Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

9.30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

Upper Harbour Local Board

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, JP
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

(Quorum 3 members)

Cindy Lynch

Democracy Advisor

9 November 2016

Contact Telephone: (09) 486 8593

Email: Cindy.Lynch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 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 6

8 Deputations 6

8.1 Albany Community Coordinator Management Committee 6

8.2 Albany Newcomers Network 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 9

13 Adoption of a business meeting and community forum meeting schedule 11

14 Swimming pool fencing exemption applications 15

15 Urgent decision-making process 17

16 Appointments to external organisations 19

17 Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board
For Quarter One, 1 July –30 September 2016 23

18 New road name approval for a shared accessway created by a subdivision at 150-170 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville 61

19 New road name approval for a shared accessway created by a subdivision at Tuatua Road, Hobsonville 65

20 New road names approval for roads and accessways created by a way of a subdivision at Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville 69

21 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Tuesday, 16 August and Tuesday, 6 September 2016 75

22 Board Members' Reports 81

23 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 13 September 2016 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 31 October 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Albany Community Coordinator Management Committee

Purpose

1. The purpose of this item is to receive an update and to introduce the new Chair of the Executive Committee, Mark Moffitt, to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Executive summary

2. Jenny Bassett will be in attendance to introduce Mark Moffitt, the new Chair of the Executive Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) thanks Jenny Bassett and Mark Moffitt from the Albany Community Coordinator Management Committee for their attendance.

8.2 Albany Newcomers Network

Purpose

1. The purpose of this item is to hear the presentation from Laure Romanetti from the Albany Newcomers Network.

Executive summary

2. Laure Romanetti from the Albany Newcomers Network will be in attendance to speak about their growth over the past two years and to provide an update on plans for the future.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the presentation from Laure Romanetti from the Albany Newcomers Network and thank her for her attendance.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

Adoption of a business meeting and community forum meeting schedule

File No.: CP2016/22384

Purpose

1. To seek the adoption of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule for the 2016-2019 electoral term.

Executive summary

2. A draft meeting schedule for the 2016-2019 electoral term has been developed and is included below for adoption by the local board.

3. The specific times and dates for meetings, public engagement and any hearings, which may be required for matters such as local board plans and local board agreements, are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules may therefore be updated once these details are confirmed.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopts the business meeting schedule outlined below for the 2016-2019 electoral term, to be held at the Upper Harbour Local Board Office, Kell Drive, Albany Village:

Year	Date
2016	15 November
	13 December
2017	16 February
	16 March
	20 April
	18 May
	15 June
	20 July
	17 August
	21 September
	19 October
	16 November
	14 December
2018	15 February
	15 March
	19 April
	17 May
	21 June
	19 July
	16 August
	20 September
	18 October
	15 November
	13 December
2019	21 February
	21 March
	18 April
	16 May
	20 June
	18 July
	15 August
	19 September

b) agrees to commence business meetings at 9.30am noting that public forum and deputations will be scheduled in the early part of the business meeting.

c) adopts the community forum schedule outlined below for the 2016-2019 electoral term, generally to be held at the Upper Harbour Local Board Office, Kell Drive, Albany Village, although these meetings may be relocated on occasion throughout the term:

Year	Date
2017	2 February
	2 March
	6 April
	4 May
	1 June
	6 July
	3 August
	7 September
	5 October
	2 November
	7 December
2018	1 February
	1 March
	5 April
	3 May
	7 June
	5 July
	2 August
	6 September
	4 October
	1 November
	6 December
2019	7 February
	7 March
	4 April
	2 May
	6 June
	4 July
	1 August
	5 September

d) agrees to commence community forum meetings at 6.00pm, to enable wider community participation.

e) notes that dates and times for meetings, public engagement and any hearings and deliberations for local board plans and local board agreements are yet to be finalised.

Comments

4. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

5. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings; and

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

6. Adopting a business meeting schedule also allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures that local board members have clarity about their commitments.

7. Commencing the business meeting during business hours will enable meetings to be productive and ensures best use of resources.

8. There are some instances for which the local board may need to have meetings in addition to this schedule, for example, the Local Board Plan (developed every three years) and local board agreements (developed annually). The specific times and dates for those meetings, public engagement and any hearings process for these matters are yet to be finalised and are therefore not included in the schedule above.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9. The implication of this report is to ensure that the local board meets its legislative responsibility, as outlined in paragraph five.

Māori impact statement

10. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Implementation

11. If there is any need to depart from the resolved dates, Auckland Council will publically notify the updated details.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

Swimming pool fencing exemption applications

File No.: CP2016/22493

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is for the Upper Harbour Local Board to establish an agreed approach for how swimming pool fencing exemption applications are going to be resolved upon during the 2016-2019 term.

Executive summary

2. Under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act), territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular swimming pools if satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”.

3. The decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fencing exemptions has been delegated to the local boards by the governing body (resolution GB/2011/163).

4. It is recommended that the local board assesses and considers these applications at a general business meeting.

5. The local board could resolve to nominate a sub-group of local board members to make site visits when required, and to make recommendations to the full board to be formally resolved upon at a business meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to assess swimming pool fencing exemption applications as part of business meetings during the 2016/2019 term as the need arises.

Comments

6. The purpose of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 is to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of certain swimming pools. The Act places an obligation on territorial authorities to ensure that pool owners comply with the Act, both at the time when the pool is built, and subsequently by occasional inspections of pools to ensure ongoing compliance.

7. Under Section 6 of the Act, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools. Territorial authorities can also impose special conditions on a property and a pool. A territorial authority can only grant an exemption, or impose a special condition, if, after having regard to the characteristics of the pool and the property, it is satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”. No exemption is required for a new pool fence, or an alteration to an existing fence, if the new or altered fence is at least as safe as one built in accordance with the standard in the schedule of the Act.

8. The governing body has delegated decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fencing exemptions to local boards (resolution GB/2011/163).

9. To administer this delegation, staff recommend that applications are determined as part of a local board business meeting as this is the most efficient, transparent and effective decision‑making mechanism.

10. Assessing and determining swimming pool exemption applications at a business meeting has a number of benefits, including:

· consistent and streamlined approach for applications to be considered;

· business meetings are the primary formal decision-making mechanism of the local board; and

· appropriate level of administrative support can be provided.

11. There is a risk with this approach, in that applications will not be given due consideration amongst congested local board business meeting agendas. However, this can be mitigated by a sub-group of local board members visiting pools as required to inform the board’s decisions.

12. A sub-group of local board members could nominate themselves to conduct site visits on an as-needed-basis, and make recommendations to the full local board for consideration and adoption at a regular business meeting.

13. If the local board resolves to nominate a sub-group to conduct site visits, staff recommend that no more than four board members participate in the sub-group. Sub-group participants should be agreed by resolution.

14. If an application includes sensitive information, the local board may, by resolution, exclude the public from the whole or any part of the proceedings of the meeting if one or more of the grounds set out in the legislation under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and in the Standing Orders for the Local Boards are met.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori impact statement

16. This report does not specifically impact on Māori.

Implementation

17. Costs associated with a small number of elected members meeting to consider the applications, in advance of putting forward recommendations to the full board at a business meeting, will be met within internal operating budgets.

18. The decision of the local board following an exemption hearing is open to challenge by a judicial review process. Local board members will be briefed by Legal Services and Building Control staff regarding the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, the Building Act and the appropriate considerations to take into account when determining an application by a hearings process.

19. The Building (Pools) Amendment Bill was introduced to New Zealand Parliament on 9 September 2015. Once adopted, this may impact on the role of the local boards in assessing swimming pool fencing exemption applications. Staff will provide more information on this as it becomes available^{^[1]}.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Felicity Prance - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

Urgent decision-making process

File No.: CP2016/22619

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Upper Harbour Local Board’s agreement to use the urgent decision-making process when appropriate.

Executive summary

2. The urgent decision-making process enables the board to make decisions without calling the full board together and meeting the requirement of a quorum. By agreeing to this process, the board delegates decision-making authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any person acting in these roles.

3. At times, such as during the Christmas and New Year period, it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirements of a quorum. This is an example of when the urgent decision-making process would be used.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopts the urgent decision-making process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

b) delegates authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board.

c) agrees that the Relationship Manager, Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the urgent decision-making process by signing off the authorisation memo.

d) notes that all urgent decisions will be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

Comments

What an urgent decision is

4. The urgent decision-making process enables the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board when it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum. Examples include during the Christmas and New Year period or for participating in a council submission process.

5. The Local Government Act 2002^{^[2]} provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees, members of the local board or Auckland Council staff, any of its responsibilities, duties and powers, with some specific exceptions. This legislation enables the urgent decision-making process.

6. The urgent decision-making process provides an alternative decision-making mechanism to an extraordinary meeting. An extraordinary meeting is called when an urgent decision is required on matters that cannot wait until the next scheduled business meeting of the local board.

7. Urgent decisions are different from emergency decisions, which are only made if there is a risk to public health and safety.

The urgent decision-making process

8. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a memo stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required.

9. The local board Relationship Manager will use the information in this memo to determine whether or not to authorise the urgent-decision making process.

10. A number of factors will be considered by the Relationship Manager before approval to use the urgent decision-making process is given, such as:

· the timing of the next scheduled meeting;

· confirmation that the local board has the delegation to make the decision;

· consideration of the rationale for the urgency; and

· the significance of the decision and whether the urgent decision-making process is appropriate.

11. Once the Relationship Manager authorises the use of the urgent decision-making process, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (or any person/s acting in these roles) also need to approve the use of the urgent decision-making process by signing the same memo.

12. Once the authorisation memo has been approved, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will refer to the substantive report for advice and staff recommendations to inform their decision. This report will meet Auckland Council quality advice standards and adhere to the report authorisation processes.

13. Any decision made using the urgent decision-making process will be reported as an information item to the next ordinary meeting of the local board and the signed approval memo will be attached.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. This report outlines the local board urgent decision-making process, and seeks the local board’s agreement to adopt this process.

Māori impact statement

15. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation

16. This report outlines how the local board Relationship Manager and elected members will execute the urgent decision-making process when the need arises. Paragraph four outlines the implications of this for local boards.

17. The local board Relationship Manager can provide advice as to what might constitute an urgent decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Felicity Prance - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

Appointments to external organisations

File No.: CP2016/22667

Purpose

1. To appoint Upper Harbour Local Board members to external community and national organisations relevant to the local board area.

Executive Summary

2. Elected members participate as representatives of the local board on a number of external community and national organisations.

3. The beginning of the new electoral term generates the need for new appointments. This report provides details of the external organisations relevant to the Upper Harbour Local Board, and requests that the local board nominates a lead and alternate member to represent the board on those external organisations for the 2016-2019 triennium.

4. In addition, there are a small number of appointments due to legislation or the terms in a deed that are the responsibility of the governing body. However, because the relationship between the council and the organisation is local, the governing body has delegated its responsibility to nominate an elected member to the relevant local board.

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) appoints the following board members to the external community groups and organisations listed below:

External organisation	Lead	Alternate
Business North Harbour
Hobsonville Land Company Placemaking Advisory Committee
Rosedale Park Sports Charitable Trust
North Shore Heritage Trust (joint appointment with Kaipātiki and Devonport-Takapuna)
Albany Community Coordinator Committee Management

b) recommends that to avoid potential conflicts of interest, elected members appointed to any outside organisation do not exercise any voting rights conferred by the organisation.

Comments

5. A number of external organisations provide for the formal participation of Auckland Council elected members in their affairs. Elected member appointees will have a variety of duties and liabilities depending on the individual organisation.

6. At the commencement of each triennium, the governing body and local boards recommend appointments to external organisations.

7. As local board representatives, the nominated members represent the board, not in a personal capacity. Board members should provide updates at local board meetings to keep the board regularly informed of discussions and decisions made of their activities unless good reasons exist for confidentiality. These updates are in the form of business meeting reports which maintain public transparency.

8. The reasons for elected member participation in external organisations can be described in a number of ways:

· a trust deed, that requires Auckland Council to make an appointment to an organisation;

· an organisation of interest to the local board is inviting elected member representation at its meetings;

· associations entered into by the council which provide for elected member representation;

· organisation governance, or project or programme oversight, such as regional or local parks management groups;

· a statutory or regulatory provision (for example a regulation providing for a community liaison committee); or

· a resource consent requiring the formation of a committee or hearing panel.

9. In making decisions about these appointments, it is suggested that local boards are mindful of:

· the elected members availability;

· any conflict of interests, including whether the local board provides funding to the entity;

· relevance; and

· historical relationship with the organisation and Auckland Council.

10. Most appointments to outside organisations are part of an on-going relationship between that organisation and the local board. In these cases, there is wide variation in the expectations that the outside organisation has of the board member appointed. This can range from an appointment as a trustee of the organisation, membership of the management committee with voting rights, membership of the management committee with no voting rights, through to general liaison. Some of these expectations can give rise to potential conflict of interest challenges for the local board member.

11. By way of example, an appointment as a trustee brings with it legal obligations to act honestly and in good faith for the benefit of the trust’s beneficiaries. This could potentially result in conflict with the local board member’s duty to act impartially in the best interests of the wider community. Such conflicts could be real or perceived.

12. Similar issues can arise if the elected member becomes a voting member of the outside organisation’s governance structure, as the elected member may feel responsibility to try to favour the outside organisation’s aspirations in their role as an elected member of the board.

13. In all cases, elected members are expected to act in accordance with the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (Attachment A), which provides the following guidance:

· Elected members should ask themselves if there a real danger of bias on the part of a member of the decision-making body, in the sense that he or she might unfairly regard with favour (or disfavour) the case of a party to the issue under consideration. The question is not limited to actual bias, but relates to the appearance or possibility of bias. This is in line with the principle that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

14. Potential conflicts of interest would be better managed if the local board sets out clear expectations for the role of the elected member appointed to external organisations. Set out below is a suggested ‘job description’ for the elected member role on the outside organisation, which is derived from the local board representative role as set out in the Business Improvement District Policy (BID Policy):

· the local board representative to an outside organisation ensures there is a direct link between Auckland Council and the governance of the outside organisation, the role comprises:

o providing updates to the outside organisation on Auckland Council and local board activities, plans and projects;

o communicating to the other local board members providing information on the activities, plans and projects of the outside organisation; and

o ensuring that while exercising their role, elected members represent the collective board views on issues.

15. For those roles where an elected member is given voting rights by the outside organisation, it would be preferred if elected members abstained or otherwise stood aside for any vote the outside organisation took on any issue relating to Auckland Council or the local board. This will help reduce potential conflicts of interest.

16. Members are appointed in their capacity as elected local board members. Should they no longer be a local board member, their nominations would be automatically repealed.

17. Board members may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests, and are encouraged to disclose memberships to external organisations in the conflict of interest register.

Relevant external organisations

18. The details of the organisations relevant to the local board are detailed below.

Business North Harbour

19. This is the Business Improvement District partner operating in the North Harbour Industrial Estate area (formerly North Harbour Business Association).

20. The previous local board representatives were Brian Neeson and Lisa Whyte.

21. Business North Harbour advise there is no formal requirement to attend any executive committee meeting, however, they welcome attendance with advance notice.

22. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Business North Harbour.

Hobsonville Land Company Placemaking Advisory Committee

23. The placemaking advisory committee was set up to provide input into the placemaking approach at the Hobsonville Point development. The groups represented are also expected to contribute to projects in the area.

24. The previous local board representatives were Brian Neeson and Callum Blair (alternate).

25. The time commitment is expected to be for three or four meetings per annum.

26. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Hobsonville Land Company Placemaking Advisory Committee.

Rosedale Park Sports Charitable Trust

27. The purpose of the Rosedale Park Sports Charitable Trust (the Trust) is “…for the promotion of amateur sport and games held at Rosedale Park north with governance and regulatory over the shared facilities.”

28. The Trust provides direction, organisation, assistance, leadership, governance and maintenance for the clubroom facility at Rosedale Park north.

29. The Trust co-operates with sporting bodies, cultural groups, community and council to promote and foster amateur sport and leisure activities held at Rosedale Park north.”

30. The previous local board representatives were Lisa Whyte and Margaret Miles (alternate).

31. The time commitment is to attend one monthly meeting, and the role of the elected member as described by the Trust is to “…provide advice and direction on behalf of the Council where required to ensure the RPSCT acts within its means.”

32. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Rosedale Sports Trust.

Albany Community Coordinator Committee Management

33. The Albany Community Coordinator Management Committee’s role is community development in the Albany area.

34. The previous local board representatives were Christine Rankin-MacIntyre and Margaret Miles (alternate).

35. The position is on the executive committee as a voting member.

36. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Albany Community Coordinator Committee Management.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

37. This report seeks the local board’s decision on representatives to external community organisations relevant to the local board area.

Māori impact statement

38. This report has no specific impact on Māori. It covers appointments of local board members to external organisations and community networks to represent the view of local communities, including Māori communities.

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Simon Pickering - Executive Officer

Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board
For Quarter One, 1 July –30 September 2016

File No.: CP2016/22768

Purpose

1. To provide Upper Harbour Local Board members with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one 2016/17, against the Local Board Agreement work programme.

Executive Summary

2. This report is the first in a new format, to provide an integrated view of performance for the Upper Harbour Local Board, including; financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against each operating department work programme, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks associated with delayed delivery against the Upper Harbour 2016/17 work programme.

3. Of significance this quarter, the Upper Harbour Local Board celebrated the completion of the Albany Stadium Pool roof construction. This is a significant milestone in the construction of the long awaited swimming pool, to be located on the grounds of the QBE Stadium and managed by Auckland Council’s leisure team.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2016/17 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 14 June 2016;

· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 14 June 2016;

· Libraries and Information, approved on 14 June, 2016;

· Community Facility Renewals, approved on 14 June 2016;

· Community Leases, approved on 14 June 2016;

· Local Economic Development, approved on 28 June 2016; and

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 12 July.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes, have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery, with all items reported as ‘green’ status (on track), except for the following which have a ‘red’ status (behind delivery, significant risk):

· Community Facilities – provision of a 3 on 3 Basketball Court - Unsworth Heights;

· Community Facilities – Limeburners Bay Walkway;

· Community Facilities Development Projects – Albany Stadium Pool;

· Community Facilities renewals – Connemara Reserve court renewal;

· Community Facilities renewals – fixture and furniture renewals (priority 3) FY17-19 – various parks and reserves; and

· Community Facilities renewals – Rosedale Park fence, rubbish bin and tables renewals.

6. Overall, the financial performance of the board against quarter 1 FY16/17 is on track; however, there are some points for the board to be aware of:

· Upper Harbour Local Board has invested $6.2 million in capital expenditure and $2.5 million net operating expenditure for the first quarter ended 30 September 2016.

· Most of the capital investment in the quarter has been in the local parks activity, $6.0 million, with Community Services contributing $100,000.

· The net operating cost of service is tracking well against budget. The first round of contestable grants has been completed, with nearly half of the available grant pool ($118,000) allocated.

· The main capital expenditure to date is associated with the Albany Stadium Pool ($5.9 million). There are risks associated with the overall build programme timeline, which could potentially lead to increased costs.

· The development of the Hobsonville Headquarters building is also facing higher than planned costs based on the latest estimates.

7. The key performance indicators (KPIs) for the Upper Harbour Local Board show a trend of delivery that is meeting the indicators, with the exceptions being the percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of local parks and reserves, the percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in the last 12 months, and town centre safety targets. These are explained in further detail in the report.

8. The overall dashboard for the Upper Harbour Local Board indicates performance in the Upper Harbour Local Board area is tracking positively (Attachment A).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2016.

Comments

Key achievements for quarter one

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the Quarter One period, which include:

· Completion of the roof on the Albany Stadium Pool;

· Youth Caucus delivery of the Matariki event for newcomers to the Upper Harbour area;

· Youth Caucus photography exhibition at Youthline;

· Three Citizenship Ceremonies welcoming 275 new citizens into the local board area;

· 5 percent increase in library visits to Albany Library compared to the same quarter last year, which is higher than the regional trend.

· High demand for preschool programming at the Albany Library, which is delivering 37 in-house pre-school sessions to 1,110 participants.

Key project updates from the 2016/17 work programme

10. All operating departments, with an approved 2016/17 work programme have provided performance report updates for quarter one (Attachment B). The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Local Board Plan:

· To construct a purpose built community facility in Albany - contract being prepared for issue to the chosen contractor, health and safety checks being undertaken.

· To redevelop the recently acquired Hobsonville Headquarters building to function as a multipurpose community facility - insufficient budget and slow mobilisation. The Long-term Plan has provision of $1.172 million in 2016 for the redevelopment of this building. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the option which had a total estimated cost of $1,126,328. The allocated department budget of $911,202 is insufficient. Additional funding will be sought through internal mechanisms.

· Construction of the Albany Stadium Pool – birdcage scaffolding has been removed. Pool hall mechanical ducts have been installed. Pool hall structure and ceiling panels have been completed. Waterproofing and testing of pools has commenced.

· Scott Point Park Sportsfield development – work is currently underway on the production of a detailed project plan.

Risks identified in the 2016/17 work programme

11. The following are risks that have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been set to ‘red’ – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes.

Community Facilities Development Projects – delivery of the Albany Stadium Pool

12. The overall risk rating for the project is currently "High". This relates to the financial outlay and time pressures related to the project. Practical completion is now anticipated on 24 November.

Community Facilities – provision of a 3 on 3 Basketball Court - Unsworth Heights

13. There is inadequate budget provision to fulfill the scope of works and deliver a 3 on 3 basketball court. Additional funding will need to be sought from the local board through the parks response fund in the new year.

Community Facilities – Limeburners Bay Walkway

14. The scoping document needs to be rewritten for the local park development which includes internal paths, seating, signage and landscaping. The project footprint starts at Limeburners Heritage Reserve, and progresses through Wisely Esplanade and Burneckers Landing to West Harbour Marina.

Community Facilities renewals – Connemara Reserve court renewal

15. It is proposed that a review is undertaken of how much the asset is used and by whom, and whether it is worth renewing.

Community Facilities renewals – fixture and furniture renewals (priority 3) FY17-19 – various parks and reserves

16. No business case has been submitted and the priority 3 fixtures and furniture renewals require further scoping.

Community Facilities renewals – Rosedale Park fence, rubbish bin and tables renewals

17. The timeframes for this renewal are unlikely to be met as there is an inadequate scope provided and the supplementary budget has not been secured.

Financial performance

18. The Upper Harbour Local Board has invested $6.2 million in capital expenditure and $2.5 million net operating expenditure for the first quarter ended 30 September 2016.

19. Most of the capital investment in the quarter has been in the local parks activity, (approximately $6.0 million), with Community Services contributing $100,000.

20. The operating net cost of service is tracking well against budget. The first round of contestable grants has been completed, with nearly half of the available grant pool ($118,000) allocated.

21. The main capital expenditure to date is associated with the Albany Stadium Pool ($5.9 million). There are risks associated with the overall build programme timeline which could potentially lead to increased costs.

22. The development of the Hobsonville Headquarters building is also facing higher than planned costs based on the latest estimates.

Key performance indicators

23. The year-end outlook shows that the target for the percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of local parks and reserves, and percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in the last 12 months is unlikely to be achieved. The Upper Harbour area is experiencing significant growth, particularly in the Albany and Hobsonville areas, which may put pressure on the open space and increase demand for new activities on parkland.

24. The year-end outlook indicates a shortfall on the town centre safety targets. These measures are influenced by factors such as crime, the built environment, and socio‑economic and other similar factors.

25. A slight shortfall is also expected in the off-peak community facility use target, but the digital booking system, which began recording bookings in quarter one of FY17 may help to boost the result.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

26. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance to date for the period ending 30 September 2016.

Māori impact statement

27. All Māori within the Upper Harbour Local Board area are able to participate in and have access to all of the projects and initiatives covered in this report.

Implementation

The Senior Advisor Upper Harbour Local Board will continue to facilitate performance updates to the local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour dashboard	27
b ⇩	Upper Harbour KPI report	29
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Work Programme Report	37
d ⇩	Upper Harbour Quarterly Performance Report	55

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

New road name approval for a shared accessway created by a subdivision at 150-170 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2016/22409

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a new road name for the shared accessway created by a subdivision application at 150-170 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville (Auckland Council reference LUC 2016-7 and SUB 2016-8).

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for naming a new road or accessway serving more than five dwellings. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road name ‘Te Okoriki Lane’ (the applicant’s preferred name) was determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Hobsonville Land Company (HLC) established a Placemaking Advisory Committee to provide input into the place-making approach and give feedback on the projects at Hobsonville Point, including consultation on proposed new road names. The group is comprised of representatives from Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, the Upper Harbour Local Board and Hobsonville Point Residents Society.

5. HLC has consulted on the proposed names with the Placemaking Advisory Committee on behalf of Jalcon Homes (the applicant).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the road name proposed by the applicant, ‘Te Okoriki Lane’, for a shared accessway created by way of a subdivision at 150-170 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville.

Comments

6. The site is located by way of subdivision at 150-170 Buckley Avenue, and is legally described as Lot 6 DP 484575.

7. The land use and subdivision consent was granted on 23 March 2016 for the construction of 14 dwellings and a subdivision around these dwellings, creating 14 lots and a shared accessway.

8. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allows that, where a new road or accessway needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the local board’s approval. Jalcon Homes (the applicant) has proposed one preferred name (‘Te Okoriki Lane’) and two alternate names (‘Dorm Lane’ and ‘Airmens Lane’).

Figure 1: Approved Scheme Plan showing the proposed accessway to be named (Lot 15).

9. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. All names adhere to the general principles and objectives, and the significance of the proposed names is outlined as follows:

Preference	Roads names and meanings	Comments from LINZ and NZ Post:
1	Te Okoriki Lane (acknowledging the nearby inlet)	Acceptable to use
2	Airmens Lane (acknowledging the former RNZAF airmen’s barracks were located on this site)	Acceptable to use
3	Dorm Lane (acknowledging the former RNZAF airmen’s barracks were located on this site)	LINZ and NZ Post: not acceptable as there is a Dormer Road in Kaukapakapa (approximately 30kms away)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Auckland Council, by way of the Long-term Plan (2012-2022), has allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

11. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

12. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Māori impact statement

13. It is considered that there is no significance to Māori as a result of the proposed road names, and that there will be no adverse effects on Māori communities.

14. Responses from the representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara have confirmed support for the preferred name.

Implementation

15. The Project, Practice and Resolutions Consenting Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jian Chen - Senior Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

New road name approval for a shared accessway created by a subdivision at Tuatua Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2016/22413

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a new road name for a shared accessway, created by a subdivision application at Tuatua Road, Hobsonville (Auckland Council reference LUC 2015-1973 and SUB 2016-1974).

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for naming a new road or a shared accessway serving more than five dwellings. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road name ‘Perch Lane’ (the applicant’s preferred name) was determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Hobsonville Land Company (HLC) established a Placemaking Advisory Committee to provide input into the place making approach and give feedback on the projects at Hobsonville Point, including consultation on proposed road names. The group is comprised of representatives from Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, the Upper Harbour Local Board and Hobsonville Point Residents Society.

5. HLC has consulted on the proposed road name with the Placemaking Advisory Committee on behalf of Universal Homes (the applicant).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the road name, ‘Perch Lane’, proposed by the applicant, for the shared accessway of a residential development at Tuatua Road, Hobsonville in Catalina Precinct.

Comments

6. The site, by way of subdivision, is located at Tuatua Road, Hobsonville in Catalina Precinct, and is legally described as Lot 6 DP 486479.

7. The land use and subdivision consent was granted on 1 December 2015 for the construction of 40 residential dwellings, and to create 40 lots and the shared accessway.

8. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road or accessway needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the local board’s approval. Universal Homes has proposed one preferred (‘Perch Lane’) and two alternate names (‘Roost Lane’ and ‘Critter Lane’) for the development.

Figure 1: Approved Scheme Plan showing the proposed accessway (Lot 41).

Preference	Road names and meaning	Comments from LINZ and NZ Post:
1	Perch Lane (refers to bird – the name is consistent with the theme of the existing road names in Catalina)	Acceptable to use
2	Roost Lane (refers to bird)	Acceptable to use
3	Critter Lane (refers to bird)	Acceptable to use

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board does not trigger any significant policy, and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

12. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Māori impact statement

13. It is considered that there is no significance to Māori as a result of the proposed road names, and that there will be no adverse effects on Māori communities.

14. Responses from the representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara have confirmed support for the preferred names proposed.

Implementation

15. The Project, Practice and Resolutions Consenting team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jian Chen - Senior Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2016

New road names approval for roads and accessways created by a way of a subdivision at Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2016/22415

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for the new road names for six new roads to vest, two accessways and the use of an existing road name for an extension of an existing road at Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines which set out the requirements and criteria of the council for naming a new road. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Sidney Wallingford Way’, ‘David Carnegie Road’, ‘Ian Morrison Road’, ‘Malcolm Calder Road’, ‘Walter Merton Road’, ‘Eyton Kay Road’, ‘William Stratton Lane’, and ‘Shrub Lane’ (the applicant’s proposed names) were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

5. HLC proposed the street names for this precinct based on a predominantly aeronautical theme referencing the RNZAF history of the site.

6. HLC has consulted on the proposed road name extension with the Placemaking Advisory Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the use of the existing road name, ‘Mapou Road’ for the new extension of the road.

b) approve the following new road names proposed by the applicant, for six new roads and two accessways created by way of a subdivision at Hobsonville Point in the Buckley Precinct:

i) Sidney Wallingford Way;

ii) David Carnegie Road;

iii) Ian Morrison Road;

iv) Malcolm Calder Road;

v) Walter Merton Road;

vi) Eyton Kay Road;

vii) William Stratton Lane; and

viii) Shrub Lane.

Comments

7. The site is located by way of subdivision at Buckley Precinct, Hobsonville Point, and is legally described as Section 5 & 6 SO 428976, Lot 4 DP 473046, Lot 5 DP 473046, Lot 1 DP 308781 and Lot 1 DP 480972.

8. The site is subject to multiple land use and subdivision approvals granted by council. A land use and subdivision consent (LUC 2015-1786 and SUB 2015-1787) was granted for the construction of 39 dwellings, subdivision around the dwellings to create 39 lots, and the shared accessway (shown as number 9 on the attached plan).

9. A combined land use and subdivision consent (LUC 2016-1582 and SUB 2016-1673) was granted for the creation of 12 super lots, two parks, and new roads (shown as numbers 1-7 on the attached plan).

10. An integrated land use and subdivision consent (LUC 2016-2355 and SUB 2016-2356) is lodged for the construction of 33 dwellings, subdivision around the dwelling to create 33 lots, and a shared accessway (number 8 on the attached plan). The application is currently being processed and the decision is expected to be released next week.

11. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allows that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the local board’s approval. The following names are proposed:

· Sidney Wallingford Way;

· David Carnegie Road;

· Ian Morrison Road;

· Malcolm Calder Road;

· Walter Merton Road;

· Eyton Kay Road;

· Mapou Road – continuing on from an existing road;

· William Stratton Lane; and

· Shrub Lane.

12. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. All names adhere to the general principles and objectives, and the significance of the proposed names is outlined as follows:

Road No.	Names (reasons)	Comments from LINZ and NZ Post:
1	Sidney Wallingford Way - Sidney Wallingford, CB, CBE, Legion of Merit (US) had enlisted in the Artists’ Rifles in 1915. After duty with the Rifle Brigade in Salonika, he transferred to the Royal Flying Corps and learned to fly in Egypt. He was commissioned in 1918 and posted to 142 Squadron Royal Air Force (RAF). Wallingford later served with the Police Force in Fiji before accepting a short service commission with the RAF. He twice represented the RAF in shooting at Bisley, winning the Duke of Cumberland’s Cup and the RAF Championship. He became the first Adjutant at Hobsonville. In 1936, Wallingford returned to England for a Staff College Course, and was New Zealand Liaison Officer (Air) in London at the outbreak of war in 1939. He was Air Member for Personnel from 1941-43. He commanded Islands Group Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) before becoming Air Member for Supply in 1944-45. Wallingford retired as Air Commodore in 1954.	Acceptable to use
2	David Carnegie Road is acknowledging Air Vice Marshal David Vaughan Carnegie, CB, CBE, AFC (7 February 1897 – 3 August 1964) who was a senior Royal Air Force commander during the Second World War and the post-war decade. He was Chief of Air Staff between January 1951 and February 1954.	Acceptable to use
3	Ian Morrison Road - Ian Morrison was appointed as Chief of Air Staff in June 1962. He quickly embarked on the job of rebuilding the RNZAF and providing it with a new direction, declaring the three basic roles of the Air Force – Strike, Maintenance and Air Transport.	Acceptable to use
4	Malcolm Calder Road is acknowledging Marshall Malcolm Calder was the Chief of Air Staff between July 1958 and November 1962.	Acceptable to use
5	Walter Merton Road - Walter Merton was Chief of Air Staff between February 1954 and June 1956 and Air Officer for Administration at Headquarters RAF Bomber Command in 1956. After that, he was made Chief of Staff at Headquarters Allied Air Forces Central Europe in 1959 and Air Member for Supply and Organisation in 1960 before retiring in 1963. In retirement he became Inspector-General of Civil Defence.	Acceptable to use
6	Eyton Kay Road - Eyton (Cyril) Kay joined the RNZAF on 8 July 1935 as he was accepted with the rank of flying officer. Granted a permanent commission in January 1938, he became chief navigation instructor at Wigram six months later. In May 1939, Kay travelled to Britain to join the New Zealand Flight as a flight commander and navigation leader. Between November 1940 and September 1941, he commanded the squadron on intensive operations against transport and fuel installations in Germany and occupied countries, earning the respect of his crews for his fatherly approach. After headquarters appointments he returned to New Zealand in October 1942 where his operational experience was invaluable. He commanded training establishments at New Plymouth, home of the navigation school (1942–43), Ohakea (1943–44) and Wigram (1944–46). Usually known as Cyrus, the stockily built Kay was described as a superb instructor and a brilliant and daring pilot. After the war he attended the Imperial Defence College, then joined the Air Board as air member for supply and was promoted to the rank of air commodore in 1947. He had a major role in determining the shape of the post-war RNZAF and in the introduction of jet aircraft in 1951–52. After a posting to London, where he became air officer commanding at the RNZAF London Headquarters in 1951, he returned to become air member for personnel in 1953. In May 1956, Kay led a goodwill mission to the United States. On 5 June, he was promoted to Air Vice Marshal and appointed chief of the air staff and air officer commanding. The 1957 Review of Defence Policy, which disbanded the territorial squadrons and ended the involvement of the air force in compulsory military training, was his last major policy contribution before retirement on 30 June 1958.	Acceptable to use
8	William Stratton Lane is acknowledging Marshall William Stratton, Chief of Air Staff from July 1969 to July 1971. Hastings-born William Stratton was one of the first fighter pilots to see action with the RAF in World War II. With the RAF's 1 Squadron flying Hurricanes, he was sent to France as the Germans were invading and sweeping the British Expeditionary Force towards Dunkirk. He was credited with sharing in the destruction of the first German Messerschmitt 110 to be shot down by the RAF in France. Stratton had been keen on flying from early times in Hawkes Bay and he obtained his pilot's licence with the Western Federated Flying Club. By 1937, he was in England with the RAF. The citation for his first Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded in November 1940 noted that in his first combat on March 29, 1940, "This officer assisted in shooting down two Messerschmitt 110s...his courage and ability are both of a very high standard". Altogether he was credited with shooting down at least five aircraft and received a bar to his DFC when appointed squadron leader with 134 Squadron in 1943, leading it in the Middle East and India. He left the RAF in May 1944 and joined the Royal New Zealand Air Force. There followed many career appointments including being Commanding Officer of Ohakea and finishing his career as Chief of Air Staff from 1969 to 1971.	Acceptable to use
9	Shrub Lane – referencing to red Matipo, which is one of the species found in Buckley Precinct.	Acceptable to use

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Auckland Council, by way of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, has allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

14. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board does not trigger any significant policy, and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

15. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Māori impact statement

16. It is considered that there is no significance to Māori as a result of the proposed road names, and that there will be no adverse effects on Māori communities.

17. Two emails were sent to the Placemaking Advisory Committee on 11 July and 5 September 2016 to seek feedback for the proposed names. No objection from the representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara to the names proposed were received.

Implementation

18. The Project, Practice and Resolutions Consenting team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

19. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan with road names	73

Signatories

Authors

Jian Chen - Senior Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] Once the outcome of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill is known, more work will be carried out, if necessary, based on a review of the governance framework undertaken in 2016 and the option to move responsibility for granting swimming pool fencing exemptions to the governing body.

[2] Part 1A, Schedule 7, 36D Local Government Act 2002