Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

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 Waitematā Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 June 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 Waitematā Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Jennifer Northover

Executive Summary

Jennifer Northover – Chair of Grey Lynn Association was in attendance to speak about a Liquor License application.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Thanks Jennifer Northover for her attendance and presentation.

9.2 Soala Wilson

Executive Summary

Soala Wilson – Surrey Crescent Working Group was in attendance to speak about a Liquor License application.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Thanks Soala Wilson for her attendance and presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain

File No.: CP2016/11727

Purpose

1. To seek a decision about whether to remake a night-time alcohol ban and an annual Christmas in the Park alcohol ban at the Auckland Domain.

Executive summary

2. Pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has the delegated authority to make alcohol bans over areas of regional significance. Local boards have the delegated authority to make alcohol bans in all other areas.

3. For the Auckland Domain however, Auckland Council has adopted a unique governance arrangement that reflects the site’s significance both regionally and locally. In August 2013, the council determined that decision-making over the Auckland Domain should be geographically split, as follows:

· The Waitematā Local Board had delegated authority to make decisions about the playing fields and community leases

· The governing body retained decision-making over the remainder of the Auckland Domain

4. In early 2015, the council revised this approach and established the Auckland Domain Committee, a joint committee comprising governing body, Independent Māori Statutory Board and Waitematā Local Board members.

5. When reviewing all existing alcohol bans in October 2015, staff misinterpreted the governance arrangements for the Auckland Domain and reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to retain the existing alcohol bans. Staff did not seek decisions from the Waitematā Local Board nor the Auckland Domain Committee.

6. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee accepted the staff recommendation to make the alcohol bans as follows (see maps in Attachment A):

a) a night-time alcohol ban between the hours of 10pm and 7am during daylight saving and 7pm to 7am during the rest of the year

b) an annual event-based alcohol ban for Christmas in the Park on the second weekend of each December from 4pm of the Friday before the event (rehearsal day) to 8am on the following Monday (to incorporate a contingency day in the event of bad weather on the Saturday).

7. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decision to retain alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain continues to apply for all areas of the Auckland Domain, except the sports surfaces (see Attachment A). There is currently no valid alcohol ban on the sport surfaces, nor on the streets and reserves outside of the Auckland Domain that make up the Christmas in the Park alcohol ban. This report addresses this issue. The most efficient process to remake alcohol bans is for the Waitemata Local Board to make the decision.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) makes the following alcohol bans relating to the Auckland Domain

i) a night-time alcohol ban between the hours of 10pm and 7am during daylight saving and 7pm to 7am during the rest of the year on the areas identified in Attachment A Map 3; and

ii) an annual event-based alcohol ban for Christmas in the Park on the second weekend of each December from 4pm of the Friday before the event (rehearsal day) to 8am on the following Monday (to incorporate a contingency day in the event of bad weather on the Saturday) incorporating the sports surfaces of the Auckland Domain and the surrounding streets and reserves. The streets and reserves to be included are as follows (see Attachment A, Map 4):

iii) Parnell: Nicholls Lane, Carlaw Park Avenue, Parnell Rise, Fraser Park, Mutu Street, Bedford Street, Heather Street (to Cracroft Street), Parnell Rd, St Marys Close, Claybrook Road

iv) Newmarket: Maunsell Rd, Titoke Street, George Street, Morgan Street, Broadway, Alma Street, Clayton Street, Alma Street, Carlton Gore Road, Khyber Pass Road (to motorway on ramp), Kingdon Street

v) Grafton: Outhwaite Park, Khyber Pass Reserve, Park Road (Grafton Bridge to Khyber Pass Road), Huntly Avenue, Parkfield Terrace, Claremont Street, Seafield View Rd, Arotau Place, Glasgow Terrace, Boyle Cresent, Grafton Road (Khyber Pass to Stanley Street), Beckham Place, Kari Street, Ferncroft Street, Moe Hoe Street

b) confirms that the decision in (a) is in accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014

c) notes that staff will undertake a review of the delegations for alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain to improve decision making and efficiency.

Comments

Background

Decision-making under the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014

8. The Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (“the Bylaw”) delegates the authority to make alcohol bans over areas of regional significance to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee. Regionally significant bans, include:

a) any public place for which the governing body retains decision-making for non-regulatory activities as outlined in the Long Term Plan

b) any regional park, including any associated park, road, beach or foreshore area

c) all Tūpuna Maunga over which the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is the Administering Authority, including the Tūpuna Maunga vested in the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014

9. The Bylaw delegates decision-making authority for alcohol bans in all other areas to local boards.

Decision making about the Auckland Domain

10. The council has adopted a unique governance arrangement for decision-making over the Auckland Domain, to reflect the site’s significance both regionally and locally:

· the playing fields and sporting facilities (i.e. the community recreational leases for the Auckland Bowling Club and Parnell Tennis Club) are important to local communities in the Waitematā Local Board area

· the site is also a significant park that draws visitors from across the region.

11. Between August 2013 and February 2015, decision-making over the Auckland Domain was geographically split, as follows:

· The Waitematā Local Board had delegated authority to make decisions about the playing fields and community leases, referenced above.

· The governing body retained decision-making over the remainder of the Auckland Domain.

12. However, in early 2015, the council revised this approach and established the Auckland Domain Committee, a joint committee comprising governing body, Independent Māori Statutory Board and Waitematā Local Board members.

13. As part of this, in February 2015, the Waitematā Local Board sub-delegated its decision-making over the Auckland Domain to the Auckland Domain Committee (resolution number WTM/2015/9).

14. This sub-delegation does not affect the Waitematā Local Board’s existing delegated or allocated responsibilities relating to matters outside the Auckland Domain. The board can also continue to make decisions about the playing fields and sporting facilities if it chooses.

Alcohol ban review project

15. Between December 2014 and October 2015, the council completed a review of its existing 1600 alcohol bans to ensure compliance with a new legislative requirement for all alcohol bans to meet a higher evidential threshold.

16. Staff approached the review on a local board basis, and reported regionally significant areas to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

Relevant previous decisions regarding alcohol bans at the Auckland Domain

17. The council reviewed the following two Auckland Domain alcohol bans as part of this process (see maps in Attachment A):

a) a night-time alcohol ban between the hours of 10pm and 8am during daylight saving and 8pm to 8am during the rest of the year

b) An annual event-based alcohol ban for Christmas in the Park on the second weekend of each December from 4pm of the Friday before the event (rehearsal day) to 8am on the following Monday (to incorporate a contingency day in the event of bad weather on the Saturday).

18. The Auckland Domain Committee supported the retention of alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain (Resolution number ADC/2015/9).

19. Staff recommended retaining the alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain with an amendment to the night-time alcohol ban to align with the regional standard time of 10pm to 7pm during daylight savings and 7pm – 7am during the rest of the year. After considering the following information, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee accepted the staff recommendation:

· data from the New Zealand Police – showed that levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the general area supported the retention of the previous night-time alcohol ban and the annual event-based ban for the Auckland Domain. This evidence is summarised in Attachment C.

· community views – 34 public submissions generally supported alcohol bans as a means of addressing alcohol-related crime and disorder. However, the council did not receive any submissions specifically relating to the Auckland Domain.

20. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee made this decision by resolution at its October 2015 meeting.

21. At this time, staff misinterpreted the governance arrangements for the Auckland Domain and did not seek decisions from the Waitematā Local Board nor the Auckland Domain Committee about the Auckland Domain alcohol bans. In addition to the decisions of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

· The Auckland Domain Committee could have made the decision about the the playing fields and sports facilities on the Auckland Domain

· the Waitematā Local Board could have made decisions about the playing fields, sports facilities and the streets and parks outside the Auckland Domain that make up the Christmas in the Park alcohol ban.

22. The most efficient process to remake alcohol bans is for the Waitemata Local Board to make the decision.

Effect of Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decision

23. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decision to retain the Auckland Domain alcohol bans continues to apply for all areas of the Auckland Domain, except the sports surfaces (see Attachment A). There is currently no valid alcohol ban on the sport surfaces.

24. The annual event-based alcohol ban that connects the Auckland Domain with surrounding town centre and City Centre alcohol bans during the Christmas in the Park event is not valid on the identified streets and reserves outside of the Auckland Domain, nor on the sports surfaces.

25. Staff have informed the police about this discrepancy. The police have adjusted their operational practices accordingly to reduce the risk of applying the Bylaw incorrectly.

26. The New Zealand Police have not undertaken enforcement action under the Bylaw for breach of an alcohol ban on the areas where the alcohol ban was invalid since the previous decision in October 2015.

Decision for the Waitematā Local Board

27. To address these issues, separate decisions are now needed about whether to make:

· a night-time alcohol ban for the sports surfaces, marked in Attachment A, between the hours of 10pm and 7am during daylight saving and 7pm to 7am during the rest of the year

· an annual event-based alcohol ban for Christmas in the Park on the second weekend of each December from 4.00pm of the Friday before the event (rehearsal day) to 8:00am on the following Monday (to incorporate a contingency day in the event of bad weather on the Saturday).

28. The decision about the night-time alcohol ban can be made by either the Waitematā Local Board or the Auckland Domain Committee. This is because sub-delegating does not affect the Bylaw’s delegations (Section 3 of the Bylaw).

29. For the Christmas in the Park annual event-based alcohol ban, the decision best sits with the Waitematā Local Board as:

· the sport surfaces at the Auckland Domain fall within the delegations of both the Waitematā Local Board and the Auckland Domain Committee

· the streets and reserves surrounding the Auckland Domain, fall within the Waitematā Local Board’s delegations and not the Auckland Domain Committee.

30. This report enables the Waitematā Local Board to make both of these decisions.

31. The Auckland Domain Committee is aware that staff are working towards improving the delegations for future decisions regarding alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain.

Decision-making considerations

32. In making an alcohol ban, the Waitematā Local Board must be satisfied that it complies with a range of statutory and bylaw requirements. This includes the following requirements outlined in Clause 7(2) of the Bylaw (Attachment B):

· evidence that the alcohol ban area has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· that the alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms

· consideration of community-focused solutions as an alternative to or to complement an alcohol ban area

· consideration of the views of the police, and owners, occupiers, or persons that council has reason to believe are representative of the interests of owners or occupiers, of premises within the area to which the alcohol ban will apply

· consideration to using one of the following times for consistency:

o 24 hours, seven days a week (at all times alcohol ban)

o 7pm to 7am daily (night-time alcohol ban)

o 10pm to 7am daylight saving and 7pm to 7am outside daylight saving (night-time alcohol ban)

o 7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend and holiday alcohol ban).

Options

33. Staff have identified the following three options for the Waitematā Local Board to consider:

· Option 1: Status quo – No further action to correct previous decisions

· Option 2: Remake both the night-time and Christmas in the Park alcohol bans as originally proposed in May 2015

· Option 3: Remake the part of the Christmas in the Park alcohol ban that falls solely within Waitematā Local Board’s delegated authority, and defer to the Auckland Domain Committee to make decisions about alcohol bans for the sports surfaces.

34. A summary of the pros, cons and risks associated with each option is outlined in the table below.

Table 1: Options analysis

	Pros	Cons	Risk assessment
Option 1: Status quo	· no further action required.	· signage would need to be removed and the night time alcohol ban at the Auckland Domain would not cover the entire site (i.e. the sports surfaces would be excluded). This would increase the likelihood that the area attracts alcohol-related crime and disorder.	· risk of a legal challenge if the police incorrectly enforce the alcohol ban.
Option 2: Remake both alcohol bans	· meets the decision-making considerations in paragraph 29 · is not seen to place unreasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms to possess or consume alcohol · will enable a consistent enforcement regime across the whole area in a timely manner · will help address alcohol-related crime and disorder that may occur in the area in a timely manner · aligns with the public’s understanding of alcohol controls currently in force on the Auckland Domain in a timely manner.	· excludes the Auckland Domain Committee from decision-making.	· minimises the risk of legal challenge as the process to make an alcohol ban will have been correctly followed.
Option 3: Remake the part of the Christmas in the Park ban solely within the board’s delegation	· respects the unique governance arrangement put in place for the Auckland Domain, via the Auckland Domain Committee.	· requires further reporting and delays.	· low risk of a legal challenge to the bylaw or enforcement action taken by the police if the police enforce alcohol prohibition on the sports surfaces of the Auckland Domain.

Staff recommendation to the Waitematā Local Board

35. Staff recommend that the Waitematā Local Board adopt Option 2 to make both alcohol bans.

36. This would help address alcohol-related crime and disorder in relation to the sports surfaces and for major events held on the Auckland Domain in a timely manner.

37. The sports clubs on the Auckland Domain would continue to manage alcohol-related harm according to the conditions of their alcohol licence. Alcohol bans would not be applied to the car park areas as these are not generally accessible by the public.

Risk management

38. With any alcohol ban, there is a risk that the decision to apply an alcohol ban may be challenged in the High Court. This risk is considered to be very low and defendable, provided that:

· evidence of site specific alcohol-related crime and disorder is well documented to ensure the new national requirements are met

· the same level of evidence and the same analysis criteria are used to adopt other alcohol bans in the area.

39. In relation to the Auckland Domain, if no alcohol ban is made, the police will be limited in their response to risks associated with alcohol at night-time on the sports surfaces of the Auckland Domain and during the Christmas in the Park event.

40. With the complicated delegations structure currently in place, the council may be slower in its response to temporary alcohol ban requests and this can reduce the ability of council to effectively use the Bylaw on the Auckland Domain. Staff have communicated with the relevant stakeholders to minimise this risk. After local body elections in October, staff will review the delegations under the Bylaw on the Auckland Domain.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. The Waitematā Local Board in September 2012 recommended the annual temporary alcohol ban for the Christmas in the Park Event (Resolution number WTM/2012/272).

42. The Board has also previously noted support for the review of the night-time alcohol ban as part of its feedback on the proposal to amend the time to align with the recommended regional standard times in the bylaw described in decision-making considerations above.

Māori impact statement

43. The Auckland Domain is a place of great significance to mana whenua in Auckland. Alcohol bans help to reduce the adverse impacts that alcohol can have on public health, safety and amenity.

44. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei supported the temporary alcohol ban in place for Christmas in the Park in 2012.

Implementation

45. If no action is taken (Option 1) alcohol ban signage will need to be removed around the sports surfaces and the promoters of the Christmas in the Park event informed about decisions.

46. If the Waitematā Local Board decide to remake the alcohol bans on the Auckland Domain, no further action will be required. A memo will be sent to the chair of the Auckland Domain Committee informing them of the decision.

47. If the Waitematā Local Board decide to defer the decision on the sports surfaces to the Auckland Domain Committee (Option 3) a report will go to the Auckland Domain Committee at its next available business meeting.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alcohol bans proposed in May 2015	29
b View	Alcohol control Bylaw 2014 Clause 7(2))	31
c View	Evidence considered by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee	33

Signatories

Authors

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Road Name Approval for the renaming of Lower Khartoum Place, Auckland City Centre

File No.: CP2016/14397

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek consideration from the Waitematā Local Board, of a new road name to potentially replace the lower section of Khartoum Place.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed new road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.

3. As agreed with the Waitematā Local Board, the community consultation phase for the potential renaming was completed on the 30^th of May 2016 and has resulted in 137 submissions, which resulted in the final presentation of 10 road names to be considered in this report.

4. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the following road names were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria:

a) Suffrage Place

b) Te Ha o Hine Place*

c) Elizabeth Yates Place

d) Meri Mangakahia Place

e) Suffrage Square

f) Colin McCahon Place

g) Amy Dudley Place

h) Womens Suffrage Place

i) Equality Place

Note:

*The proposed name Te Ha o Hine is considered appropriate only if a suffix such as ‘Place’ is attached.

5. Consultation with local iwi groups has occurred as part of the Waitematā Local Board’s process. A name (Te Hā O Hine) was put forward by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and supported by Whanau at Ōrākei Marae, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Te Ahiwaru-Te Waiohua and Te Kawerau iwi Tribal Authority

6. Additionally and subsequent to the community and iwi consultation, the name ‘Te Ha O Hine Suffrage Place’ has been proposed as a bi-lingual alternative. Each part of the proposed wording adds value to the whole. By adding Te Ha O Hine (a term taken from the whakatauki (proverb) ‘ Me aro koe ki te hā o Hine-ahu-one’ which translates to ‘pay heed to the dignity of women’ ) to Suffrage Place brings it the connection back to women.

7. The names as presented in paragraphs 4 and 6, together with the retention of the existing name are presented for consideration by the Waitematā Local Board.

8. In the event an alternative road name is approved by the Waitematā Local Board, consideration of the demarcation line between Khartoum Place and the new road is requested of the Local Board

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) That the Waitematā Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names presented in paragraphs 4 and 6 (Executive Summary) for the lower section of Khartoum Place.

b) That, having given consideration to and having approved a new road name for the lower section of Khartoum Place, the Waitematā Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the line of demarcation between Khartoum Place and that new road.

Comments

9. Context - At the Waitematā Local Board meeting of 8 December 2015, the local board resolved to consider renaming of lower Khartoum Place [WTM/2015/202]. “…requesting the Resource Consenting and Compliance team, in consultation with relevant council departments, report options for re-naming lower Khartoum Place with a suitable name associated with women’s suffrage, and in recognition of the Women’s Suffrage Centenary Memorial 1893-1993 ‘Women Achieve the Vote’ to a local board business meeting for its consideration in time for the renaming to occur by Suffrage Day 2016.”

10. The portion of Khartoum Place in the Auckland city centre which in this report is referred to as “lower Khartoum Place” is that part of Khartoum Place which extends in an eastwards direction from Lorne Street and ends along the upper line of the staircase noted for its mural celebrating New Zealand’s women’s suffrage movement.

Consultation approach

The outcomes of the stakeholders and iwi engagement informed the consultation proposed names as well as a question requesting other name options. The following names were identified in the consultation.

Consultation period started 26 April 2016 and ended 30 May 2016.

Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Suffrage Place	Reference to the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Te Ha o Hine	Derived from whakatauki (proverb) ‘Me aro koe ki te hā o Hine-ahu-one’ which translates to ‘pay heed to the dignity of women’.
Kate Sheppard Place	A prominent member of the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Elizabeth Yates Place	A prominent member of the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand and the first female Mayor in the British Empire (Onehunga Borough)
Meri Mangakahia Place	A prominent member of the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Suffrage Square	Reference to the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Colin McCahon Place	A prominent New Zealand artist
Amy Dudley Place	A prominent member of the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Womens Suffrage Place	Reference to the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand
Equality Place	Reference to the women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand

Key themes identified from the consultation included:

a) Strong support for the name change

b) Support for a name associated with women suffrage

c) Support for the name provided by iwi

d) Two main name options- Suffrage Place and Te Ha o Hine

Consultation and Engagement Feedback Report (Attachment 1)

Decision Making

11. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

Assessment

12. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

13. The following table assesses the suitability of the proposed names as to whether they meet the requirements set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015 and New Zealand Road Naming Standard - AS/NZS 4819:2011. This can be summarised that all names meet the requirements except for Kate Sheppard Place and Colin McCahon Place.

Proposed New Road Name	Assessment
Suffrage Place	The name “Suffrage” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015
Te Ha o Hine	The name is acceptable under the guidelines, however a suffix such as Place is required to satisfy all of the requirements of the guidelines
Kate Sheppard Place	This name does not meet the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015 paragraphs 14 (a) and 15, as there is a road with the name Kate Sheppard Avenue in Torbay.
Elizabeth Yates Place	There are at least 15 occurrences of roads including the name Elizabeth in Auckland, the inclusion of the surname Yates does differentiate, and while acceptable it should be considered a last option.
Meri Mangakahia Place	The name “Meri Mangakahia” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015.
Suffrage Square	The name “Suffrage” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015
Colin McCahon Place	There is McCahon Place in Titirangi
Amy Dudley Place	The name “Amy Dudley” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015
Womens Suffrage Place	The name “Womens Suffrage” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015
Equality Place	The name “Equality Place” meets all of the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015

14. The proposed names include two suffixes: Place and Square. Place meets the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015 and New Zealand Road Naming Standard - AS/NZS 4819:2011, where Place is described as being a “short, sometimes narrow enclosed walkway.” Square meets the requirements of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 2015, where Square is described as being a “roadway which generally forms a square shape, an area of roadway bounded by four sides.” Proposed road names without a suffix (Te Ha o Hine in this case) do not on their own meet the road naming guidelines. However, if the suffix Place or Square is added to Te Ha o Hine, this would meet the requirements.

15. These names have been tested against New Zealand Road Naming Standard - AS/NZS 4819:2011 and the LINZ Addressing team have stated that they are supportive of the proposals

16. Subsequent to the community and iwi consultation, the alternative, bi-lingual name ‘Te Ha o Hine Suffrage Place’ has been proposed for consideration. This name has been tested against New Zealand Road Naming Standard - AS/NZS 4819:2011 and the LINZ Addressing team have advised that, it is good practice for naming to choose a single word or two that reflect the overall subject. They have indicated concern that the name may be difficult to understand and use, especially in an emergency, because it is long and complex. On this basis they do not support this name. The decision on what name is chosen, ultimately is a Waitematā Local Board decision and LINZ would not be in a position to decline its use.

17. As the names listed below all meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval:

a) Suffrage Place

b) Te Ha o Hine (Place or Square)

c) Elizabeth Yates Place

d) Meri Mangakahia Place

e) Suffrage Square

f) Te Ha O Hine Suffrage Place

g) Amy Dudley Place

h) Womens Suffrage Place

i) Equality Place

Delineation

18. The proposed delineation between the lower and upper parts of Khartoum Place is described by two sets of stairs with the lower level containing the mural in celebration of Women’s suffrage and the stairwell, with the upper part being a level area and containing the upper chamber of the water feature. Attachment 2 describes that delineation in pictorial form.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

19. The decision sought from the Waitemata Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori impact statement

20. The decision sought from the Waitemata Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Consultation

21. Previous consultation with iwi and the wider community has been conducted by the Waitematā Local Board and records of this have been previously made available to the Local Board. The records of this consultation are summarised as attachment 1.

Consultation has been conducted with Land Information New Zealand to determine the ability of the proposed names to meet the LINZ and AS/NZS 4819:2011 Standard road naming criteria. This has been used to assist with the above assessment.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

22. The costs of installation of standard road name signage (pole and blade) will be recoverable from Auckland Transport. Alternative road signage may require additional funding and time

Legal and Legislative Implications

23. The decision sought from the Waitematā Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultation and Engagement Feedback Report - Renaming Lower Khartoum Place	41
b View	Khartoum Place - Delineation of new road - Pictorial	47

Signatories

Authors

Kurtis Dafoe – Planner, Central Resource Consents

David Snowdon - Team Leader, Central Resource Consents

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager, Central Resource Consents

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Waitematā Local Board Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017

File No.: CP2016/13144

Purpose

1. To approve the 2016/2017 work programme for Community Facilities renewals for the Local Parks, Sports and Recreation activity.

Executive summary

2. Renewals funding is identified at a high level through the long-term plan and a capital works programme is prepared for approval annually. The programme ensures that each council facility can operate to the current level of service articulated in the relevant asset management plan.

3. Attachment A provides the proposed 2016/2017 work programme for Community Facilities, Local Parks, Sports and Recreation, renewals for local board approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approves the 2016/2017 work programme for Waitematā Local Board Parks, Sports and Recreation Renewals

b) notes that the 2016/2017 funding envelope is indicative to deliver this programme of work and any budget variances (within scope) will be managed within the total region-wide renewals funding envelope.

Comments

4. Community facilities are an important part of realising the vision of Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city. They contribute to building strong, healthy, and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can connect, socialise, learn, and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art, and recreational activities. These activities foster improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride among residents.

5. Investment in this renewals programme will ensure that council facilities remain valuable, well-maintained community assets that continue to meet user expectations. Not undertaking timely renewals will have an undesirable impact on the customer experience and put asset performance at risk, and ultimately increase the cost to maintain the facility.

6. The renewals programme process ensures that the proposed Community Facility renewals work programme (Attachment A) has received extensive input and assessment from business owners, facility users, and Community Facilities staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

7. Council staff will report quarterly to the local board on how the programme is tracking, and discuss with the local board any arising key risks and notify the local board when projects are completed.

Māori impact statement

8. The Waitematā Local Board Community Facility renewals work programme 2016/17 will ensure that all facilities continue to be well-maintained community assets benefiting the local community, including Māori. Parks and open spaces, as well as sport and recreation activity contributes significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Tangata Whenua appropriate consultation will follow.

Implementation

9. This work programme will be implemented as part of Community Facilities’ usual business practice.

10. Work programme implementation will be reported quarterly to the local board. The first-quarter report will outline the programme’s delivery schedule.

11. The 2016/2017 Community Facilities renewals work programme for the Local Community Services activity was presented for approval at the June business meeting.

12. Where bundles of assets are presented as projects over multiple years, the assets (listed within each project line) will be renewed in order of priority with as many singular assets being renewed, within the allocated budget, as possible.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waitematā Renewals Work Programme 16_17	53

Signatories

Authors

Hannah Alleyne - Senior Programme Planner

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Approval of Proposed 2016/2017 Local Environment and Development Work

File No.: CP2016/10491

Purpose

1. To approve the proposed 2016/2017 local environment (totalling $48,000) and development work programme (totalling $4,774,000) for the Waitematā Local Board.

Executive summary

2. The Waitematā Local Board has identified aspirations in their local board plan 2014-2017, to achieve the following:

· the natural environment is respected and enhanced

· a distinctive, high-quality urban environment that embraces our heritage

· quality parks, open spaces and community facilities created for people to use and enjoy

3. To give effect to the aspiration ‘the natural environment is respected and enhanced’, the local board has committed $48,000 in total to local environmental projects in their locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget for 2016/2017:

4. To deliver on these budgets a proposed environmental work programme consisting of five projects was prepared and discussed at a workshop with the board on 17 May 2016 (attachment A).

· $20,000 for low carbon lifestyles

· $10,000 for low carbon network

· $5,000 for reducing food waste from businesses

· $5,000 for urban forest framework

· $8,000 for Waipapa Stream

5. In addition a total of $9,100 of approved unspent opex in the board’s 2015/2016 low carbon lifestyles budget will be carried forward to the 2016/2017 financial year.

6. The local board also has a budget of $4,774,000 for asset-based services to fund the Newmarket Laneways upgrade ($1,425,000) and the re-development of Ellen Melville Centre ($3,349,000), to support the board’s development work programme.

7. This report recommends that the board approves this local environment and development work programme and associated budgets for 2016/2017.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approves the allocation of $48,000 for environmental projects as summarised in the table below:

Project	Budget
Low carbon lifestyles	$ 20,000
Low carbon network	$ 10,000
Reducing food waste from businesses	$ 5,000
Urban forest framework	$ 5,000
Waipapa Stream	$ 8,000
Total budget	$ 48,000

b) notes that $9,100 of the low carbon lifestyles budget has been carried forward from 2015/2016 to support delivery of the low carbon lifestyles project that was delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

c) approves asset based funding of $1,425,000 for the Newmarket Laneways Upgrade and $3,349,000 to support the re-development of the Ellen Melville Centre.

Comments

Background

8. To deliver on the local board plan outcome that ‘the natural environment is protected and enhanced’, the Waitematā Local Board has allocated $48,000 of its LDI budget to support the delivery of a local environmental work programme.

9. The board also has $1,399,804 million of asset-based budget available to support the upgrade of Newmarket Laneways and $3,348,890 to support the re-development of the Ellen Melville Centre. These two projects deliver on the outcomes, ‘a distinctive, high-quality urban environment that embraces our heritage’, and ‘quality parks, open spaces and community facilities created for people to use and enjoy’.

10. Staff met with the board at a workshop held on Tuesday, 17 May 2016, to discuss the options for allocation of this local environment and development budget and to develop a work programme for 2016/2017.

11. Based on these discussions, it is proposed that five projects be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate (I&ES) as part of the board’s environmental work programme in 2016/2017. A brief description of each of these projects is provided below.

Low carbon lifestyles ($20,000 plus $9,100 carried forward)

12. As part of the 2015/2016 work programme, the board approved funding to deliver a trial to support residents living in apartments to reduce home energy use, particularly in the area of hot water use and lighting. Residents would be offered energy saving advice and energy saving devices as an incentive.

13. Initially, the trial target was to reach 300 units. 20 apartment blocks expressed an interest in participating (with the number of units in each ranging from nine to 300 units). However, as the trial progressed, body corporate managers gave feedback that the time needed to engage residents on the project was significant and recent changes to health and safety legislation and its implications for apartments was their priority.

14. These delays affected the trial’s timeframe, and as a result, the board approved that the project and accompanying budget be carried over into 2016/2017 financial year so the trial could be completed.

15. To date, the trial has provided a means of learning how best to engage with body corporates and apartment dwellers. It has shown a significant difference to engagement with stand alone houses where door knocking is an effective and immediate approach.

16. In addition, a number of materials have been produced including a briefing for building managers, a survey and information sheet for residents, posters, and the development of a contact database, and a monitoring and evaluation process.

17. The work programme for 2016/2017 proposes to engage with up to 250 resident dwellings, and to provide customised information as well as monitoring of changes in CO2 emissions as a result of the interventions. The project milestones include:

· finalisation of project plan including target audience

· finalisation of project material including resident survey and information

· engagement of residents

· evaluation and reporting

Low carbon network ($10,000)

18. In 2015/2016 the board funded the establishment of a Waitemata Low Carbon Network as part of the launch of the Low Carbon Action Plan held on 4 November 2015. The network is composed of individuals, households, groups and businesses working together to promote, support and implement community level low carbon activities.

19. Since project inception, some 90 people have registered on the network database, development of a website is underway, promotional material has been produced and internal consultation has been held to ensure alignment with a community led development approach. A committee was subsequently formed to guide the network’s direction and the first network meeting was held in May.

20. It is recommended that support for the Low Carbon Network continue with funding of $10,000 which will enable the network to:

· communicate and promote low carbon-related activities occurring in the local board area via a newsletter on the board’s website

· provide opportunities for residents through existing communication channels to develop a membership base for the network

· host an event (for example, Eco-neighbourhood street day, Green Homes open day, a campaign to buy local or eat local).

21. The board’s continued support for this project will help implement the Waitemata Local Board Low Carbon Action Plan and will celebrate the low carbon initiatives currently underway in the local board area.

Reducing food waste from businesses ($5,000)

22. This is a two-part project to gain an understanding of food waste generated by businesses in the Waitematā Local Board area and the potential for reduction, and to consider ways businesses can be supported to reduce food waste.

23. The board allocated $5,000 from their 2015/2016 budget for stage one which was the research phase.

24. It is recommended that $5,000 be allocated from the 2016/2017 low carbon budget to proceed with stage two to support the reduction of food waste from businesses.

25. The manner of support in phase two will be determined by estimated costings and timeframes but these could include promotion of existing collection services or a small trial collection (for example, from a number of cafes).

26. The steps in stage two include the following.

· appoint project manager

· project manager drafts project brief including recommended approaches and costs

· board approval of project brief will be sought through portfolio catch ups

· baseline established against which to measure progress

· project manager reports on progress (to portfolio monthly).

Urban Forest Framework ($5,000)

27. The boards have committed funds to support delivery of an urban forest framework for the Waitemata Local Board area to assist with their planning for planting trees in the urban area.

28. Board members’ support for this project was only recently signaled so staff have not yet confirmed details of key deliverables. These will be confirmed in consultation with the portfolio holders in July and August 2016.

Waipapa Stream ($8,000)

29. The 2012 Waipapa Stream ten-year restoration plan focuses on removing pest plants and replacing them with new native plants and undertaking community environmental actions.

30. The board has supported the implementation of this work programme over the last four years. This has enabled the Waipapa Stream area to undergo extensive restoration work to control pest plants, remove rubbish and debris and replant it with suitable native species.

31. The project has been supported by community volunteers who have undertaken pest plant control, clean ups and attended community days. In addition, the Waipapa project has provided an opportunity for the board, KiwiRail (new) owners of Mainline Steam and communities to work together on pest plant removal and restoration planting.

32. Funding of $8,000 is recommended to continue this restoration programme in 2016/2017.

Development Work Programme

33. Two projects will also be delivered through the board’s asset based services budgets as part of their development work programme. These are described briefly below, with more details shown in attachment A.

Newmarket Laneways ($1,425,000)

34. The aim of this project is to upgrade a laneway in the Newmarket town centre to increase the quality of the public space by making it safer, more inviting, and more walkable.

35. Key benefits of the project will be to improve pedestrian accessibility and amenity with footpath widening and tree planting and support businesses in the precinct.

36. In 2015/2016 the project team considered a number of potential lanes for an upgrade. Teed Street has been identified as the preferred lane because it offers significant urban design improvements and will be cost-effective to upgrade.

37. In 2016/2017 the detailed design for the project will be developed in consultation with the local board, mana whenua, and key stakeholders. The laneway is likely to open in 2017. Key performance indicators for the project will be increased pedestrian numbers in the precinct and increased business activity.

Re-development of the Ellen Melville Centre ($3,349,000)

38. The aim of this project is to redevelop and regenerate the heritage of the Ellen Melville Centre so that it provides a vibrant community hub.

39. Key benefits of the project will be to create connectivity and activation between the Ellen Melville Centre and Freyberg Place (which is also being upgraded through an Auckland City Centre Advisory Board project) and to transform the hall into an inner-city integrated community hub. At the completion of the project the hall will also become a managed community facility, meaning two members of staff will manage the facility while it is in operation.

40. The project is in the tender stage and, if within budget, is proposed to begin construction in August 2016 and is likely to be completed by 2017. Key performance indicators for the project will be increased bookings and usage of the hall by the community and increased usage of Freyberg Place.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. The projects noted above align with the local board outcomes: ‘the natural environment is respected and enhanced,’ ‘a distinctive, high-quality urban environment that embraces our heritage’ and ‘quality parks, open spaces and community facilities created for people to use and enjoy,’ as noted in the Waitematā Local Board Plan.

42. As detailed above this draft environment and development work programme was discussed with the board at a workshop on 17 May 2016 and their feedback has been incorporated into the recommendations in this report.

Māori impact statement

43. This report provides information for environment and development projects. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

44. Some of the identified activities are of interest to Māori and, where appropriate, provisions for mana whenua participation, contribution, and consultation will be incorporated. Table three below highlights how each project in the board’s work programme is expected to contribute to Māori outcomes or which require consultation and engagement.

Project	Māori Outcome Assessment
Low Carbon Lifestyles	No specific impact on Māori
Low Carbon Network	No specific impact on Māori
Reducing food waste from business	No consultation with Māori is required for this project.
Waipapa Stream	Representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei participated in a joint site visit with board members and staff to support the rehabilitation of Waipapa Stream in 2012 when work first began. The iwi have ongoing involvement in stream restoration work including weeding.
Redevelopment of Pioneer Women’s and Ellen Melville Hall	Engagement with iwi has occurred through the City Centre Integration mana whenua monthly hui. An iwi artist is collaborating with project artist John Reynolds to develop narratives and how these will manifest in the terraced area. The area of consideration is predominantly the water feature. 15. Mana whenua representatives on the City Centre Integration hui have expressed support for the consulted design proposal which has been driven by the Te Aranga Design principles.
Newmarket Laneways	Mana whenua have been invited to provide input into the design of this project through huis in March and April 2016. Iwi with an interest in this rohe who were represented at the last hui where this project was discussed included Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Patukirikiri and Ngāti Tamaoho. To date, mana whenua representatives have expressed support for including measures in the project to enhance water quality, provide quality native plantings and recognise cultural values of the area. A site visit will be held in July or August 2016 to seek input from mana whenua into the cultural values to be expressed through the project.

Implementation

45. Regular reporting on project delivery will be provided through the quarterly performance reports and via regular environmental portfolio catch ups. Any major changes to the projects will be brought to the board for its consideration.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waitematā IES Work Programme 16_17	61

Signatories

Authors

Desiree Tukutama - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Waitemata 2016/17 Local Economic Development Programme

File No.: CP2016/14068

Purpose

1. To approve the Waitematā local economic development programme for the 2016/17 financial year.

Executive summary

2. This report introduces the proposed 2016/17 financial year Local Economic Development Work Programme for the Waitemata Local Board as set out in attachment A.

3. The proposed work programme comprises, support for the Uptown Innovation Project, World Masters Games and 2017 Lions Tour leverage.

4. The total value of the Local Economic Development programme is $40,000

5. The board is being asked to approve 2016/17 local economic development programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approves 2016 / 17 local economic development programme (Attachment A) as follows.

i) Uptown Innovation Project Activation ($30,000)

ii) World Masters Games, Lions Tour, Leverage ($10,000)

Comments

Background

6. The 2016/2017 local economic development programme has been developed having regard to the Local Board’s priorities for local economic development set out in the Local Board Plan (2014) and the Waitemata City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan.

7. The proposed LED programme comprises the following activities.

Uptown Innovation Project ($30,000)

8. The Uptown Innovation Project aims to tenant buildings that will be demolished by the City Rail Link project on a short term basis, with innovation related businesses. With the aim of establishing an innovation community in order to lay the foundations for longer term economic benefits for both the Uptown area and wider Auckland.

9. Activation models are currently being investigated and developed as part of a scoping study commissioned by Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED) with support from the Waitemata Local Board. The scoping and feasibility study is due to be received in late July 2016.

10. The intention is for the activation costs of the Innovation Project would be split between the Uptown Business Association, ATEED and the Local Board. The $30,000 identified within the proposed LED work programme represents the Local Boards contribution to the project.

World Masters Games Leverage ($10,000)

11. The World Masters Games 2017, and the 2017 Lions Rugby Tour, will attract visitors to the Waitemata Local Board area. The World Masters Games alone is expected to bring approximately 25,000 competitors to Auckland to compete in 28 sporting disciplines at over 45 venues across Auckland. This presents a great opportunity for the Local Board to work with the business associations in the city fringe and other local businesses to maximise the benefits of the high number of competitors and visitors that will be coming to Auckland and the Waitemata Local Board area in 2017.

12. It is proposed that the local board allocates $10,000 towards partnering with Business Associations to leverage off of these four events to increase the economic benefits of the events to the local board area.

13. Activities that could be undertaken include, the development of promotional offers to encourage visitors to stay and eat in the local board area and visit local attractions. Activation / entertainment and short term visual improvements / artworks in local centres focused around the events could be implemented to make the centres more attractive and give visitors a reason to visit, stay longer and spend in the local area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The Local Board has committed a budget of $32,000 for the implementation of the Waitemata City Fringe Economic Development Action Plan for 2016/2017.

15. In addition the Local Board resolved to carry forward $30,000 from 2015/16 financial year on the 26 April (resolution WTM/2016/50), which was unspent. This is available to allocate to the local economic development programme for 2016/17.

16. Section 2 of the City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan relates to the city fringe becoming an innovative economic hub. Action 2.1 seeks to develop and implement initiative to support key sectors working across the City Fringe.

17. Section 5 relates to creating a vibrant and dynamic cultural hub. Action 5.4 seeks to leverage off of iconic events to profile the city fringe and attract visitors and spend.

18. The proposed LED programme was presented to the Local Board at the 17 May 2016 workshop, and has been amended to reflect the comments received.

Māori impact statement

19. There are no direct impacts as a result of this report on Maori. However, in implementing the programme consideration will be given to the need to consult with Iwi and consider any impacts on Maori arising from the specific project being undertaken.

Implementation

20. Following approval by the local board the Local Economic Development team at ATEED will begin to implement the programme as approved by the local board. Where there is a need further scoping of activities will be undertaken and presented back to the local Board as required.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waitematā ATEED Work Programme 16_17	67

Signatories

Authors

John Norman - Strategic Planner Local Economic Development - ATEED

Authorisers

Paul Robinson - Manager Local Economic Growth – ATEED

Trina Thompson – Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal

File No.: CP2016/13206

Purpose

1. This report seeks feedback on Auckland Council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) Partnering Proposal.

Executive summary

2. The council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. A list of these sites is included in the HfOP Consultation document (Attachment A).

3. In June 2015 the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore how council could deliver the HfOP service through a partnership approach. In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with a preferred partner on the partnering proposal.

4. The partnering proposal, in summary, is for the council to:

· partner with a third-party social housing provider to create a new legal entity in the form of a new community housing provider (CHP). The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, including responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services through a long-term lease, and will seek access to government subsidies

· delegate to Panuku the authority to work with the third party community housing provider to redevelop the portfolio under a framework arrangement; and

· adopt a new policy on “Housing for Older People partnering” to apply to all decision-making on the proposal

5. This proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to:

· improve the quality of housing - the CHP will be able to access the Income-Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) from central government to help improve and develop the portfolio

· improve tenant satisfaction – more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will bring in new expertise into the operations so we can find new innovative and cost effective ways to lift satisfaction and redevelop the portfolio to improve the quality of housing

6. As the HfOP portfolio is a strategic asset under both the LGA 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the proposal to transfer control of the portfolio triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult on the proposal, and to amend the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 through a special consultative procedure, before the council can agree to adopt the proposal.

7. The Governing Body approved a consultation document at its meeting on 25^th May 2016 which will form the basis of this consultation during the month of June 2016.

8. Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback on the partnership proposal (Attachment A) and a proposed new policy on HfOP partnering (Attachment B) through business meetings in June and July 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) provides feedback on

i. the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal and

ii. the proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

Comments

9. Auckland Council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. The portfolio is currently operated by Auckland Council’s Arts, Community and Events (ACE) and Community Facilities departments.

10. In 2013 the government changed how social housing would be delivered in New Zealand by making a number of reforms. This included providing third party social housing providers with an IRRS, which was historically only provided to Housing New Zealand. Councils and council-controlled organisations are still unable to access this subsidy.

11. In June 2015, the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore changing how the council would deliver the HfOP service. It agreed to explore a partnership approach, where the council would partner with a third party social housing provider in the management of the portfolio and to establish a new community housing provider (CHP).

12. The council is committed to maintaining 1,412 units within the HfOP portfolio, as a strategic asset, and may seek to increase the number, subject to further council approval on additional funding and any consultation requirements.

13. In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on a partnering proposal. Panuku, on behalf of Council, issued a request for proposal and the council currently has a non-binding arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider that council may enter into partnership arrangement with.

What Auckland Council is proposing:

14. The council is proposing that it partner with a third party social housing provider to enter into a management agreement over the council’s 1,412 units and delegate Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to act on council’s behalf to develop the portfolio.

15. Management agreement:

a) Partner with a third party social housing provider to form a new legal entity, in which the council will have a minority interest. This will be a Community Housing Provider (CHP) to manage the council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) portfolio.

b) The legal structure of this CHP will likely be in the form of a limited partnership (NZ registered) between Auckland Council and the third-party social housing provider under a framework arrangement.

c) The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, which includes responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services. Legal ownership will remain with the council.

d) It will include a long-term lease which from an accounting perspective requires a write-off of the assets from the council balance sheet.

e) The CHP will be structured to be able to receive the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS). We are not able to quantify how much will be received under this scheme as the subsidy, which is paid to the housing provider, is based on a percentage of a tenants income. It will reflect the difference between the income related rent and the market rent. It will also only be paid out for future tenants not current tenants.

f) The council will provide a $32.5 million capital grant to the CHP, which is equivalent to the current budget for the portfolio renewal maintenance.

16. Development agreement:

a) Delegate to Panuku, a council-controlled organisation, the authority to act on behalf of Auckland Council to work with the third-party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio.

b) Panuku, as Auckland Council’s development agency, will provide skills and expertise to support the development of HfOP portfolio.

c) This includes, over time, selling some land and buildings to help fund the improvement of the quality of the HfOP portfolio.

d) The council will provide a $20 million development loan facility which will support the development until sales proceeds can be realised. The sales proceeds will cover repayment of the facility and any associated interest.

17. These will be carried out in accordance with the new policy to be adopted. A representation of this is shown in Attachment A.

Why is Auckland Council proposing this?

18. The proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to improve tenant satisfaction and the quality of its social housing. There are a few areas of this portfolio that need improvement.

19. To improve the quality of housing:

Currently, the HfOP portfolio has many poor quality units. This is clearly not acceptable for the council or its tenants. By partnering with a third party social housing provider we will be able to ensure over time that:

a) the portfolio can benefit from new external funding from the government, through access to the IRRS

b) the portfolio will be upgraded and new housing developed to reflect modern standards

c) the portfolio will become more connected to public transport and other necessary services.

20. To improve tenant satisfaction:

More and more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide, as shown in Graph 1. This is unlikely to improve without some change to how we provide the service. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will improve our tenant satisfaction by:

a) adding new expertise into the operations of the service so we can find new innovative, cost effective ways of lifting satisfaction.

b) redeveloping the portfolio to improve the quality of housing, giving our tenants a better quality of life.

Graph 1: Long-term Plan 2015-2025, Level of Service Measure:
Tenant satisfaction over time

Title: Graph 1: Long-term Plan 2015-25, Level of Service Measure: Tenant satisfaction over time. - Description: This graph shows how this proposal is projected to improve tenant satisfaction over time, as outlined in the council's Long-term Plan.

How does the proposal compare with other options?

21. The council has been developing the HfOP partnership model proposal since April 2015. The options were developed on the basis that the council has opted to continue to provide housing for older people. Three main practical options (including the proposal) are explained in the following table. Other options identified by the council are listed in the Supporting Information but have not been considered as reasonably practical options at this stage.

Option	Service level impact	Rates impact	Debt impact	Achieves the council’s objectives?	Advantages	Disadvantages
Status Quo: Continue to manage and develop the housing without external support.	Actual tenant satisfaction levels are at 64 per cent which is well under the target average of 75 per cent. This means the council will be increasingly unlikely to meet its targets over time.	No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.	No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.	· Does not grow the community housing sector. · Does not improve quality of housing. · Does not access non ratepayer funding.	· The council retains full control over the assets. · No costs associated with change.	· Does not address the falling tenant satisfaction. · Reliant on rates funding.
Sell or gift portfolio to a CHP: Sell or gift the units and land to an existing CHP with conditions to ensure the provision of social housing remains.	Tenant satisfaction will likely decrease, as it will be difficult for the council to control the quality of housing.	Neutral to slightly positive The sales proceeds would depend on the conditions placed on the sale. Depending on the conditions placed this could significantly reduce the proceeds from the sale.	Slightly positive to negative The debt impact would depend on whether the council would still provide the capital grant for improvements to the housing, and any other conditions placed on the sale.	Partly. The council is no longer responsible for providing 1,412 housing for older people units. But, this may grow the wider community housing sector.	· The council no longer has any risk for operating the portfolio. · This may grow the wider community housing sector.	· The council will have no ownership or control over the units. · Long term provision of the service is not guaranteed. · The council would not own land and buildings as assets.
The proposal (partnering with a third-party housing provider under management and development agreements)	Tenant satisfaction will increase, as the council will be able to rely on new expertise from the third party social housing provider, unlock access to government funding and can redevelop the portfolio to improve quality.	Negligible to slightly negative	Negative (Debt increases by $48.4 million for the management agreement and a further potential $20 million for the development loan facility).	Yes. The proposal aims to increase tenant satisfaction to targeted levels.	· Allows for an improvement of the quality of housing. · Unlocks access to government funding.	· The council will lose some control over the units. · Requires monitoring of an external entity. · Development could cause disruption for tenants.

Proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

22. In order to include this change in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

23. This policy sets key decision making criteria that are designed to ensure that the council will maintain or improve the quality of housing and tenant satisfaction without overly exposing the council to financial impacts and risk, through:

· general decision making on the council’s HfOP portfolio

· the management of the HfOP portfolio by the new CHP

· the arrangements for the possible redevelopment and/or sale of parts of the HfOP portfolio

A copy of the proposed policy is included in Attachment B.

Requirement to consult

24. The HfOP portfolio is considered a strategic asset under both the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Any proposal to transfer control or ownership of a strategic asset(s) triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult and to provide for it in the long-term plan.

25. In order to include this in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

26. Public consultation in June and feedback from local boards will inform the Governing Body’s decision on the partnership proposal and the proposed new policy on HfOP partnering.

Public consultation

27. A consultation document (Attachment A) and supporting information has been approved by the Governing Body and will be used to consult with the public regarding the proposal to transfer control of the HfOP portfolio to a CHP and redevelop the current housing units.

28. The consultation document lists the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal as well as the two key alternatives in page 8. The assumptions underlying the proposal, including risks and details on the options analysis, are set out in the supporting information in pages 53, 54 and 56.

29. The consultation document also provides three main options that have been identified for the delivery of the council’s HfOP service, with the preferred option being the partnership proposal.

30. The public consultation period is 1 June 2016 – 1 July 2016.

31. The consultation document was delivered to 1,412 units, local board offices, service centres and libraries before 1 June 2016.

32. The consultation document includes a feedback form which is expected to be the primary mechanism Aucklanders will use to provide their feedback on this consultation. The feedback form is also made available online, in local board offices, service centres and libraries. Feedback forms can be submitted via freepost, email or completed online.

33. There are various Have Your Say (HYS) events planned across the region. The locations were picked so that they are easily accessible for HfOP tenants to attend. These events are listed below for your perusal:

Venue	Date	Time
Takapuna Library	7 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Devonport Library	8 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Northcote Library	9 June 2016 (Thursday)	11am – 3pm
Glenfield Library	10 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am
New Lynn War Memorial Library	14 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Titirangi Library	15 June 2016 (Wednesday)	11am – 3pm
Waitakere Central Library	16 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 1pm
Te Atatu Peninsula Community Centre	17 June 2016 (Friday)	2pm – 3pm
Mangere Town Centre Library	21 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Sir Edmund Hillary Library, Papakura	22 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Pukekohe Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 11am
Waiuku Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	12pm – 2pm
Otara Senior Citizens’ Club	24 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am

34. Public feedback will also be collected at HYS events scheduled from 7 to 24 June 2016. The primary purpose of these events is for elected members or delegates to listen to the views of Aucklanders. Staff will ensure public feedback is accurately recorded.

35. The role of elected members (and delegates) at these events is to listen and to provide members of the public with an opportunity to provide their views verbally.

36. Staff recommend that delegations are made to councillors, local board members and staff to hear feedback. This is to ensure there is a sufficient number of people able to have spoken interaction with public.

37. Staff will be in contact with tenants to coordinate logistics to ensure that they have the opportunity to attend the HYS events.

38. The ShapeAuckland website will be the digital hub for the HfOP communications and engagement campaign. There are a variety of ways in which digital and social media channels will be used to support the communications campaign.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39. Local board members have received updates through quarterly performance reports, on the region-wide initiative led by Panuku to investigate options to partner with community housing providers to manage and develop the HfOP portfolio.

40. A briefing for local board members was held on this initiative on 30 November 2015.

41. Local board members were updated in May 2016 through a memo outlining the consultation process as well as invitations to attend Have Your Say events to hear public feedback.

42. Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback through business meetings in June and July 2016.

43. The report to be presented to the Governing Body at its meeting on 28 July 2016 will include all feedback received from local boards. Feedback from the local boards will inform the Governing Body decision on this matter.

Māori impact statement

44. The new CHP will have a role in giving effect to outcomes directed by the council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. This includes recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau and addressing and contributing to the needs and aspirations of Māori. In order to do this, throughout the development of this proposal various Māori groups have been consulted with. To progress this engagement Panuku has established a Mana Whenua Governance Group comprising four senior representatives of Mana Whenua, plus senior representatives of Panuku and the preferred partner.

Implementation

45. A report containing consultation feedback and advice on adopting the HfOP Partnering Policy to amend the LTP 2015-2025 and a delegation to Panuku to carry out the partnering arrangement will be presented to the Governing Body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultation document	77
b View	Housing for Older People Partnering Policy	105

Signatories

Authors

Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Trina Thompson – Relationship Manager, Waitematā

Waitematā Local Board

12 July 2016

Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy

File No.: CP2016/13716

Purpose

1. To seek the views of the Waitematā Local Board on the draft 2016 Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy.

Executive summary

2. Each electoral term, the Remuneration Authority requires all councils to adopt an expenses policy and forward the adopted policy to the Remuneration Authority for its approval.

3. The expense policy provides the rules for elected members’ reimbursement for expenses they incur whilst performing their duties.

4. The governing body last adopted an expenses policy in July 2014. The Remuneration Authority has requested the council’s policy for July 2016 – June 2019. The governing body will be asked to adopt the 2016 policy at their 21July Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

5. Staff have reviewed the operation of the current policy and have updated the policy to:

· have clear principles of what is considered appropriate elected member expenditure

· remove the duplication of Remuneration Authority allowance tables

· replace complicated travel, development and conference attendance approvals with a ‘one up’ approach that requires senior elected member or senior staff approval.

6. The amended policy is attached. In addition to the substantive changes, the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) provides comments on the draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expense Policy to the governing body.

Comments

7. The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) sets remuneration for elected positions in local government annually. It also sets the rules for reimbursement of costs met by members in undertaking their duties.

8. In its determination, the Authority details some work-related expenses for elected members:

· the maximum allowances payable by councils to elected members for certain activities, such as transport and communications

· The criteria for and amounts payable to, elected members sitting on resource consent hearings.

9. Additionally, the Authority determines the nature of reimbursements made to elected members for costs undertaken on council business.

10. The Authority requires each council to adopt an expenses policy. The current policy was last approved in July 2014. It is necessary to review and update the policy prior to sending it to the Authority for approval.

11. The Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy (the policy) sets out the council’s rules under which elected members may be reimbursed or paid allowances for personal costs that arise in the course of council business.

12. In the draft policy, general travel, accommodation and insurance claim rules have been retained. The continued requirement for a business case for international travel and the publication of all elected member expenditure will ensure transparency. Staff will continue to support the elected members with the required paperwork. The proposed changes relate to the authorisation of expenditure and the introduction of the council’s Elected Member Development Programme.

Substantive changes

Professional development and attendance at conferences

13. The new policy includes provisions related to the 2016-2019 Elected Member Development Programme. Professional development included in the core professional development programme will be pre-authorised. This means that elected members will not be required to provide a business case for development or attendance at conferences that are covered by the l development programme.

14. Pre-authorisation is subject to the principles of the policy. The funds must be budgeted for and authorised by the appropriate senior manager.

15. If elected members want to undertake l development activities outside the elected members’ core l development programme, a written request must be made to the Manager Democracy Service or the Manager Local Board Services.

Domestic travel approval

16. Changes have been made to approvals. The draft policy reflects a ‘one up’ approach that requires senior elected member or senior staff approval.

17. Currently elected members are required to seek authorisation from a senior staff member and either the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the chair of a committee of the whole or the chair of their local board.

18. To make authorisations more efficient the draft policy has been amended to allow the Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services to authorise travel and sundry expense claims for governing body members.

19. For local board members, the draft policy has been amended with the Governance Director proposed as the approver for local board members and chairpersons.

International travel approval

20. For international travel for the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, in addition to the Chief Executive, the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee has been added as an approver. This gives additional flexibility for approval if the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee is not available at that time.

21. For all other elected members the draft policy proposes that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Risk and Audit Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and the Chief Executive or the Governance Director are the approvers.

22. For sundry expense claims following international travel, the draft policy has been amended to allow the Chief Executive or the Governance Director to authorise the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor claims; the Governance Director or Manager Democracy Services to authorise governing body member claims; and the Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services to authorise local board member claims.

23. The probity check to this approach is threefold:

· the trip must meet the principles of the policy

· it must be authorised by a senior elected member or senior staff member (a ‘one up’ authorisation) and

· all expenditure incurred by elected members on council business continues to be published.

24. The new approvals are in the table below. Changes are underlined.

Table 1. Changes to approvals

Item	Proposed	Previous term
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Mayor	No change	· The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee · or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Deputy Mayor	· The Mayor or · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance	· The Mayor · or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – councillors	The Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services	· The Deputy Mayor · or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board Chair	The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services	· Governance Director · and report to business meeting
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board members	The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services	· The Local Board Chair · and report to business meeting
Approvals for international travel - Mayor	· A business case and both: · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive	A business case and both: · the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee · and the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel– Deputy Mayor	· A business case and both: · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive	A business case and Both: · the Mayor or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole · and the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel – Governing Body members	· A business case and both: · The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive or Governance Director	A business case and Both: · the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor · and the Chief Executive or the Director Governance
Approvals for international travel – local board members	· A business case and both: · The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive or Governance Director	A business case and Both: · Endorsement by the Local Board · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance If urgent approval is needed: · Endorsement by the Chair · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance · then retrospective endorsement by the Local Board
Development programmes and conferences	Pre-approved, subject to the cost falling within the annual professional development budget	Various authorisation depending on the role of the requester
Hosting official visitors	If necessary, budget holder approval	Personal expenditure can be reimbursed

25. Other changes have been made throughout the policy to update, clarify or align the policy with current good practice. In addition the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. This report is seeking local board views.

Māori impact statement

27. This policy is a requirement of the Remuneration Authority. It is for internal use and does not have specific implications for Māori.

Implementation

28. The Elected Members’ Expenses Policy will come into force once approved by the Remuneration Authority. This is expected to be in July 2016.

Attachments