to $75,000. This would meet the basic operating costs and current service provision it delivers. It would not allow for additional programme activity delivery, this would require further investment over the $75,000 per annum.
11. In October the Local Board requested staff commence a review of the centre to understand and address the long term sustainability and future direction of the centre. Following consultation with local board members, council’s Arts, Community and Events department (ACE) initiated a review of the Riverside Community Centre.
Review of the Riverside community centre
12. The centre is currently operated by the Trust which employs an on-site centre manager and delivers a mixture of programmed activity and spaces for hire. Council’s community places team provides advice, networking and collaboration opportunities to the centre manager and Trust. The Trust receives a grant from the Local Board via a funding agreement.
13. The centre is an adapted church building, which currently makes it more suited to single, large scale activities, rather than a variety of smaller activities operating concurrently, which limits the ability to successfully augment operational grants with facility hire revenue, and diversification. Further work is needed to assess whether the building is fit for purpose to meet current and future needs.
14. The review work undertook a literature review of census data and research reports conducted in the area within the past five years. A number of interviews were also conducted with relevant local agencies and community organisations to provide further context.
15. One of those reports, the Tāmaki Community Needs Assessment (TCNA) 2014, described the Tāmaki subdivision as containing some of Auckland’s most deprived neighbourhoods. The Tāmaki area has a deprivation rating of eight to ten meaning they are considered to be in the most deprived 30 per cent of New Zealand. In Riverside 92 percent of households were considered to be in the most deprived 20 per cent of areas in New Zealand.
16. The TCNA outlined the most pressing needs for the Tāmaki subdivision, specifically the need for more youth activities and safer public spaces. It also identified some issues specific to community facilities, such as the desire for welcoming, well-maintained facilities that feel like the hub of the community, are easily accessible and have a simple booking process. It was noted that attendance at programmes and courses would increase if they were low cost or free.
17. The review highlighted that to improve the outcomes for the Riverside community, there will need to be long-term, coordinated support for the centre and any community organisation or agency delivering programmes there.
Options of operational models for the Riverside Community Centre
18. Currently there is about $55,000 allocated to the Riverside Community Centre for its operations. The research indicates this is not an optimum level of investment. Additional investment would allow for an increase of good quality programme activites. Any future new model will require additional funds.
19. A range of options have been considered for the future operational model for the centre. These are described below, including approximate costs for each model.
a) Status Quo - Continue operation of the centre through a funding agreement with Maungarei Community Christian Trust with a commitment of $55,000 per annum. The Trust has indicated they cannot continue to operate with this level of funding. No additional programme activity will be delivered under this model.
b) Status quo with increased budget – continue operation of the centre through a funding agreement with Maungarei Community Christian Trust with a commitment of approximately $75,000 per annum. No additional programme activity will be delivered under this model.
c) Expressions of interest: Alternative community operator - this is funded to govern and manage the facility. Staff are based at the facility and are responsible for hiring out and programming the centre. The local board retains ultimate oversight through an approved funding agreement with key performance indicators. This would require an expressions of interest process to be undertaken and additional operational funds to improve outcomes. Total cost $75,000 per annum.
d) Council managed - Council staff are appointed to be based at the facility and are responsible for hiring out space and programming. The local board has governance responsibilities. A period of two years is recommended to bring stability to the operations and allow council to work with the community to co-design a longer term operational model. Total cost $75,000 per annum.
e) Council managed venue for hire with activated programming – Centre becomes part of the council venue for hire network with the addition of a staff member to actively develop and deliver programmes. This would require additional budget to resource the booking and administration to allow centre staff to focus on programme delivery. Total cost $80,000 per annum.
20. Staff are recommending an interim change to the current operation, and move towards the centre being managed and governed by the Auckland Council for a period of two years. This will allow time to understand the long-term needs and makeup of the Riverside area through engagement with the community on co-designing the long-term operational model. This would also enable council to further understand operational issues and at the same time increase the service delivery by providing additional programme activities to the community.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
21. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board requested the review that this report is focused on.
Māori impact statement
22. The target area for the centre (Riverside community) has a relatively high percentage of Māori residents (21 per cent) compared to the rest of Auckland (11 per cent). By focusing on improving local outcomes, the community centre is expected to have positive impacts on the area’s Māori population, particularly for youth.
23. Consultation with mana whenua groups and mataawaka will be included in any future planning for the centre.
Implementation
24. Staff acknowledge that work needs to be done with the current service provider (the Trust) to transition operational management. There could be an opportunity to continue to work with the Trust to deliver local community development programmes from the centre, through new and existing activities.
25. The current funding and occupancy arrangement with the Trust concludes at the end of the financial year. A transition plan will need to be put in place to ensure smooth hand over.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Kate Holst – Team Leader, Community Places |
Authorisers |
Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Performance Report for nine months ending 31 March 2016
File No.: CP2016/06908
Purpose
1. To update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 as set out in the Local Board agreement.
Executive Summary
2. A financial performance report is presented to the local boards for the accounting quarters ending September, December, March and June.
3. Auckland Council departments also present quarterly performance reports to the local boards.
4. To improve overall performance reporting the Financial Advisory Services – Local Boards team produces a combined quarterly financial report and department report.
5. The attached report contains the following reports this quarter:
· Local Community Services including Libraries
· Local Environmental Management
· Local Sports Parks and Recreation
· Local Board Financial Performance
· Local Board Services Department update
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) Receive the Performance Report for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for nine months ending March 2016. |
Comments
6. In consultation with local boards this report provides the elected members with an overview of local activities from council departments for discussion.
Maori impact statement
7. Maori, as stakeholders in the council, are affected and have an interest in any report of the local board financials. However, this financial performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Maori.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Performance Report for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for nine months ending March 2016. |
17 |
Signatories
Authors |
Faithe Smith - Lead Financial Advisor |
Authorisers |
Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Auckland Transport Quarterly Report
File No.: CP2016/09091
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months 1 January – 31 March 2016.
Executive Summary
2. This report informs local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months 1 January – 31 March 2016.
Attachments include:
A – Auckland Transport activities
B – Travelwise Schools activities
C – Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee
D – Report against local board advocacy issues
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Transport Quarterly update 1 January to 31 March 2016. |
Comments
Significant activities during the period under review
Strategy and Planning
Transport for Future Urevan Growth (TFUG)
3. Under the new business case approach AT has got approved funding to develop growth related Programme Business Cases (PBCs) to identify the transport infrastructure needed within the next 30 years for the following growth areas identified in Auckland Council's Future Urban Land Supply Strategy: The areas to be assessed are the Northwest, Southern Northern and Warkworth.
4. A multi-disciplinary and cross organisational team has been developed and is currently working from a co-located space on the four areas. Councillors, Local Boards, Iwi, Developers and other Stakeholders have been informed and Public Consultation has taken place. Sequencing Workshops have been scheduled for 22nd and 23rd of March. 2nd round of Public Consultation has been scheduled from 15th April.
Central Access Strategy
5. A Programme Business Case for the Central Access Plan (Isthmus to City Centre) is jointly being developed with New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Auckland Council. It is anticipated that a preferred programme which identifies a series of interventions to resolve growing bus patronage demands against corridor/terminus capacity constraints will be provided to the NZTA Board in May for their approval.
Public Transport (PT Development
City Rail Link
6. Enabling Works ECI Contract 2, construction of pipe jack (services relocation) commenced (Albert Street) 21 December 2015; Enabling Works Contract 1, Britomart to Lower Albert Street and Contract 2, Lower Albert Street to Wyndham Street, to commence in May 2016. Main Works: Construction start 2018/19 FY subject to funding agreement with Government.
Double Decker Network Mitigation works
7. Mitigation works on identified risks for Double decker buses such as building verandas, street furniture, signage, low hanging power/phone lines, service poles, overhanging trees, and low bridge structures to allow the safe passage of double decker buses. Botany route is cleared for double decker bus with some minor works on defects list to be completed. Mt Eden and Northern Express bus routes to be cleared in March 2016.
PT Safety, Security and Amenity
Wharf Renewals
8. Currently underway with the design of a number of urgent wharf renewal project requests received from AT Metro (25th Feb). These are targeted to be completed by 30 June 2016. We are on track to deliver these
Bus Infrastructure Improvements
9. Still on target to spend the $4.7m budget. A significant number of physical works will be undertaken over May & June
PT Operations
Highlights for the quarter
10. Rail patronage growth continues at around 20% year-on-year, and the month of March saw more than 1.6 million passenger journeys on the network, the highest month on record. Service delivery has maintained levels of around 95% of services arriving at the destinations on-time. The new operator tender process has been placed on hold, with the current contract with Transdev being conditionally extended for a period of up to 12-24 months, while the impacts on the rail services contract of long term projects such as CRL are assessed
Integrated Fares
11. The 28 February 2016 annual AT Metro fare review included final fare zone boundary alignment between bus and rail prior to mid-2016 integrated fares implementation, including alignment at Orakei of two zone rail from the CBD with the existing two zone bus and removal of the inner CBD and airport mini-zones. An independent review of the proposed integrated fares product structure and price modelling by Deloitte is nearing completion and will support a final recommendation to the AT Board in April
Road Design and Development
SMART (Southwest Multi-model Airport Rapid Transit)
12. Future proofing of the SMART route on Kirkbride (trench) intersection is progressing together with the infrastructure works by Highway Network Operations of NZTA. This element of the project is expected to be complete in 2022. Funding application is in progress with NZTA. We are working with the East West team to ensure the projects are well aligned at the critical points. The indicative business case is being updated for LRT and heavy rail. The cycle strategy for the wider Mangere area is underway
Services
Whangaporaoa Road Dynamic Lane Trial
13. In the last quarter designs for the trial along Whangaporaoa Road (between Red Beach Road and Hibiscus Coast Highway) have been assessed. A driver behaviour survey was undertaken, to understand perceptions of the trial and responses to a simplified scheme using just Light Emitting Diode (LED) in road markings. The purpose of this was to test reactions and guide design requirements for signage and LED requirements. The survey illustrated 21 scenarios with different markings and LED lights along the route i.e. no signage or overhead lane control arrows were assumed).
14. The outcome of the survey showed the following:
Positives recognised: · Improves traffic flow · Flexible traffic control · Better use of road space · Increases road capacity |
Concerns raised: · Confusing · Accident risk · Unclear (lane direction) – Need clear signage · Need to educate |
15. Understanding gained from the driver perception survey and traffic condition surveys will be applied to the design before consultation is undertaken
Auckland Bike Challenge
16. The Auckland Bike Challenge was undertaken in February encouraging businesses and workplaces to support staff to cycle. The month-long online challenge has had a significant success in encouraging greater uptake of cycling in Auckland. It has been well supported by key stakeholders including Healthy Auckland Together, Auckland Regional Public Health, the Sustainable Business Network and Bike Auckland. A total of 166 workplaces took part, and over 2,860 people registering to ride a bike in February including 600 new cyclists. A total of 23,111 trips were logged amounting to over 329,374km travelled by bike.
Personalised Journey Planning for commuters
17. Three Personalised Journey Planning (PJP) projects are underway in Kingsland/Morningside, Hauraki/Belmont and Stonefields residential areas. These are key areas for commuters to the city centre and reflected congested corridors on the network. Residents in each area who currently drive alone in peak times were offered personalised journey planning advice on other suitable modes of transport, and those that commit to trialling a new option are provided with supporting incentives. The goal of these projects is to encourage residents to make a long-term change, supporting modal share changes and reducing morning peak congestion
Safer Communities
18. The Safer Communities programme is now underway with the Community and Road Safety team working more intensively in high risk communities to increase safe access to active and sustainable transport modes. Community Transport team have delivered two safer Communities workshops for lead teacher and school management. These workshops were designed to provide information on the new delivery model for high risk communities and very successful with 21 school attending. This was followed by two lead teacher workshops for the schools outside of the high risk communities
Walking School Bus – Walking School Bus Week: 15th – 19th February
19. Pedestrian safety is a high priority in the Auckland Region with an upward trend in Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI) over the past five years. The Walking School Bus (WSB’s) Programme has an important role in improving pedestrian safety around schools while also reducing morning peak congestion. The Community and Road Safety team developed and delivered the first regional WSB’S promotion week for primary schools across the Auckland region. The key objective was to raise awareness of the benefits of the programme, seek more participation from parents and students as well as highlighting the road safety benefits the programme brings.
20. Currently, there are 154 schools in Auckland have WSB (out of 345 total schools in Auckland with primary aged students) with over 4000 children on WSB routes and more than 1000 volunteers. During the week, more than 4900 students registered to participate in the themed days across the week. AMI Insurance sponsored Thursday’s ‘Be Bright Be Seen’ theme day with guest walkers including Jerome Kaino and Police dogs, who walked with WSBs across the region. WSB Week was a great success with positive media promotion including interviews on Radio Live, Stuff.co.nz, and articles in local papers.
Road Corridor Delivery
21. The Assets and Maintenance Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the Road Corridor. These include but are not limited to:
· The Delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes.
· Managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor.
· Promoting design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network.
· The development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of our roading assets.
Key Highlights
22. In the 2015/2016 financial year we are planning to deliver 37.7 km of pavement rehabilitation, 480.1 km of resurfacing (this includes 88.9 km of hotmix and 391.2 km of chip sealing), 75.7 km of footpath renewals and 82.7 km of kerb and channel replacement.
23. Table 1: Progress against Asset Renewal Targets
Note* data is to February 2016
24. We are 81% of the way through our Pavement Rehabilitation projects. Table 2 following table outlines where key projects have been completed:
25. Table 2: Completed Rehabilitation Projects
Kohimarama Rd |
Ranui Station Rd |
Edmonton Rd |
Robertson Rd |
Linwood Rd |
Te Irirangi Dr (Eastbound lanes) |
Ormiston Rd |
Whitford Road |
Glenbrook Rd |
Clyde Rd |
Lakeside Dr |
Maygrove Dr |
Bringham Creek Rd |
Mokoia Rd |
Kahika Rd |
Diana Dr |
Glenmore Rd |
South Head Rd |
Waitoki Rd |
Mahurangi East Rd |
Hector Sanderson Rd |
Rathgar Rd |
Wairau Rd |
Apirana Ave |
Palm Rd |
Access Rd |
Riverhead Rd |
Swaffield Rd |
McAnnalley St |
Botany Rd |
Prince Regent Rd |
College Rd |
Hunua Rd |
Roscommon Rd |
Bairds Rd |
26. The following table outlines the key priojects which are currently underway and are due for completion in Quarter 4
27. Table 3: Rehabilitation Projects still underway
St George Street |
Cavendish Dr |
Don Buck Rd |
Sabulite Rd |
The Drive |
Gordons Rd |
Kaipara Portage Rd |
Woodcocks Rd |
Prochester Rd |
Great Sth Road |
Wellington St/ Vincent St Roundabout. |
Te-Irirangi Drive |
Constable Road |
Kitchener Rd |
Nelson St (Pukekohe) |
Whitford Maraetai Road |
|
|
|
|
28. Year 5 (2015/16) of the UFB rollout is continuing and planning for Year 6 (2016/17) has already commenced.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Schedule of activities underaken for the third quarter (2015/16) ending 31 March 2016 |
67 |
bView |
Travelwise schools activities broken down by local board |
79 |
cView |
Traffic Control Committee decisions broken down by local board |
81 |
dView |
Local board advocacy report |
83 |
Signatories
Authors |
Various Auckland Transport officers |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/08216
Purpose
1. To adopt the statement of proposal containing proposed changes to local dog access rules for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area; and appoint a hearings panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions on the statement of proposal.
Executive Summary
2. Dog access rules help ensure positive interactions between dogs and people in public places and the protection of wildlife. For non-dog owners this typically relates to dogs not causing a nuisance, and for dog owners being able to enjoy an outing with their dogs.
3. Dog access rules need to be easy for the public to understand. Simple dog access rules across the region aids in increasing public understanding and enforcement. In deciding local dog access rules, local boards may want to consider decisions made to date by other local boards.
4. At its December 2015 meeting, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved to undertake a review of local dog access rules in 2016 (MT/2015/183). As part of the review process, the local board must adopt a statement of proposal for public consultation, and consider submissions to the proposal before making a final decision.
5. Staff recommend the following changes to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board dog access rules:
· to prohibit dog access along the foreshores of Point England Reserve, Dunkirk Reserve, Riverside Reserve and Flatrock Esplanade Reserve, for the protection of wildlife
· to remove the time and season rule that presently applies to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area, unless ‘high use’ areas are identified through this review process
· to introduce under control off a leash access in Mt Wellington Memorial Reserve (south) to Panmure Wharf Reserve; Panmure Basin park at 2 Peterson Rd and at Lavas Reserve to provide for the recreational needs of dog owners and their dogs
· to introduce under control on a leash access to Point England Reserve and Esplanade walkway; Dunkirk Reserve; Riverside Reserve; Flatrock Esplanade Reserve and Fernwood Reserve for the protection of wildlife and public safety and comfort
· remove the dog access rules that relates to ‘picnic and fitness apparatus areas’ and reclassify ‘dog exercise areas’ as under control off a leash areas.
6. Staff will update the statement of proposal where required to reflect the decisions made by the local board.
7. Staff recommend that the local board appoints a panel of the whole to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information, and decide on changes to the local dog access rules.
8. Public consultation is proposed to start in June 2016 to coincide with dog registration. It will run for approximately six weeks. Local Board deliberations is planned for August, to be completed in time for its decision to be reported to the Governing Body in September 2016.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) confirm its intention to propose an amendment as contained in a statement of proposal to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996; b) adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A and confirm: i) the areas within Table 7 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as highly sensitive areas where dogs are prohibited; ii) the time and season rule set out in Table 5 within of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) for use if high use areas are identified; iii) the areas within Table 9 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as dog friendly areas where dogs are allowed under control off a leash; iv) the areas within Table 10 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as standard areas where dogs are allowed under control on a leash; v) remove the specific rules for under control on a leash for ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus’ and ‘dog exercise areas’; c) confirm that the proposed local dog access rules contained in the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A): i) are consistent with the policy, principles, criteria and rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012; ii) are in accordance with relevant legislative requirements, in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996; d) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the local board chair, to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal to reflect decisions made by the local board; e) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits; f) appoint a panel of the whole to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and decide on changes to the local dog access rules. |
Background
9. In 2012, Auckland Council adopted a new policy and bylaw on dogs. Region-wide dog access rules were adopted for particular types of areas, such as playgrounds, sports surfaces and roads. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local park, beach and foreshore areas.
10. In deciding local dog access rules, local boards may want to consider decisions made to date by other local boards. Simple dog access rules across the region aids in increasing public understanding and enforcement.
11. To assist local boards with the review of local dog access rules, the governing body established a standard annual process, as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Standard annual process for dog access rules review
12. At its December 2015 meeting, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved to undertake a review of local dog access rules in 2016 (MT/2015/183). It resolved the scope of the dog access review to include local beaches and foreshore areas, as well as a targeted review of local parks.
13. In developing the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Statement of Proposal, staff gathered feedback on dog access rules from:
· council staff (i.e. parks advisors, animal management officers and biodiversity and biosecurity advisors) (Attachment E and F)
· key Māori stakeholders through a hui in March 2015
· residents and visitors through an on-line survey in March 2016.
14. The online survey had 255 respondents, of which 79 per cent were local to the board area; 57 per cent identified as non-dog owners and 43 per cent identified as dog owners.
15. Within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area, approximately 9 per cent of households have one or more dogs, while 91 per cent of households do not have a dog.
16. A summary of the results from the online survey is contained in Attachment D.
Decision-making requirements
17. The decisions required of the board are:
· whether or not to propose any changes
· to adopt a Statement of Proposal for public consultation (if changes are proposed)
· to appoint a hearing panel.
18. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board can also decide to rescind its decision from December 2015 (MT/2015/183) and postpone the review to a later date.
19. In making a decision on the statement of proposal, the local board must be satisfied that any proposed changes comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements. Table 1 below summarises the statutory and policy considerations for dog access rules.
Table 1 Considerations for dog access rules
Considerations |
|
Public safety and comfort |
· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community · the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children (regardless if children are accompanied by an adult) · the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public places without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs. |
Protection of wildlife |
· to ensure that dogs are controlled near protected wildlife · to reduce dog owners’ risk of incurring penalty under the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Wildlife Act 1953. |
Recreational needs of dogs and their owners |
· access to dog walking areas are important for exercise for both the dog and the owner · consider places that are easily accessible and desirable for both the dog and the owner. |
Ensure that dog access rules are easy to understand |
· consider rules that are practical, enforceable and clear · where appropriate, consider consistency across Auckland. |
20. Further detail on the decision-making requirements is provided in Attachment B.
Types of areas
21. In determining dog access rules, four different categories of area types were developed. Each area type has certain characteristics which determine its appropriate dog access rules.
22. The purpose of this approach is to make it easier to understand dog access rules within a local board area as well as to provide for public safety and comfort, the needs of dog owners and for the protection of wildlife. Table 2 outlines the area types and the appropriate dog access rule.
Table 2 Area types
Types |
Description |
Appropriate dog access rule |
Highly sensitive area |
A place where the mere presence of a dog can have a negative effect on the area. Examples are ecologically sensitive areas. |
Prohibited |
High use area |
A place that attracts a lot of people at certain times of the day or year to which a time and season is necessary to manage the interactions between dogs and other users. These areas are typical beaches and associated parks. |
Time and season |
Dog friendly area |
A place that is large and suitable for dogs to run and play off a leash. |
Under control off a leash |
Standard area |
A place that does not fall into any of the other three categories. |
Under control on a leash |
23. A full description of these area types are detailed in Attachment C.
Time and Season
24. A time and season rule is proposed in ‘high use areas’ to better manage the safe interaction between people and dogs through allocating access rules based on time rather than area. This reduces the risk of conflict between different users by encouraging them to access the area at different times.
25. Staff recommend that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board removes its time and season rule. There are no areas recommended as ‘high use’ areas that warrant a time and season dog access rule. Also feedback from the community suggests that there is confusion about exactly which parts of the local board area the existing time and season rule relates to.
26. However, a time and season rule is presented here, and in the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), to enable the local board to consider the ‘high use’ category in response public submissions on the Statement of Proposal.
27. The Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 introduced a region-wide standard summer beach time and season of 10am and 5pm, Labour Weekend to 1 March.
28. The local board must decide whether or not using the region-wide time and season standard is appropriate on local beaches as part of its review. Where an alternative time and season is adopted, approval is required from the Auckland Council Governing Body.
29. It is important to note that the standard only provides a definition of daytime hours and a summer season. Local boards determine any winter times (if required) and the type of dog access (i.e. prohibited, on-leash, off-leash or dog exercise area) for each of these.
30. The following options have been considered within the statement of proposal:
Option 1 – retain current time and season rule (status quo)
31. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board inherits its time and season rules from the legacy Auckland City Council. Table 3 outlines the legacy time and season rule.
Table 3 Current time and season for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Summer (Labour Weekend until Easter Monday) |
||
Before 9am |
9 am to 7pm |
After 7pm |
Land: On leash |
Prohibited |
Land: On leash |
Water: Off leash |
Water: Off leash |
|
Winter (Easter to Labour Weekend) |
||
Before 10am |
10am to 4pm |
After 4pm |
Land & Water: Off leash |
Land: On leash |
Land & Water: Off leash |
Water: Off leash |
Option 2 – adopt a time and season definition based on the region-wide standard and align rules based on community preferences
32. The Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 provides a region-wide standard for time and season for the summer period but does not define the dog access rules for these times. The access rules presented in this option have been developed based on the feedback received from the community to date. A more detailed description of the community’s views is provided in Attachment D.
Table 4 Time and season based on the regional standard and community preferences
Summer (Saturday of Labour weekend to 1 March) |
||
Before 10am |
10am to 5pm |
After 5pm |
Under control off a leash |
Under control on a leash |
Under control on a leash |
Winter (From 2 March to Friday before Labour weekend) |
||
Before 10am |
10am to 5pm |
After 5pm |
Under control off a leash |
Under control on a leash |
Under control off a leash |
33. An under control off a leash access rule was considered after 5pm during summer, however it did not provide an appropriate level of public safety and comfort as identified by the community preferences between 5pm and 7pm (in summer).
Option 3 – adopt an alternative time and season rule based on evidence to date and community preferences
34. This option proposes an amendment to the region-wide time and season. The access rules takes into consideration the feedback received from the community to date and all of the evidence gathered through the previous local board dog access reviews.
Table 5 Alternative time and season rule for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Summer (Labour Weekend until 31 March) |
||
Before 10am |
10am to 7pm |
After 7pm |
Under control off a leash |
Prohibited |
Under control off a leash |
Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend) |
||
Before 10am |
10am to 4pm |
After 4pm |
Under control off a leash |
Under control on a leash |
Under control off a leash |
35. If the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board identifies any ‘high use’ areas through the review process, staff recommend Option 3 for the following reasons:
· provides for public safety and comfort of non-dog owners during the core day time hours (in summer and winter)
· provides for under control off a leash dog access in the morning which has been identified as an important time for dog owners
· provides for the needs of dog owners in the evening (after 7pm) as identified in the online survey
· the use of time and season rules similar to other local board areas will make it easier for visitors and non-resident dog owners to know what time and season access rules apply.
Identification of locations by category
36. Staff categorised locations into four categories (as outlined earlier) - highly sensitive, high use areas, dog friendly areas and standard areas. To determine the category for a particular location, staff considered:
· findings from site visits
· feedback from parks staff, biosecurity and biodiversity staff
· feedback from local board portfolio holders
· feedback from the online survey.
Highly sensitive areas (prohibited)
37. The primary wildlife concerns for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki area are shorebirds, wetland and saltmarsh birds along its coastlines and intertidal foreshore areas.
38. The coastline along the Tāmaki estuary from Tahuna Torea Nature Reserve, Wai-O-Taiki Nature Reserve, Point England Reserve foreshores to the Riverside and Dunkirk Reserve foreshore areas are important shore bird and wetland bird habitats. Dogs present a risk to these birds.
39. It is recommended that dogs are prohibited from the foreshore areas of Point England Reserve, Riverside Reserve and Dunkirk Reserve.
40. Further south along Otahuhu Creek, saltmarsh and mangrove bird populations feed, breed and roost along the shore banks of Flatrock Reserve and esplanade walkway.
41. It is recommended that dogs are prohibited from the foreshore area of Flatrock reserve, including the foreshore areas along the Flatrock Esplanade walkway, to better protect vulnerable bird species
42. Table 7 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) outlines the areas categorised as ‘’highly sensitive’ within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki area.
High use areas (time and season rule)
43. Time and season rules are most appropriate for high use areas, as these areas attract a lot of people at certain times of the day and year.
44. There are presently no identified areas that meet the definition of ‘high use’ in the local board area.
Dog friendly areas (under control off a leash)
45. Dog friendly areas[1] are places that are suitable for dogs to run and play under control off a leash. These areas typically have low levels of public use or are of a size that allows for shared use without significant impact on other users.
46. Legacy dog access rules have identified 19 dog exercise areas in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. Staff recommended that:
· 14 dog exercise areas be retained as ‘under control off a leash’ dog access areas. This includes Flatrock Reserve and the Waikaraka Foreshore walkway which were investigated as possible high use or standard parks
· four areas and part of a fifth dog exercise area are more appropriate to the other categories (i.e. ‘standard areas or ‘highly sensitive areas’)
· three new dog friendly areas be provided at the following locations to compensate for removal of dog exercise areas elsewhere - Panmure Basin (park adjacent to 2 Peterson Road), park area that runs south of Mt Wellington Memorial Reserve along the Panmure Wharf Reserve, and at Lavas Reserve (adjacent to Alcock Reserve)
47. Table 9 in the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) discusses the dog friendly areas named above in more detail, and a full list of dog friendly areas are contained in Attachment A of the Statement of Proposal.
Standard areas (under control on a leash)
48. The dog access rule appropriate to standard areas is under control on a leash at all times.
49. Table 10 in the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) outlines the areas categorised as standard areas.
50. There are biodiversity concerns in the foreshore areas adjacent to the Point England Esplanade Reserve; the Dunkirk Reserve; Riverside Reserves; and Flatrock Esplanade.
51. Staff recommend that these parks, are classified as ‘standard areas’ to reduce the potential for dogs attacking wildlife or accessing the foreshore.
52. Fernwood reserve, adjacent to Wai-O-Taiki Nature Reserve (between Inglewood and Silverton Streets), is earmarked as an area for a cycleway network. The reserve is current a dog exercise area. Given that the cycleway will change the use of the area and it will attract lots of users, there is potential for conflict with off a leash dogs. It is recommended that this area be classified as a standard area in lieu of this change of use.
53. The under control on a leash access rule for these areas will not negatively affect dog access as it is balanced with other under control off a leash access areas in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.
Ambiguous dog access rules
54. The following sections address current dog access rules which may be difficult to communicate or enforce. These were legacy council dog access rules are delegated to the local board to review at its discretion.
Picnic areas and fitness apparatus areas
55. Currently the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has general rules that require dogs to be under control on a leash in ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus areas’. None of these terms are defined in the bylaw.
56. The following options have been considered within the Statement of Proposal.
Option 1: Retain current rule
Advantages · no changes to the access rules need to be communicated to the public.
Disadvantages · unnecessary as the default rule for parks is already under control on-leash · it is not easy to know where picnic areas are · there are no local picnic areas that have easily identifiable boundaries or area of a size to justify a specific rule · the rules are not well known, not widely communicated, not easily communicated, and not easily enforced. |
Option 2 Remove the current specific rule (recommended option) Advantages: · simplified rules are easier to understand · no other specific parks were considered to warrant further restrictions due to the existence of picnic facilities · there are no fitness apparatus areas that warrant dog access rules that are different from the surrounding park rules.
Disadvantages · new access rules need to be communicated to the general public. |
57. Staff recommended option is to remove these rules (Option 2) for the following reasons:
· the picnic and fitness apparatus rule is not easy to communicate and enforce and is not well known at present
· there are no picnic or fitness apparatus areas that warrant a different dog access rule from the surrounding area
· no specific parks warrant further restrictions within it, due to the existence of picnic facilities or fitness apparatus.
Dog exercise areas
58. The current Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board dog access rules identifies 19 ‘dog exercise areas’, which are described as areas where dogs can be taken under control off a leash.
59. However, under the 2012 policy on dogs, ‘designated dog exercise’ and ‘under control off a leash’ areas have different definitions.
60. ‘Designated dog exercise’ areas refer to areas where dog owners are the priority user and a known dangerous dog can be taken off a leash. These areas are often referred to as dog parks. However, ‘under control off a leash’ areas refer to a place shared with other users, where dogs can be off leash but are not the priority user.
61. The following options have been considered for ‘dog exercise areas’.
Option 1: Retain the current rule
|
Option 2 Reclassify the dog exercise areas as and remove rule (recommended option) |
Advantages · no changes to the access rules need to be communicated to the public.
Disadvantages · inconsistent with policy on dogs · these areas do not meet the criteria for designated dog exercise areas |
Advantages: · these areas are shared spaces in terms of the policy on dogs · the majority of dog owner will continue to be able to take their dog under control off a leash in these spaces. Disadvantages · new access rules need to be communicated to the general public · may be perceived by dog owners as reducing dog access. |
62. Staff recommend that the local board remove the rule and reclassify the dog exercise areas (Attachment A) for the following reasons:
· 14 areas are shared spaces as described in the policy on dogs. This means that the dog friendly (under control off a leash) category better defines these areas
· four areas and part of a fifth dog exercise area are more appropriate to the other categories (i.e. ‘standard areas or ‘highly sensitive areas’).
Next steps
63. Staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the options selected by the local board.
64. The statement of proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified for submissions as part of the dog registration process in June 2016 for approximately six weeks.
65. Once submissions close, members of the public will present their views to the hearings panel, followed by deliberations to consider both the written and oral submission. The hearings and deliberations will take place in August 2016.
66. The decision of the local board is reported to Governing Body in September in order for the bylaw to be amended.
Appointment of the local board hearings panel
67. The local board has two options for the appointment of its hearings panel:
Option 1 – Appoint a panel of three or more members
68. Under this option a hearings panel of three or more members would hear and deliberate on the submissions. The hearings panel would then make a recommendation to the whole local board at their next business meeting to either adopt the recommendations or refer the matter back to the hearings panel for reconsideration. The local board is not able to substitute its decision with that of the hearings panel without rehearing the submissions.
Option 2 – Appoint a panel of the whole board
69. Under this option the panel would hear, deliberate and make the decision on the changes to the dog access rules. The decision of the hearings panel would be included in the agenda of the subsequent local board meeting for information purposes only. The following table outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option:
Table 6 Analysis of options
Option |
Advantages and Disadvantages |
Option 1 – appoint a panel of three or more members |
Advantages · only the local board members on the hearings panel need to attend the hearings and deliberations. Disadvantages · not all members of the local board hear the verbal submissions before making a collective decision on the dog access rules · if the local board disagrees with the recommendation of the hearings panel, the decision must be referred back to the hearings panel for reconsideration. Risks · constraints on the timing of hearings, deliberations and business meetings due to 2016 local government elections · potential for disagreement between hearings panel and local board on matters that are contested by the general public. Risk mitigation · delegate decision making power to the hearings panel or hold an extraordinary local board business meeting to consider recommendation of the hearings panel if currently scheduled local board business meetings do not meet the required time frames. |
Option 2 – appoint a panel of the whole board |
Advantages · all members of the local board hear the verbal submissions before making a collective decision on the dog access rules · a final decision on the dog access rules can be made at the time of the deliberations without the need for a recommendation to be reported back to a local board business meeting · collective local board responsibility for decisions on dog access rules. Disadvantages · greater time commitment required from all local board members to attend the hearings and deliberations. Risks · constraints on the timing of hearings, deliberations and business meetings due to 2016 local government elections. Risk mitigation · delegate decision making power to hearings panel. |
70. Staff recommend Option 2 - appoint a hearings panel of the whole local board as:
· all local board members can hear submissions
· a final decision on the dog access rules can be made at the time of the deliberations, increasing the likelihood of the process being completed before the 2016 local government elections.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
71. The views of other local boards have not been sought on the statement of proposal. In the 2013/14 and 2014/15 reviews, other local boards chose to review their beach and foreshore areas and adjacent parks, high-use parks, generic rules and dog exercise areas.
72. Consistency with the other local boards’ dog access rules is a factor that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board may take into account. Staff can provide advice on decisions made by other local boards.
Māori impact statement
73. Managing dog access in areas of significance to Māori can help achieve outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. In this instance, no impacts have been identified.
74. Feedback from Mana Whenua representatives at a Hui held in March 2015 related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on dog control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.
75. Sensitive ecological areas for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board have been identified as highly sensitive areas for its protection, as recommended by Mana Whenua.
Implementation
76. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a statement of proposal.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Statement of Proposal |
99 |
bView |
Decision making considerations |
125 |
cView |
Types of dog access |
131 |
dView |
Maungakiekie Tāmaki online survey feedback |
133 |
eView |
Feedback from Biodiversity |
137 |
fView |
Kauri Dieback |
141 |
gView |
Submission Form |
143 |
Signatories
Authors |
Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws |
Authorisers |
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/08528
Purpose
1. To request funding for planting on Maungakiekie as part of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority program to restore the tree on the tihi (summit).
Executive Summary
2. Funding is requested from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to assist with the implementation of the tree planting program on Maungakiekie. The funding will contribute to the costs associated with the program that has gained a high profile both locally and nationally. The event will take place in mid-June and will be open to the public and invited guests to attend.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) allocate $15k from the LDI environmental budget to assist with costs associated with the promotion and running of the tree planting event on Maungakiekie. |
Comments
3. On 7 September 2015 the Tūpuna Maunga Authority approved the program to restore the tree on the tihi (summit) of Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill. The planting will consist of a grove of 9 trees (three tōtara and six pohutukawa) and other native vegetation (including kiekie) on the tihi.
4. The planting is of high significance both locally and nationally.
5. The planting will be protected by the installation of a purpose-built circular iron fence to protect the trees for as long as necessary.
6. The event is planned for mid-June 2016 and will be open to the public to attend along with invited guests.
7. Costs associated with the event consist of hiring of venues, marquees and equipment, catering, signage and promotion.
8. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has an unspent budget of $20k for environmental projects in financial year 2015/16. A funding contribution of $15k is requested to deliver the above outcomes of the planting project.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
9. The local board has a strong platform of supporting the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and its programmes. It also has a long standing commitment to environmental projects and planting of native species in local parks.
Māori impact statement
10. Engagement and support from Mana Whenua and the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust have been received along with feedback on the proposal. Mana Whenua feedback highlighted the importance of using eco-sourced indigenous plants, such as the tōtara and pohutukawa proposed and requested that native vegetation including kiekie be included in the planting proposal.
Implementation
11. The event has been confirmed to take place in June 2016.
12. Invitations will be distributed the week of 2 May 2016.
13. Media releases and promotion of the event via website and media outlets will take place early to mid –May.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Scott De Silva – Manager Tupuna Maunga |
Authorisers |
Jane Aickin - Paeurungi Te Waka Tai-ranga-whenua Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Central Facility Partnership Joint Advocacy Positions
File No.: CP2016/08530
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek agreement from each of the seven central Local Boards, who are members of the Central Facility Partnership Committee, to develop joint advocacy positions on the future re-instatement of the Central Facility Partnership Fund.
Executive Summary
2. In round figures, since 2010, the Central Facility Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects to a total value of $45m. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10M Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund as part of the 2015-2025 long-term plan the Central Facility Partnership Fund ceased
3. Following agreement by Waitemata, Orakei, Albert-Eden, Puketapapa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards it was agreed to re-establish the Central Facility Partnership Committee.
4. A key purpose of the re-established Central Facility Partnership Committee as outlined in the Terms of Reference is to provide governance and oversight of approved partnership projects and feasibility studies; and develop and articulate joint facility-based advocacy positions and programmes.
5. A report was considered by the Committee on the 14th March 2016, which provided the members with an update on what advocacy positions had been taken to date by each central local board and identified upcoming opportunities to establish and present joint advocacy positions.
6. It was considered that a consistent approach, across the seven central local boards would create a stronger advocacy position on the re-instatement of the Central Facility Partnership Fund.
7. The Committee agreed to develop joint advocacy positions that reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference of the Committee and support the reinstatement of a similar fund. This wording could then be used by each local board to inform their advocacy discussions through the annual budget process.
8. In April 2016 input from Local Boards was sought on a range of annual plan related matters, including advocacy positions. The re-instatement of the Facility Partnership Fund was not originally included as a consultation topic for the annual plan process and therefore no submissions were received.
9. This report is seeking the local board to consider the inclusion of the additional proposed joint advocacy positions as part of the board’s individual advocacy positions in the 2016/17 Local Board Agreement.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) note that since 2010, the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45m. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. b) note that with the establishment of the $10M Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund as part of the 2015-2025 long-term plan the Central Facility Partnership Fund was ceased c) agree to include in the boards key advocacy issues the proposed joint advocacy positions: i) Request the Governing Body to re-instate a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund ii) Requests the approval for the Central Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current commitments, in the event of a current facility partnership commitment failing to crystallise d) agree to include as part of the Local Boards individual achievement reports the inclusion of the collective outcomes of the central Facilities Partnership Committee. |
Comments
10. Since 2010, the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This community led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy.
11. On 3 August 2015 members of the previous Central Facilities Partnership Committee held a workshop chaired by Waitematā Local Board and Committee Chair, Shale Chambers. Whilst the primary function of the Committee was agreed to be one of governance over existing approved projects and feasibility studies it was also recognised that a re-established Committee would provide a good vehicle for developing joint advocacy around community partnership issues and opportunities, which is reflected in the agreed Terms of Reference of the Committee.
12. Central boards represented at the workshop also held a collective view that the success of the fund, as evidenced by the ratio of Auckland Council’s contribution (approx. $10M) to the total value of the projects completed (approx. $45M) warranted advocacy around re-establishing the fund in the future.
13. In November 2015 all central Local Boards resolved and then a number discussed with the Finance and Performance Committee, as part of the annual plan discussions, selected advocacy positions.
14. A review of the advocacy positions taken by each central local board, which are related to the purpose of the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has been undertaken to provide an overview of what current advocacy positions have been made.
15. Three central local boards to date have included an advocacy position which requests the Governing Body to re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund.
16. Two local boards included this advocacy position in their presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee in November 2015.
Local Board |
Advocacy Position |
Advocacy Description |
Advocated to Finance & Performance Committee in November |
Waitematā |
Central Facilities Partnership Fund Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund |
Since 2010 the Central Facilities Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45m. This community led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m Local Board Discretionary Capex Fund , the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased
|
Yes |
Orakei |
Central Facilities Partnership Fund
|
Since 2010, the Central Facility Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45m. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund, the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased. The Board requests that a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership be reinstated.
|
No |
Albert Eden |
Central Facilities Partnership Fund Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund |
Since 2010, the Central facilities Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m LDI Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) Fund, the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased. |
Yes |
Puketapapa |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
Waiheke |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
Great Barrier |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
17. There is now an opportunity to achieve a collective approach across the central local boards as part of the upcoming annual budget process.
18. The Committee agreed in March 2016 to develop and propose to the member Local Boards joint advocacy positions, which reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference of the committee and supports the reinstatement of a similar fund as the Central Facility Partnership Fund.
a) Requests the re-instatement of a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund
b) Requests approval for the Central Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current commitments, in the event of a current Central Facility Partnership commitment failing to crystalise.
19. The committee also requested that Local Boards individually include within their individual achievement reports the collective outcomes that have been created as a result of the central Facilities Partnership Committee as a way of highlighting the success to date of this ceased fund.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
20. Individually each central local board has agreed to the Terms of Reference for the re-established Central Facility Partnerships Committee.
21. The Terms of Reference states as a key purpose of the Committee is to develop and articulate joint facility-based advocacy positions and programmes
Māori impact statement
22. The Central Facilities Partnership scheme is a general programme that supports facilities which are accessible to a wide range of groups including Maori.
Implementation
23. As part of the annual plan process Local Boards considered and finalised their advocacy positions in April 2016.
24. The re-instatement of a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund was not originally included as a consultation topic by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board as part of the annual plan discussion and therefore no submissions were received for consideration in April.
25. This report is seeking the local board to consider the inclusion of these additional joint advocacy positions as part of the board’s 2016/17 Local Board Agreement advocacy section, which is due to be adopted in June 2016.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Trina Thompson - Senior Local Board Advisor - Waitemata |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Contributions Policy Variation A
File No.: CP2016/08478
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to brief you on proposed variations to the 2015 Contributions Policy. Feedback is sought from Local Boards on the proposed changes.
Executive Summary
2. At its meeting on 17 March 2016 the Finance and Performance Committee adopted for consultation a proposal to amend the 2015 Contributions Policy to refine the parks (reserve acquisition, reserve development and community infrastructure activities) and stormwater funding areas, along with some minor definition changes.
3. Consultation with the public has been undertaken between 1 April 2016 and 21 April 2016. A consultation document, including the proposed policy variation is available on Shape Auckland. An event was held on 19 April 2016 to provide an opportunity for interested parties to present their views in person.
4. Staff will report the results of consultation and local board feedback to the Finance and Performance Committee in June 2016. Any amendments to the policy will take effect from 1 July 2016.
Proposed changes
5. The variations to the policy propose increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater from 22 to 36 and parks from 4 to 26. These changes reflect:
· geographic characteristics of stormwater and parks (reserve acquisition, reserve development and community infrastructure activities) usage
· growth priority areas
· desire for a stronger connection between where development contributions are collected and spent
· retention of the flexibility to amend plans to accommodate changes in the pattern of planned growth.
6. The proposed funding areas retain the flexibility to accommodate special housing areas and spatial priority areas and to respond to changes in the forecast patterns of growth.
7. The proposed changes do not affect the capital projects in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
That the Local Board provides any views it may have on proposed variations to the 2015 Contributions Policy for the Governing Body to consider.
|
Consideration
Significance of Decision
8. Adoption of a variation of the contributions policy is not a significant decision.
Local Board views and implications
9. Local boards provided feedback through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 consultation process seeking a stronger connection between where development contributions were collected and where they were spent.
10. A number of local boards suggested that funding areas should be more locally focused. The proposal to increase the number of funding areas is consistent with this view.
Māori impact statement
11. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Māori will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.
Legal and Legislative Implications
12. The options presented in this report comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Contributions Policy 2015 Variation A |
155 |
bView |
Contributions Policy – report to 17 March Finance and Performance Committee |
165 |
Signatories
Authors |
Felipe Panteli – Senior Advisor Financial Policy Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy |
Authorisers |
Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/06291
Purpose
1. To provide the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board the opportunity to renew its membership with HEART Movement.
Executive Summary
2. The local board has expressed its interest to renew the membership with HEART. The HEART movement works towards prevention of family violence and supporting healthy relationships
3. The board became a network member of the HEART Movement in September 2012 (resolution MT/2012/1) and has continued membership since then on an annual basis.
That Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local: a) thank Nandita Mathur, HEART Movement Coordinator, for her invitation to re-join as a HEART Member; b) agree to renew its membership with HEART Movement; c) delegate to the chair the authority to negotiate the board’s statement of commitment, as required in the membership agreement. |
Comments
4. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board joined the HEART Movement in September 2012. It has continued to renew its membership since then on an annual basis.
5. The HEART Movement is working to prevent family violence and promote healthy relationships in Glen Innes and Pt England. They are committed to continuously improving our knowledge and practice. The aim is to develop a consistent approach to addressing family violence and promoting healthy relationships amongst practitioners working in this community.
6. The local board has expressed an interest in continuing its membership to HEART and supporting the work they conduct in the community.
Consideration
Local Board Views
7. The local board has expressed an interest in continuing its membership to HEART and supports the work they conduct in the community.
Implementation
8. The HEART Movement Membership Agreement requires members to commit to actions to support the network in achieving its goals. Should the board decide to renew its membership the chairperson through delegation will develop the board’s statement of commitment and sign the membership agreement.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
HEART agreement 2016 |
173 |
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Governance Forward Work Calendar
File No.: CP2016/08421
Purpose
1. To present the board with a 12 month governance forward work calendar.
Executive Summary
2. This report provides a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the next 12 months or until end of electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is included in Attachment A.
3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on agendas is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice is required and when
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
4. The calendar is updated every month. Each update is reported 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.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar. |
Comments
5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. The forward work calendar provides elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.
6. The calendar brings together 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 assists staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it allows 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 review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Forward work calendar |
177 |
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Workshops - April 2016
File No.: CP2016/08425
Executive summary
1. The attached workshop records provide a summary of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops.
2. These sessions are held to give an information opportunity for board members and officers to discuss issues and projects, and note that no binding decisions are made or voted on at workshop sessions.
That the record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) receive the workshops report for April 2016. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
April 2016 workshops |
181 |
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
RECORD OF WORKSHOPS
Record of workshop proceedings for 5 April 11am-5pm
Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure
Members present for all or part of the workshops:
Simon Randall (Chairperson)
Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)
Josephine Bartley
Brett Clark
Bridget Graham
Obed Unasa
Alan Verrall
1.0 |
Auckland Transport - AMETI |
|
To discuss the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative project. |
|
Officers present: Duncan Humphrey, Lorna Stewart |
|
|
2.0 |
Waikaraka Grandstand |
|
To discuss the Waikaraka Grandstand |
|
Officers present: Allan Christensen, Pippa Sommerville |
|
|
3.0 |
Waikaraka Concept Plan |
|
To discuss the Waikaraka Concept Plan |
|
Officers present: Allan Christensen, Pippa Sommerville |
|
|
4.0 |
Community Partnerships |
|
To discuss community partnerships |
|
Officers present: Danielle Hibson, Jenny Tanner |
RECORD OF WORKSHOPS
Record of workshop proceedings for 12 April 10am-5pm
Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure
Members present for all or part of the workshops:
Simon Randall (Chairperson)
Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)
Josephine Bartley
Brett Clark
Bridget Graham
Obed Unasa
Alan Verrall
1.0 |
Dog access review |
|
To discuss the dog access review |
|
Officers present: Jasmin Kaur, Justin Walters |
|
|
2.0 |
Sports Facilities Investment Plan |
|
To discuss the Sports Facilities Investment Plan |
|
Officers present: Nadia De Blaauw, Kathrine Russell |
|
|
3.0 |
Sports Facility Community Access Scheme |
|
To discuss the Sports Facility Community Access Scheme |
|
Officers present: Ken Maplesdon, Duncan Chisholm |
|
|
4.0 |
Capacity Building Project |
|
To discuss the Capacity building project |
|
Officers present: Jenny Tanner |
|
|
5.0 |
Annual Plan |
|
To discuss the Annual Plan |
|
Officers present: Mary Binney |
|
|
6.0 |
Multiyear Funding Agreement |
|
To discuss multiyear funding agreements |
|
Officers present: Taylor Norman |
RECORD OF WORKSHOPS
Record of workshop proceedings for 19 April 1pm-5pm
Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure
Members present for all or part of the workshops:
Simon Randall (Chairperson)
Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)
Josephine Bartley
Brett Clark
Bridget Graham
Obed Unasa
Alan Verrall
1.0 |
Local Board department work programmes |
|
To discuss department work programmes |
|
Officers present: Mary Binney, Faithe Smith |
RECORD OF WORKSHOPS
Record of workshop proceedings for 26 April 10am-5pm
Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure
Members present for all or part of the workshops:
Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)
Josephine Bartley
Brett Clark
Bridget Graham
Obed Unasa
Apologies: Simon Randall (Chairperson)
Alan Verrall
1.0 |
Panuku Development Auckland |
|
To discuss Onehunga development |
|
Officers present: Fiona Knox, Toni Gaicon |
|
|
2.0 |
Panuku Development Auckland/Tāmaki Regeneration Company |
|
To discuss Tāmaki development |
|
Officers present: Gavin Peebles |
|
|
3.0 |
Leisure Facilities |
|
To discuss the work programme for leisure facilities |
|
Officers present: Jane Franich, Davin Bray |
|
|
4.0 |
Engagement Framework |
|
To discuss the local board engagement framework |
|
Officers present: Jessica Trask |
|
|
5.0 |
Ruapotaka Marae |
|
To discuss the marae |
|
Officers present: Jenny Tanner |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/08427
Purpose
Providing Board members with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) receive the board members report. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Report - Member Brett Clark |
187 |
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Board Member’s Report – Brett Clark
Committee:
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Business Meeting Thursday 19 May 2016 Panmure Local Board Office
Activities from 7 March 2016 – Tuesday 3 May 2016
7 March |
Mahi Takitini Oranga Taiao hui |
8 |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
Annual Plan – have your say |
|
14 |
Draft Integrated Management Plan Tūpuna Maunga |
|
Panuku Development AK Onehunga Core Group |
|
Panuku along with Chair Randall |
|
The Onehunga Combined Sports Trust |
15 |
PA catch up |
Wai-o-taiki Bay residents association meeting |
|
MTLB w/s |
|
MTLB/TRC Board meeting |
|
17 |
MLTB Business Meeting |
18 |
Professional development social media |
Briefing new Health & Safety Act |
|
21 |
Tūpuna Maunga hikoi, Maungakiekie only |
Develop feedback Tūpuna Maunga IMP |
|
MTLB Events Portfolio |
|
22 |
PA catch up |
|
Panmure Business Assn Panmure Basin event proposal |
|
MTLB w/s |
|
Citizenship Ceremony Town Hall |
25 |
Waikaraka Park football invitation |
29 |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB Leisure Portfolio |
|
Parks preparation |
1 April |
Todd Property’s Stonefields Apartment development |
4 |
Community led improvements in local parks introduction |
5 |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
8 |
Onehunga Police catch up |
9 |
Onehunga Festival at Taumanu Reserve |
11 |
Sport AK catch up |
|
MTLB Transport Portfolio |
|
MTLB Leases Portfolio |
|
The Onehunga Combined Sports Trust |
12 |
MTLB Events Portfolio |
|
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
14 |
MTLB Parks Portfolio |
18 |
Wai-o-taiki Bay residents association meeting |
19 |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
20 |
Wai-o-taiki Bay site visit |
21 |
MLTB Business Meeting |
22 |
Draft Sport Facilities Investment feedback |
25 |
ANZAC Dawn Service Cenotaph AK War Memorial Museum |
|
ANZAC Memorial Parade & service Onehunga RSA |
26 |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
27 |
AK Stock & Salon Car Club |
|
Catch up with Chair |
29 |
Keep AK Beautiful |
3 May |
PA catch up |
|
MTLB w/s |
Recommendation/s
That the report from Brett Clark be received
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Chair's Report to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
File No.: CP2016/08428
Executive summary
Providing the Chairperson, Simon Randall, with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues he has been involved with since the last meeting.
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board: a) receive the Chairperson’s report. |
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board |
Authorisers |
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager |
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 19 May 2016 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 Jubilee Bridge, Panmure Basin
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)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. In particular, the report contains financial information relating to promisory contributions from third party commercial entities.. s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). In particular, the report contains financial information relating to promisory contributions from third party commercial entities. |
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. |
[1] To be considered to be a practical off a leash area, the area was required to be accessible and have sufficient area to undertake typical off a leash a leash activities (e.g. throwing a ball or running around). The minimum area of open grass was 400m² with minimum dimensions of 15 metres by 15 metres.