Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust 5

8.2 Deputation - Friendship House, update 6

9 Public Forum 6

9.1 Public Forum - Sunnyside Tennis Club 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Manukau Ward Councillors Update 9

13 Ōtara Papatoetoe Local Board members portfolio update 11

14 Progressing Ngati Ōtara Park multi-sport and cultural centre 17

15 Panuku Development Auckland Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 July to 31 December 2015 23

16 Report back on Southern Resource Recovery Scoping Study and request for funding for on-going development of resource recovery activity 47

17 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 89

18 Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the quarter ending March 2016 93

19 Otara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round Two, 2015/2016 applications 137

20 Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Community Grants Programme 2016/2017 145

21 Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board: Community Reponse Fund proposals May 2016 151

22 24 hour South Visitor Attraction Campaign 2016/17 175

23 Contributions Policy Variation A 179

24 Submissions to Parliament on Alcohol Bill 197

25 Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel - portfolio holder 207

26 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board: draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) submission 209

27 For Information: Reports referred to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board 215

28 Governance Forward Work Calendar 217

29 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Workshop Notes 223

30 Chairpersons Announcements 231

31 Local Dog Access Review 233

32 Manukau Central Business Association - report on use of local board funding 285

33 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

34 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 291

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

a. 1/12 Konini Road, Papatoetoe 291

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meetings held on Monday, 18 April 2016 and Tuesday, 26 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

8.1 Deputation - Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust

Purpose

Ulalemamae Te'evā Matāfai from the Pacific Events & Entertainment Trust will present a deputation to the local board introducing their organisation.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) thank Ulalemamae Te'evā Matāfai from the Pacific Events & Entertainment Trust for his attendance and presentation.

8.2 Deputation - Friendship House, update

Purpose

Neil Denney, Chief Executive of Friendship House will present an update to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) thank Neil Denney from Friendship House for his attendance and presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Public Forum - Sunnyside Tennis Club

Purpose

1. Brian Langdon from the Sunnyside Tennis Club would like to thank the local board for the support and assistance with the recent lighting project.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) thank Brian Langdon from the Sunnyside Tennis Club for his attendance.

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.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

Ōtara Papatoetoe Local Board members portfolio update

File No.: CP2016/07694

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity at the business meeting for portfolio holders to update the full Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board on any significant activities over the last month.

Executive Summary

2. The portfolio leads and alternates for Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board are as follows:

Portfolio	Lead	Alternate
Planning, Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Efeso Collins	Ross Robertson
Arts, Culture and Events	Donna Lee	Ross Robertson
Community Services and Libraries	Mary Gush	Donna Lee
Youth Development	Lotu Fuli	Efeso Collins
Parks, Sport and Recreation	Ross Robertson	John McCracken
Built and Natural Environment, Heritage and Housing	Stephen Grey	Donna Lee
Economic Development, Business and Town Centre revitalisation	Stephen Grey	Mary Gush
Transport	Efeso Collins	John McCracken

3. At the commencement of this electoral term, the reasons for having local board portfolio-holders was workshopped with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and it was generally agreed that the objectives of local board portfolio holders are to:

· Provide clear steering of the relevant work programme

· Lift detailed discussion out of local board meetings and workshops

· Ensure key decisions go before the full local board

· Reduce or avoid delays in project delivery

· Enable local board members to apply their time and energy with enthusiasm and interest

· Ensure clear communications within the local board and between the local board and officers

· Maintain strong, connected relationships between the local board and its communities

· Maintain mutual trust

4. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board also workshopped what the role or job description of a portfolio holder might be, and some examples of how local board members might perform their role as a portfolio holder are outlined below:

Portfolio role	Examples of actions by portfolio holder
Undertaking roles specified in officer delegation protocols	· Landowner consents; and proposed asset renewal works: The portfolio-holder can either decide the issue or ask officers to refer it to the full local board for a decision · Providing feedback on resource consent applications
Sharing the workload between local board members	· Speaking at external meetings on local board matters e.g. at sports clubs – to gather their views, and represent the views of the local board · Supporting the Chair and other local board members in speaking to governing body committees or at public meetings on portfolio topics · Keeping alternate portfolio-holders informed, so they can assist the portfolio-holder where needed
Gathering knowledge	· Receiving officer progress updates on projects already agreed by the local board, noting that work programmes are approved by the full local board · Engaging and maintaining relationships with stakeholders · Reading background reports relevant to the portfolio
Acting as a sounding-board and advising officers	· Meeting with officers to give the local board view of issues · Where there is no known local board view, the portfolio-holder gathers the views of all local board members and formulates the local board position. (Contentious issues are best referred to a local board workshop) · Helping to shape details of departmental annual work programmes before presentation to the local board, to secure local board plan outcomes · Commenting on proposed design details and other issues arising from local board projects · Enabling officers to test possible local board interest in a proposal · Helping officers to define preferred options or approaches before reporting to the local board · Encouraging officers, especially through difficult decisions
Monitoring action against the Local Board Plan	· Asking officers for progress updates · Advising officers and local board when projects need response or attention
Leading local board projects as a convenor of the relevant steering group or working party	Various, but currently include: · Aorere Park joint steering group · Otara Lake and waterways steering group · Youth Connections project
Providing regular updates on portfolio activity to the local board	· At board business meetings: portfolio-holders can report back at this agenda item · Portfolio-holders lead board discussion on officer reports relevant to their portfolio · Emails to all local board members, when information needs to be timely

Recommendation/s

That the verbal or written reports from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board portfolio holders be received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Written report from Member Grey	3

Signatories

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

Progressing Ngati Ōtara Park multi-sport and cultural centre

File No.: CP2016/07637

Purpose

1. This report seeks support from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the proposed approach to progress the Ngati Ōtara Park multi-sport and cultural centre project.

Executive Summary

2. Council has committed $3.72 million for the development of new multi-sport and marae facilities on Ngati Ōtara Park in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

3. Council staff have been working in partnership with Ōtara Rugby League Football Club Inc. (ORLFC) and Ngati Ōtara Marae Society Inc. (NOM) on this project.

4. A 2013 concept design for the project was costed at $12.5 million. A funding feasibility study undertaken at the time showed it was highly unlikely to raise the necessary external funds to make the project a reality at that cost.

5. To move forward there are a number of issues to be addressed, including:

· Realistic total funding for the project is between $6 to $7 million.

· The project scope needs to be reduced to fit the realistic project funding.

· A new concept design is required based on the refined scope and realistic funding.

· A clear and effective governance structure for the partnership is required.

· An operational business plan to show how the new facilities will be operated.

· A clear funding strategy with a compelling case to leverage $3-4 million external funding.

6. To make best use of the skills and resources available and recognising long-term sustainability, it is proposed council officers take a lead role in driving the project working closely with the key partners. This proposal has been discussed with ORLFC and NOM and both are supportive. The proposed approach will involve the following work-streams:

· Planning and Design – developing new concept design to fit the realistic funding.

· Governance – determining the future governance structure.

· Operational feasibility – developing sustainable business plan.

· Funding – developing a clear funding strategy and “case for support”.

· Community engagement – securing wide community support and commitment.

7. In 2014, the local board resolved to grant $48,500 to ORLFC to progress the project, this funding has not been spent yet. Officers will work with ORLFC to apply this grant to the implementation of the work-streams.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) endorse the proposed approach with the Sport and Recreation Unit driving the Ngati Ōtara Park multi-sport and cultural centre project in partnership with Ōtara Rugby League Football Club Inc and Ngati Ōtara Marae Society Inc.

b) support the use of $48,500 grant to Ōtara Rugby League Football Club Inc to implement the proposed approach for Ngati Ōtara Park multi-sport and cultural centre project.

Comments

Background

8. Ngati Ōtara Park is a 26 hectare park on Ōtara Road in Ōtara. The land is owned by the Crown and vested in council as reserve.

9. The Ōtara Rugby League Football Club Inc. (ORLFC) and Ngati Ōtara Marae Society Inc. (NOM) are lease holders on the park since 1971 and 1982 respectively.

10. The Ngati Ōtara Marae is located on a former rubbish tip site and over recent years land subsidence has caused significant damage to the buildings. While the Wharenui (meeting house), Wharekai (dining hall) and the ablution block are still being used for community meetings, celebrations and tangi, the buildings are in a very poor condition and no longer fit for purpose. The Wharekai has been classified as near the end of its building life.

11. The ORLFC clubrooms are no longer fit for purpose being too small, poor design, low quality and inefficient to meet the needs of the many sport users on the park. While the club has maintained the facilities to the best of their abilities, the building is inadequate to meet community needs, particularly as use of the sport park grows.

12. Over the last five years the ORLFC and NOM have been working in partnership with the council, to plan for new multi-sport and marae facilities on the park. The collective aspiration is to provide opportunities for total community wellbeing including cultural, social, educational, recreational, environmental and economic development.

13. In 2013, a concept plan for a new multi-sport clubroom / changing room building and new marae buildings was presented to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board. The new facilities were estimated to cost $12.5 million, made up of $8.75 million for the multi-sport and $3.75 million for the marae. At that time, there was $3.9 million in the previous Long-term Plan 2012-2022, meaning a necessity to raise $8.6 million from external sources.

14. A funding feasibility study completed in 2013 indicated the maximum amount that might be raised from external sources was $5 million. Given the significant gap between the possible funding and the cost of the project, it was clear the project needed to be re-scoped to fit within realistic funding levels.

15. In November 2014, the local board granted funds to ORLFC to undertake a review of the project scope and concept design to meet the funding availability and to develop a draft business case for the project. This work did not progress due to uncertainties during the recent long-term planning process. Subsequently, $3.72 million was confirmed for the project in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

16. With council’s funding commitment to the project resolved, a clear plan is required to ensure successful delivery of the project. This report outlines the proposed approach for the project, along with the key issues that need to be addressed.

Key issues

17. The realistic total funding for the project is between $6 to $7 million. Through the funding feasibility study, external funders indicated the council should contribute at least 50 percent of the total project cost. While it is possible the project could raise up to $5 million from external fundraising, the realistic level is between $3 to $4 million. With the council’s commitment of $3.72 million, the realistic project funding is between $6 to $7 million.

18. The project scope needs to be reduced to fit the realistic project funding. An analysis of the first concept design indicates the scope and design may have been driven more by “wants” than “needs”. A review of project drivers needs to be undertaken to provide a clearer picture of the needs to inform the design. An analysis of other multi-sport clubrooms and marae facilities indicate it is feasible to reduce the project scope to meet the realistic funding.

19. A new concept design is required based on the refined project scope and realistic project funding. The design process will need to consider different configuration options along with innovative and cost effective building options to maximise the project outcomes for minimal cost. Staging the project may also be considered.

20. There are statutory requirements arising from the Reserve Act and District Plan/Unitary Plan which will need to be resolved. These issues are not a major concern but may add additional time if a formal notification process is required. This will depend on the final concept plans and placement of the facilities.

21. A critical success factor is the future governance structure for the partnership. The stakeholders have undertaken some work on the future governance structure and this will be reviewed against key success factors and key learnings from other projects.

22. An operational business plan is required to show how the new facilities can be operated efficiently and effectively. This will need to determine future revenue and expenditure and assess whether there is any need for ongoing operational support.

23. There needs to be a clear funding strategy developed with a compelling case to leverage funding from external sources. Implementing the funding strategy and securing funding will be critical to achieve overall project timeframes.

24. Community engagement and support for the project will be important to achieve the overall project goals. The community engagement will need to include Mana Whenua, other park users, residents, schools, Manukau Institute of Technology and other community organisations.

Proposed Approach

25. A concern for the successful delivery of this project is the capacity of the partners to undertake the project delivery and still have capacity at the completion for the on-going operation of the new facilities. A key learning from other facility development projects is to use the available skills and resources wisely and consider the long-term sustainability beyond the initial project planning and building construction.

26. Therefore the proposed approach for the Ngati Ōtara multi-sport and cultural centre project is for staff from the Sport and Recreation Unit to take a lead role in driving the project working closely with the key partners. Both ORLFC and NOM support this approach.

27. With this approach, it is very important to fully involve the partners in the decision-making to ensure there is strong ownership of the resulting outcome. A project team will be formed where key partners are fully involved in the planning and project decisions. Key milestones will be feed through the respective partner organisations for endorsement.

28. The proposed approach will involve the following work-streams:

· Planning and Design – undertaking a review of needs, analysis of configuration and staging options, developing a new concept design and defining the statutory requirements for the project. The outcome will be a revised concept design costed within the realistic funding and an associated project execution plan.

· Governance – reviewing options for the future governance structure for the facilities. The outcome will be a clear governance structure with clear roles and responsibilities.

· Operational feasibility – assessing the anticipated revenue streams and likely expenditure for the future facilities. The outcome will be a sustainable business plan.

· Funding – developing a clear funding strategy and “case for support” to underpin securing $3 to $4 million of external funding. The outcome will be a funding strategy and securing the necessary funds.

· Community engagement – keeping the community engaged and informed with the project. The outcome will focus on securing wide community support and commitment.

29. The project team are developing a detailed project plan to articulate the tasks for the work-streams. Officers will coordinate the work-streams and ensure the project continues to drive forward. Consultants or other council resources will be engaged to complete the major tasks.

30. It is expected tangible progress will be achieved over the next 18 to 20 months, in order to secure the council’s financial investment in the project. However, the funding work-stream is dependent on funding decisions outside the control of the project team.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

31. Improvements to Ngati Ōtara Park are included as key initiative in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan 2014.

32. The proposed approach outlined in this report was discussed at a local board workshop on 1 March 2016 and was generally supported.

Māori impact statement

33. At the 2013 Census, Maori comprised 15.6% of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board population, which has dropped slightly since 2006 when the proportion was 17.9%.

34. Seven Mana Whenua groups are identified as having interest in Ngati Ōtara Park. Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Tamaoho and Te Aakitai Waiohua have in the past supported the development of the park in principle. Key interests include the sustainability of the park developments, rehabilitation of the overall area and ongoing engagement in aspects which impact on the air, land and water.

35. The overall impact of this project for Maori is estimated as being high given the development of the marae facilities, the proportion of Maori residents and the high participation of Maori in local sports clubs. It is proposed leaders from Ngati Ōtara Marae will lead engagement with Mana Whenua and Mata Waka groups as the project progresses.

Implementation

36. In November 2014, the local board granted $48,500 to ORLFC to fund a review of the concept design and develop a draft business case for the project. At the time, a funding agreement was not executed due to uncertainties with council’s capital funding for the project. With council’s capital funding commitment now resolved, officers will work with ORLFC to apply the grant to the implementation of the work-streams set out in this report.

37. The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 includes $3.72 million spread from 2017 to 2020 to contribute to the Ngati Ōtara multi-sport and marae facilities development.

38. The next step is to commence work with the project team to start implementing the five work-streams. It is proposed to keep the local board informed about progress through quarterly reporting and updates to the portfolio holder.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Anita Coy-Macken - Team Leader Provision

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

Report back on Southern Resource Recovery Scoping Study and request for funding for on-going development of resource recovery activity

File No.: CP2016/07245

Purpose

1. To note the results of the Southern Resource Recovery Scoping Study and to seek allocation of $10,000 in 2016/17 to support the on-going development of resource recovery activity and $5,000 to the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs to continue to stimulate resource recovery activity though the #makerhood project.

Executive Summary

2. In 2014/15, the five southern local boards (Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Papakura) jointly funded a study to scope options for resource recovery in the south. Regional funding matched this local investment. The study was undertaken in two phases and provides findings and recommendations to advance the development of two community recycling centres in the south over the next five years. A full copy of the Southern Resource Recovery Scoping Study report (the study) is appended at Attachment A.

3. In the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (the board) area, there are a number of groups actively working on resource recovery initiatives, including The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs and the #makerhood project, Clover Park Community House, and Habitat for Humanity. There is also a large amount of support from other organisations such as Ōtara Health Charitable Trust and Ōtara Network Action Group (ONAC) for resource recovery.

4. This report recommends that the board commit funding to support the on-going development and capacity-building of local organisations and resource recovery activity in Ōtara-Papatoetoe.

Recommendation

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) note the results of the Southern Resource Recovery Scoping Study.

b) approve the allocation of $10,000 from the board’s 2016/17 waste programmes and recycling study budget to implement a southern capacity-building and mentoring programme to support the growth of resource recovery activity within Ōtara-Papatoetoe and across the south.

c) approve the allocation of $5,000 from the board’s 2016/17 waste programmes and recycling study budget to support the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs to further implement the #makerhood project.

Comments

Background

5. The development of a regional Resource Recovery Network (RRN) is a key initiative in Auckland Council’s 2012 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and is a critical element in achieving the plan’s goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

6. At its meeting in October 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed the strategic direction for the RRN, including a long-term strategy of developing 12 community recycling centres over a ten year period. The strategy proposes the development of two community recycling centres in the southern region during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years. Funding for site development is in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

7. In early 2015, with support from the Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Papakura Local Boards, council staff commissioned a scoping study to investigate how the RRN could develop in the south. The objective of the study was as follows;

To identify potential sites, interested parties and possible collaborations, and to outline a plan to progress the establishment of at least two Community Recycling Centres in the South. It also needs to identify capacity building requirements within the community sector.

8. The scoping study was undertaken in two stages. Stage one of the study involved:

· completing a stocktake of existing resource recovery operations in the study area;

· initial engagement with organisations and individuals interested in being involved; and

· identifying a list of potential sites.

9. These findings were presented in a report In July 2015 and discussed with local board representatives at a workshop.

10. Stage two of the study involved:

· organising a study tour for interested community organisations to Xtreme Zero Waste in Raglan which has been operating as a community recycling centre for over 14 years;

· identifying which organisations have advanced their plans to get involved with, or expand their current, resource recovery operations;

· identification of collaboration opportunities;

· GIS modelling to develop a model by which potential sites can be assessed against an ‘ideal standard’ for a Community Recycling Centre in the study area; and

· formulating recommendations on how council can advance resource recovery in the south.

Results of the scoping study

11. The study highlighted the need for council to work concurrently on acquiring resource recovery sites and on capacity-building of potential operators. The study also identified ten community-led initiatives and organisations in the south with potential to evolve into operators of community recycling centres or related resource recovery initiatives. It also noted three significant potential collaboration opportunities with Auckland Airport, Auckland South Corrections Facility and mana whenua.

12. There is significant interest in resource recovery in this board area. The board recently provided funding for the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs to pilot the ‘fix-it pod’ activations as part of the #makerhood project - a collaboration with Oceania Academy and The Southern Initiative.

13. The Clover Park Community House has established, with local board support, a skills shed, community garden and compost area at a council property on Boundary Road, Ōtara. They are working to secure space to expand their activities, especially in resource recovery. There is also a large amount of support for resource recovery activity from groups such as O Waste - a collaboration between a number of local groups including Ōtara Health Charitable Trust and ONAC.

14. Habitat for Humanity has registered to receive reusable items recovered from the new inorganic collection service to repair and resell through their Restore shops. They are also interested in exploring with council the possibility of their site being used for a community recycling centre.

15. The scoping study recommends mentoring and capacity-building to support the emerging initiatives, as well as direct funding to continue to implement the #makerhood project. This funding will enable ongoing capacity-building to stimulate further resource recovery opportunities.

16. With regard to site identification, the study has developed a model for analysing potential sites against an ideal standard for community recycling centres in the south. Council staff will work with Panuku Development Auckland and local boards to identify candidate sites with the assistance of this model.

Investment opportunities for consideration

17. The suggested focus for investment over the next financial year is to support the capacity-building of local groups, facilitating collaborations and seed funding to start up local initiatives. This will put local groups in the best possible position to tender for a contract to run a facility and also support and catalyse complementary locally based resource recovery activity.

18. There are three options that were considered with regards to the board’s investment in resource recovery activity. These are described below.

Option One: Do Nothing

19. The board can choose not to provide any funding to resource recovery initiatives in the south. If the board chooses this option, local groups can apply to council’s Waste Management and Innovation Fund to build their own capacity and seed fund initiatives.

20. The risk with this approach is that the momentum that has been built-up through the scoping study engagement process will dissipate. Many of the groups are emergent and lack confidence to start local initiatives without receiving support from council or other groups.

Option Two: Support capacity-building for the southern network

21. In this option, each of the five southern local boards would be approached to contribute $10,000 over the 2016/17 financial year to support a dedicated programme to:

· Establish a capacity-building and mentoring programme to grow the collective capacity of groups involved in resource recovery. This will also provide opportunities for new groups to be identified and supported.

· Continue to foster collaborations with Auckland Airport, Auckland South Corrections, mana whenua and other key stakeholders to identify and develop opportunities for joint resource recovery ventures.

· Facilitate and support a network of organisations and businesses interested in resource recovery in the south.

Option Three: Provide funding for The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs to continue to implement their #makerhood project

22. In this option, the board can consider allocating funding of $5,000 for the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs to continue to develop the #makerhood project that builds on the pilot fix-it pod activations currently underway.

23. The full cost of delivering the #makerhood project in 2016/17 is estimated at $10,000. As there is insufficient funding in the board’s proposed waste programmes and recycling study budget line, it is recommended that the board consider increasing this budget line to $20,000 as part of its discussions on the Local Board Agreement 2016/17. Alternatively, the board could recommend that Roots Creative Entrepreneurs apply to the board’s local grants programme or to the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund to enable full funding of the #makerhood project in 2016/17.

24. Similar recommendations will be made in May 2016 to the other four southern boards that supported the initial scoping study. The board will be kept informed as to the outcome of these recommendations and the overall funding for the project.

25. In the event that all southern boards do not provide a similar level of funding, the project parameters will be adjusted to accommodate a smaller budget and the boards will be informed as to the new proposal.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. As noted above, the board has provided support for resource recovery initiatives as part of its 2015/16 work programme. This support for resource recovery initiatives, including the recommendations in this report, align with commentary in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan encouraging of community-led environmental and sustainability initiatives. In addition, support for community capacity-building and the establishment of skills sheds fostering resource recovery initiatives are two key initiatives in the plan.

27. Three combined local board workshops have been held throughout the development and implementation of the scoping study. This ensured that local board representatives had the opportunity to feedback on the project.

28. The recommended investment of $10,000 will enable support for local resource recovery activity based in Ōtara-Papatoetoe including any new groups. The recommendation of further funding of $5,000 to support the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs will enable the group to implement their #makerhood project.

Māori impact statement

29. Representatives from 12 mana whenua and seven maatawaka organisations were engaged through the scoping study. Although no specific opportunities for collaboration were identified, members of The Southern Initiative’s Maori Advisory Group and attendees of council’s monthly mana whenua information hui saw potential for collaboration. They were supportive of continued consultation and discussion on the opportunities as they emerge.

30. A number of maatawaka organisations are now involved in community-led resource recovery initiatives in the study area.

Implementation

31. Subject to approval of funding, Waste Solutions officers will work with Ōtara-Papatoetoe groups on capacity-building to support them in delivering resource recovery initiatives.

32. Waste Solutions will also work with Habitat for Humanity to explore opportunities for a joint community recycling initiative on their site.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Scoping Study for Resource Recovery in the South: Findings and Recommendations	3

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Chilcott – Senior Waste Planning Specialist

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/07317

Purpose

1. This report seeks a decision on the application for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act).

Executive Summary

2. An application for an exemption for fencing a spa pool has been received from the owner of 1/12 Konini Road, Papatoetoe

3. The application does not comply with the Act. Pool inspectors have inspected the property and consulted with the applicant. Full assessment reports are attached to this report.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) grants the application for special exemption as sought for 1/12 Konini Road, Papatoetoe with the following conditions:

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

ii) the exemption is granted to the current owner; and

ii) that the spa pool cover remains in place and locked when pool is not in use; and

iv) that the spa pool remain in this location.

Comments

Background

5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the 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 the attachments to this report.

6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicant in this case. The applicant has been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act and they have chosen to seek a special exemption from those requirements.

Legislative implications

7. Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exemptions are granted by the local board.

8. The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool, or all or some of the immediate pool area including the pool itself. Specific detail on this is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool does not have a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.

9. An exemption can only be granted by the local board after 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 Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of six years.

12. When granting a special exemption the local board may impose reasonable conditions relating to the property or the pool or reflecting other relevant circumstances. These may include:

a) Making the exemption personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption

b) 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

· conditions it may be necessary to impose.

16. The local board must also be satisfied that the exemption would not significantly increase the 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 Act.

Maori impact statement

19. There are no particular impacts on Maori that are different from those of other pool owners.

Implementation

20. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	1/12 Konini Road, Papatoetoe (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Brendon Findlay - Swimming Pool Inspector

Authorisers

Sally Grey - Manager Weather Tightness & Compliance

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round Two, 2015/2016 applications

File No.: CP2016/06575

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received in Ōtara-Papatoetoe local grants round two 2015/16. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has set a total local community and events grant budget of $330,000 for the 2015/16 financial year. The local events budget of $166,000 has been fully allocated for the year.

3. A total of $85,251 has been allocated from the local community grant budget for one local grant round and three quick response rounds. The remaining balance of $78,749 is to be distributed in one remaining local grant round and one quick response round.

4. Fourteen applications were received in this round with a total request of $200,908.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

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

Table One: Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round Two Applications

Application No.	Applicant	Main Focus	Project Title	Amount Requested
LG1613-216	Age Concern Counties Manukau Inc.	Community	Counselling Services for Older Adults	$56,000
LG1613-204	Auckland Pacific Wardens Community Services Trust	Community	Otara Pacific wardens set-up costs	$38,000
LG1613-212	Communicare CMA (Auckland) Inc.	Community	Papatoetoe Communicare	$936
LG1613-215	Crosspower Ministries Trust	Community	Purchase of second-hand sports equipment and furniture	$2,000
LG1613-213	Diabetes New Zealand Inc. (t/a Diabetes NZ Auckland Branch)	Community	Community Diabetes Awareness Expos	$28,973
LG1613-209	Papatoetoe Adolescent Christian Trust	Community	Boxing Mentoring Programme	$10,000
LG1613-218	Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Counties Manukau Area (Inc.)	Community	Otara and Papatoetoe Plunket playgroups - operational costs	$8,000
LG1613-205	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Thriving Youth Communities in Otara-Papatoetoe	$3,000
LG1613-206	De La Salle College	Environment	Our Stream Our Taonga	$9,396
LG1613-203	Papatoetoe West School	Environment	Mana Potential Recycling proposal.	$4,000
LG1613-217	Project Litefoot Trust	Environment	LiteClub Otara-Papatoetoe	$2,103
LG1613-221	Accelerating Aotearoa Inc.	Events	Geek Camp - Free Youth Digital Workshops	$12,000
QR1613-316	Accelerating Aotearoa Inc.	Events	Park Jam - Free Family Digital Fun Day	$25,000
LG1610-214 (multi-board application)	Manukau Performing Arts Incorporated	Arts	Costumes for the “Dream Girls” show	$1,500
Total Amount Requested				$200,908

Comments

5. The implementation of the Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/16 and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board adopted its grants programme on 20 April 2015 under Resolution Number OP/2015/50 (see Attachment A).

6. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements

7. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board set a total local community and local events grant budget of $330,000 for the 2015/16 financial year. The local event support budget of $166,000 has been fully allocated for the year.

8. A total of $85,251 has been allocated from the local community grant budget for one local grant round and three quick response rounds. The remaining balance of $78,749 is to be distributed in one remaining local grant round and one quick response round.

9. Fourteen applications were received in this round with a total request of $200,908.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

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

Māori impact statement

12. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

13. Two organisations have identified as Maori and seven have indicated their project will target Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

15. Following the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board allocating funding for local grants round two, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Otara-Papatoetoe Grant Programme 2015/2016	3
b View	Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Local Grant Round Two application summaries (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Young - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

24 hour South Visitor Attraction Campaign 2016/17

File No.: CP2016/08046

Purpose

1. To request allocation of $20,000 to assist the delivery of a 24 hours South visitor attraction campaign 2016/17.

Executive Summary

2. Phase 1 of 24 hours South visitor attraction campaign has delivered positive messages about South Auckland to 330,000 people over six weeks in 2015/16.

3. The campaign is targeted at the domestic visitor market and Auckland residents, and has included international guests, to showcase attraction sites in South Auckland.

4. The Airport Tourism Regional Group is seeking sponsorship to deliver phase 2 of the 24 hours South campaign in spring 2016 to promote South Auckland as a visitor destination.

5. The next phase of 24 hours South will include a fast-paced and lively video targeted at adults aged between 20 and 60 years of age. It is a broad demographic consisting of family groups, independent travellers and young couples.

6. Both Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Manurewa Local Board have agreed to fund $20,000 each towards phase 2 of 24 hours South visitor attraction campaign.

7. Rainbow’s End theme park, Manukau centre and Fresh Gallery are considered visitor attraction candidate sites in Ōtara-Papatoetoe, to be covered in the video.

8. The proposed initiative is aligned with action 25.2 of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Economic Action Plan ‘promotional campaigns that build the visitor profile of Ōtara-Papatoetoe.’

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) allocate $20,000 towards delivery of a 24 hours South visitor attraction campaign in 2016/17, to come from the board’s Community Response Fund.

Comments

9. South Auckland is rich in natural scenery and coastal environment with a number of visitor attractions and recreation providers developing organically in the Airport Oaks and Manukau. However, South Auckland is often portrayed as an area of social problems including crime, poverty and overcrowded housing.

10. ATEED’s local economic growth team sees an opportunity to work with the tourism clusters at Airport Oaks to organise a tourism promotion campaign to showcase the attractions and tourism sites in South Auckland.

11. The Airport Tourism Regional Group was established in 2014. The group comprises several airport precinct and Manukau-based tourism businesses. The group exists to support and nurture the growth of tourism in South Auckland.

12. The Airport Tourism Regional Group is seeking sponsorship to deliver phase 2 of the 24 hours South campaign in Spring 2016, to promote South Auckland as a visitor destination. The next phase of 24 hours South will include a fast-paced and lively video targeted at adults aged between 20 and 60 years of age. It is a broad demographic consisting of family groups, independent travellers and young couples.

13. The campaign also aims to improve the perception of South Auckland by sharing good stories, attracting more Aucklanders to visit sites in South Auckland and support local tourism operators.

14. ATEED facilitates the partnership approach in delivering the campaign between the local boards and Airport Tourism Regional Group. ATEED will organise several meetings including a tourism familiarisation visit with three southern local boards including Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Manurewa Local Board and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board. ATEED helps to build the relationships between the tourism cluster group and other tourism operators outside the group.

15. The 24 hours South campaign involves an online video promoted via Facebook / YouTube and a prize draw to win a series of free entry tickets to attractions in South Auckland.

16. The main objectives of 24 hours South campaign are to:

a. improve the perception of South Auckland by sharing information about activities available

b. attract more Aucklanders to visit sites in South Auckland and support local tourism operators

c. encourage tourism operators and attractions to work collaboratively.

17. Phase 1 of the campaign was extremely successful. Between 11 December and 18 January it reached 346,508 people on Facebook with 568 shares and over 2,000 likes. A total of 6,686 people participated in the prize draw. The promotion out-performed the average New Zealand Facebook click-through rate three-fold.

18. The execution of phase 1 of the campaign was both efficient and effective with the cost per click at $1.10. ATEED runs many regional tourism promotion online videos and the average cost per click is around $2.

19. The 24 hours South campaign has boosted the visibility of local tourism operators with the campaign results indicating 98 percent of people learnt more about what to do in South Auckland, and 99 percent of people indicated their willingness to visit South Auckland in the next 6 months.

20. The 24 hours South campaign has also aroused the interest of many tourism operators and other entities to work collaboratively. Local galleries have approached ATEED and expressed an interest to be involved in future initiatives.

21. There will be a considerable consultation process with tourism operators and local boards. Our suggested timeline is:

May	· Meet with key operators from the Airport Tourism Regional Group and Wero. · Airport Tourism Regional Group submits a concept plan
June	· Meeting to discuss levels of interest from operators and feedback on the concept plan · Follow-up with operators as necessary · Invite three southern boards for one day familiarisation visit to attractions in South Auckland · Local boards’ feedback on the concept plan
July	· Get quotes from video producer / campaign management agency to ensure project meets budget. If not, consider a fee payable by operators to be included to cover any shortfall
August	· Have draft itineraries in place for consideration by the three southern boards, or their portfolio holder · Video production · Update the local boards
November-December	· Campaign go live

Consideration

22. ATEED staff presented the 24 hours South 2016 campaign results to a workshop on 1 March 2016. The board indicated that it would consider funding the campaign in 2016/17.

23. Phase 2 of 24 hours South is proposed to be a cross-board initiative jointly funded by Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Manurewa Local Board and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board at a total cost of $60k in 2016/17. The Manurewa and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu boards have agreed to participate in the phase 2 campaign and have approved funding of $20k each in 2016/17.

24. It is proposed that Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu boards be the sponsors for the phase 2 of 24 hours South campaign. ATEED provide oversight of the spending and ensure campaign results are measured. The Airport Tourism Regional Group will co-ordinate campaign design and video production.

25. The campaign is envisaged as a start of a branding campaign for South Auckland. Changing perceptions requires a long-term approach and will need to be built-on further beyond this campaign by all those involved, including both local boards and businesses.

26. The local board funding would be spent on a new video production and campaign promotion. The detail of proposed expenditure will be tabled in a proposal from Airport Tourism Regional Group.

27. The direct benefits of the phase 2 campaign to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area include major visitor destinations being featured in the video. Rainbow’s End theme park, Manukau centre and Fresh Gallery are considered as visitor attraction candidates in Ōtara-Papatoetoe to be covered in the video. The campaign will raise Ōtara-Papatoetoe’s profile as a visitor destination and spread the positive stories of South Auckland. The campaign will encourage tourism operators and attractions to work collaboratively, in attracting more visitors to Ōtara-Papatoetoe and South Auckland.

Maori impact statement

28. Protocols will be followed if the phase 2 campaign covers any sites with Maori cultural or historical values.

Implementation

29. ATEED will manage the relationship with the Airport Tourism Regional Group in delivering the 24 hours South visitor attraction campaign in 2016/17. ATEED will report back to the board once the results become available.

30. The Airport Tourism Group will coordinate the video and campaign design. The video production and campaign management will be done by independent service providers.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Luo Lei - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Paul Robinson – Local Economic Growth Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

16 May 2016

Local Dog Access Review

File No.: CP2016/08806

Purpose

1. To adopt the Statement of Proposal containing proposed changes to local dog access rules for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board area and appoint a hearings panel to receive, hear and deliberate on the submission 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 to understand to the public. 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.

4. The board resolved at its 14 December 2015 business meeting to undertake a review of local dog access rules in 2016. 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 adopting options that would provide a balance between public safety and comfort and the needs of dog owners that:

· increases protection of wildlife and specifically at risk shore bird species by restricting dog access on or adjacent to the upper reaches of Tamaki Estuary and Manukau Harbour around Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park;

· identifies 80 dog friendly areas that will allow dogs to be under control off a leash without significant impact on other users.

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 hearings and deliberations are planned for August, to be completed in time for its decision to be reported to the governing body in September 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Confirm its intention to propose an amendment 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:

[Editorial note – No high use areas have been identified in the Statement of Proposal. Delete resolution a ii) if not required]

i) the areas within Table 6 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as highly sensitive areas where dogs are prohibited

ii) the areas within Table 7 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as high use areas subject to the following time and season rules:

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

iii) the areas within Table 8 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 9 of the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) as standard areas where dogs are allowed under control on a leash.

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) Appoints a panel of the whole to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and decide on changes to local dog access rules.

Background

9. Within the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area approximately eight per cent of households have one or more dogs on their properties^{^[1]}.

10. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local park, beach and foreshore areas. The following local access rules currently apply:

· a default under control off a leash dog access rule which applies to all park, beach and foreshore areas unless otherwise specified

· dogs are allowed under control on a leash in any farm paddocks in a park occupied by stock and on esplanade reserves in Puhinui Reserve.

11. 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.

12. The governing body has established a standard annual process to assist local boards with the review of local dog access rules as follows:

13. The board resolved at its 14 December 2015 business meeting (OP/2015/215) to undertake a review of local dog access rules.

14. To assist with developing this proposal, the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) summarises information gathered from:

· council staff involved in parks, animal management and biodiversity (see Attachment 5 of the Statement of Proposal)

· Māori through hui in March 2015

· residents and visitors through an on-line survey in March 2016.

There were 81 respondents to this survey (73 per cent non-dog owners and 27 per cent dog owners).

A summary of the results of the survey is contained in Attachment 4 of the Statement of Proposal. The summary covers matters related to dog owner and non-dog owners’ preferences for dog access, people’s comfort around dogs, and the use of local beach and foreshore areas.

Decision-making requirements

15. 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.

16. Alternatively, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board can also decide to rescind its decision from December 2015 (OP/2015/215), and postpone the review to a later date.

17. 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. The relevant statutory and policy considerations are set out in Attachment 2 of the Statement of Proposal and are summarised in Table 1 below.

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.

Comments

Types of areas

18. To enable dog access rules to be easier to understand within the local board area and across Auckland, the following categories in Table 2 below are used.

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

19. A full description if the area types are provided in the Statement of Proposal.

Time and Season

20. It is noted that the staff do not recommend that any locations be identified as a high use area. However, a time and season rule is presented here to enable the local board to consider the use of the high use category, for instance in response to submissions on this proposal.

21. A time and season rule is proposed to be used 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 conflicts between different users by encouraging them to access the area at different times.

22. 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.

23. The local board must decide whether or not using the standard times and season 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.

24. 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 the summer and winter times.

25. The following options have been considered within the Statement of Proposal.

Option 1 – Retain the current dog access rules

26. The Dog Management Bylaw (2012) ensures that the former dog access rules for local parks, beaches and foreshores are retained until such a time as the Local Board reviews and amends these. Currently there are no time and season rules within the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area. Any area that is not identified either as a dog friendly or highly sensitive area currently defaults to under control off-leash.

Option 2 – Adopt a time and season definition based on the regional standard and align rules based on community preferences

27. The Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 provides a standard definition for time and season for the summer period but does not define the access rules for these times.

28. Access rules are defined using community preferences obtained from an on-line survey. Due to insufficient responses to the on-line survey in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board area, the access rules in this option have been developed based on feedback received from the community to date and all of the evidence gathered through the previous local board dog access reviews. A more detailed description of community views is provided in Attachment 4 of the Statement of Proposal.

Table 3: Time and season based on the regional standard and community preferences

Summer - (Labour Weekend until 1 March)
Before 10am	10am to 5pm	After 5pm
Under control off a leash	Prohibited	Prohibited
Winter (2 March 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

29. 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.

Option 3 – Adopt an alternative time and season rule based on evidence to date and community preferences

30. This option proposes an amendment to the standard time and season definition that takes into consideration all of the evidence gathered through the previous local board dog access reviews.

Table 4: Alternative time and season definition and rules based on community preferences

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

31. If the local board does identify any high use areas through this review process, staff recommend the adoption of an alternative time and season rule based on region-wide community preferences (Option 3) for the following reasons:

· provides for the comfort of non-dog owners during the core day time hours

· provides for the needs of dog owners in the evening (after 7pm) as identified in community views

· 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 to high use areas.

Identification of locations by category

32. In order to identify the areas to which the high sensitive, high use, standard and dog friendly areas are recommended to apply, staff conducted site visits and obtained advice from parks, biodiversity and biosecurity. In addition community feedback was sought through an online survey looking at beach use and the preference for dog access.

33. Two areas that are subject to the review have been identified within Table 6 of the Statement of Proposal as highly sensitive for the protection of wildlife. These areas are located in the upper reaches of Tamaki Estuary (around Highbrook Drive Reserve, Ngati Ōtara Reserve, Waiouru Tuff Ring) and the foreshore adjacent to Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park. It is noted that the foreshore adjacent to Puhinui Reserve (the Puhinui Wildlife Refuge) is administered by the Department of Conservation area and dogs are currently prohibited (refer map in Attachment 7 of the Statement of Proposal).

34. No areas within Council controlled parks or beaches have been identified as being high use areas.

35. Eighty areas have been identified within Table 8 of Statement of Proposal and are recommended to remain as dog friendly areas. These areas provide locations where dogs can be taken under control off a leash.

36. Eighty-four areas have been identified within Table 9 of Statement of Proposal and are recommended as standard areas.

37. The impact of the recommended changes is to:

· increase the protection of wildlife and specifically at risk shore bird species by restricting dog access on or adjacent to the upper reaches of Tamaki Estuary and Manukau harbour around Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park

· identify 80 dog friendly areas that allow dogs to be under control off a leash without significant impact on other users.

Ambiguous dog access rules

38. The following sections address current dog access rules which may be difficult to communicate or enforce. These were rules made prior to the creation of Auckland Council and delegated to the local board to review at its discretion.

Farm paddocks

39. Currently the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has a rule that requires dogs to be under control on a leash on farm paddocks in parks occupied by stock (e.g. on stocked paddocks in Puhinui Reserve). The following options have been considered within the statement of proposal:

Option 1: Retain ambiguous rule

Option 2: Remove ambiguous rule (recommended option)

Advantages

· maintains under control on a leash access to public parks with farm paddocks

· promotes safety of dogs and stock

· no changes to the access rules need to be communicated to the public.

Disadvantages

· potentially confusing for park users as parks with farm paddocks are currently not identified in Schedule 2 of Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

Advantages

· more appropriate place-based dog access rules can be implemented for parks with farm paddocks (e.g. high use or standard)

· simplifies and clarifies dog access rules for the area

· easier to communicate with signage and easier to enforce.

Disadvantage

· will need to specifically identify public parks with farm paddocks and apply the appropriate dog access rule

· access rules for areas that are no longer farm paddocks will not be updated as its use changes.

40. The staff recommended option is to remove these specific rules (Option 2) and instead apply an under control on a leash, off a leash or prohibited rule. This aids in signage implementation and clarity of dog access rules for users.

Next steps

41. Staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the options selected by the local board.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. The decision of the local board is reported to the Governing Body in September in order for the bylaw (and if necessary the policy) to be amended.

Appointment of panel

45. The local board has two options in relation to the hearings panel:

Option 1 – Appoint a panel of three or more members

46. Under this option a hearings panel of three or more members will need to be established to hear and deliberate on the submissions. The hearings panel would then make a recommendation to the 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.

47. Under this option the whole local board 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 next local board meeting for information purposes only.

48. The following table outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option:

Table 5: 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.

49. Staff recommend the adoption of Option 2 for the following reasons:

· 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.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

50. 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.

51. Consistency with other local board dog access rules is also a factor that the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board may want to take into consideration. Staff will provide advice on decisions made by other local boards during the options analysis and deliberations stages of the review.

Māori impact statement

52. Managing dog access in areas of significance to Maori can help achieve outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. In this instance, no impacts have been identified.

53. 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 control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation

54. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a Statement of Proposal.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal	3

Signatories

Authors

Dmitry Mitenkov - Policy Analyst

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

[1] Figures based on 2013 population and household data and 2016 dog register data.

Chairperson	Fa’anānā Efeso Collins
Deputy Chairperson	Ross Robertson, QSO, JP
Members	Lotu Fuli
	Stephen Grey
	Mary Gush
	Donna Lee
	John McCracken

Authors	Daniel Poe - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Authors	Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager