Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

An apology form member Avendaño Christie and member Davey has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 22 November 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.

8.1 Deputation: Kathy Ross and Audrey van Ryn - Warship-free zone

Executive Summary

1. Kathy Ross and Audrey van Ryn will be in attendance to speak about proposing a warship-free zone.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Kathy Ross and Audrey van Ryn for their attendance and presentation about proposing a warship-free zone.

Attachments

a A proposal for a warship-free zone by Kathy Ross and Audrey van Ryn is on page 277.

8.2 Deputation: Yvette Taylor - Living Wage and Auckland Council

Executive Summary

1. Yvette Taylor will be in attendance to speak about proposing the living wage at Auckland Council.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Yvette Taylor for her attendance and presentation about proposing the living wage at Auckland Council.

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Public Forum: Frances Palmer - City for Peace

Executive Summary

1. Frances Palmer will be in attendance to speak about Auckland Council’s commitment to being a City for Peace and the implications for use of council facilities.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Frances Palmer for her attendance and presentation about Auckland Council’s commitment to being a City for Peace and the implications for use of council facilities.

Attachments

a A presentation about Auckland Council's City of Peace Declaration by Frances Palmer is on page 281.

9.2 Public Forum: Kim Dunlop - The Peace Place

Executive Summary

1. Kim Dunlop will be in attendance to speak on behalf of The Peace Place about Auckland Council’s commitment to being a City for Peace and the implications for use of council facilities.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Kim Dunlop for her attendance and presentation about Auckland Council’s commitment to being a City for Peace and the implications for use of council facilities.

Attachments

a A submission about Auckland Council's City of Peace Declaration by Kim Dunlop on behalf of The Peace Place is on page 283.

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

13 December 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/24567

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on the following applications for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

Executive summary

2. An application for an exemption for swimming or spa pools has been received from the owner of:

· 5 Almorah Place, Epsom.

3. The application does not comply with the Act. Pool inspectors have inspected the property and consulted with the applicant. A full assessment report is attached to this report.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 5 Almorah Place, Epsom with the following conditions:

i. That the end swinging panel to the bi-fold door is to have a self-closing device installed and a self-latching device fitted at least 1.5m above floor level.

ii. Any windows opening into the pool area are to be fitted with restrictors to prevent the windows opening greater than 100mm.

iii. All self-closing and self-latching devices are maintained in good working order at all times.

Comments

Background

5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the property for which an application for special exemption from the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act) Act has been received. In this case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with the Act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in the attachments to this report.

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

Legislative implications

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

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

9. An exemption can only be granted by the local board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if “satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children”, can an exemption be granted.

10. The definition of the immediate pool area, which is “the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool”, is a key consideration for granting an exemption.

11. Where a building forms part of the pool fence and there are doors opening into the pool area, the local board may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 and 10 of the schedule to the Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of six years.

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

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

b) Granting the exemption for a fixed term irrespective of changes of ownership

13. Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the local board by resolution. The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without informing the pool owner and giving them the opportunity to be heard.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Local boards have delegated authority to approve exemptions to the Act.

15. Before making an exemption, the local board must consider:

· the particular characteristics of the property and the pool

· any other relevant circumstances

· conditions it may be necessary to impose.

16. The local board must also be satisfied that the exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

17. The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline the application for special exemption.

18. If the application is declined the applicant will be required to fence the pool in accordance with the Act.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

20. Decisions must be made by committee resolution. The resolutions will then be forwarded on to the Senior Pool Specialist, who will then contact each applicant in writing with the decision of their application.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	5 Almorah Place, Epsom - Evaluation Sheet and Application

Signatories

Authors

Reg Pritchard - Senior Pools Specialist

Authorisers

Sally Grey - Manager Weather Tightness & Compliance

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Annual Budget 2017/2018

File No.: CP2016/23617

Purpose

1. This report requests that local boards consider proposed locally driven initiative (LDI) allocations for 2017/2018, key advocacy issues, and any local targeted rate proposals and business improvement district (BID) targeted rates.

2. It also requests the adoption of local content for consultation as part of the annual budget process.

Executive summary

3. Legislation governing the annual budget process has changed, and there is no longer the requirement to produce a draft annual budget. Instead, the council will be producing a consultation document which will cover:

· any significant or material changes proposed to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP)

· content relating to local board agreements.

4. Consultation on the Annual Budget 2017/2018 will take place in February and March of 2017.

5. This report seeks agreement from local boards on their proposed LDI allocations for 2017/2018 and key advocacy issues, recommendations as to any local targeted rate proposals and BID targeted rates and adoption of local content for consultation.

6. These will be considered by the governing body prior to finalising annual budget consultation topics and adoption of the consultation document and supporting information.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) agree indicative locally driven initiative allocations for 2017/2018 (Attachment A to the report).

b) agree a list of key advocacy issues (Attachment B to the report) with a specific focus on the following key advocacy issues:

i. Affordable Housing: ensure Auckland Council actively builds or enables others to provide affordable housing through appropriate mechanisms and tools

ii. Housing solution for homeless people: deliver short term housing solutions for homeless people

iii. Pt Erin Pool Redevelopment Initiative: prioritise Pt Erin Pool for redevelopment according to the recommendations endorsed by the Waitematā Local Board in 2013 in relation to two potential development concepts

iv. Minimise Agrichemical Use Initiative: secure a budget to provide as a base level service the costs of minimising or eliminating when possible the use of agrichemicals in accordance with the Council’s Weed Management Policy

c) recommend the Uptown business improvement district targeted rates area expansion for consultation.

d) adopt local content for consultation (Attachment C to the report).

e) agree that the chairperson be delegated the authority to make any final minor changes to local consultation content for the Annual Budget 2017/2018 prior to publication, including online consultation content.

Comments

7. As part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, the council will be producing a consultation document. This will cover any significant or material changes proposed to the LTP and content relating to local board agreements.

8. Public consultation will take place in February and March of 2017, and will include information on local board issues and priorities.

9. As such, local boards are requested to agree their indicative LDI allocations for 2017/2018 (see Attachment A) and adopt local content for consultation (see Attachment C).

10. Any new local targeted rates and/or BIDs must be consulted on before they can be implemented. Local boards are therefore also requested to agree any new proposals for consultation.

11. This triennium we are considering a long term approach in respect of local board priorities / advocacy initiatives. Such an approach seeks to better utilise, in an integrated way, the annual budget, LTP and local board plan processes.

12. It is proposed that, as part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, local boards begin narrowing the range of their advocacy initiatives - and agree their key advocacy issues for further research and consideration (Attachment B). Council departments will then provide local boards with in depth information to help inform their position on these issues. Based on this information, local boards identify one to two key priorities to develop further in the local board plan process and discuss with the governing body through the next LTP process.

13. This should enable realistic and genuine discussions and engagement between local boards and the governing body.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Local board decisions are being sought in this report.

15. Local boards will have further opportunities to provide information and views as council progresses through the annual budget process.

Māori impact statement

16. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the annual budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were developed in 2014 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities.There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

Implementation

17. The governing body will adopt consultation material for the Annual Budget 2017/2018 in early February 2017.

18. Following consultation, a local board agreement with the governing body for 2017/2018 will be developed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Indicative LDI allocations for 2017/2018	19
b ⇩	Waitemata advocacy list 2017 - 2018	21
c ⇩	Local content for consultation	25

Signatories

Authors

Mark Purdie – Planning Lead – Local Boards

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Auckland Transport Update - December 2016

File No.: CP2016/24313

Purpose

1. This report updates the Board on the current status of its Local Board Transport Capital Fund and projects, provides information on matters of specific application and interest to the Waitemata Local Board and responds to issues raised by board members.

Executive summary

2. This report provides information on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, and:

a) An overview of workshops from Auckland Transport to the Waitemata Local Board

b) An overview of requests for comment from Auckland Transport

c) A summary of items sent to the Board for their information

d) General information items from Auckland Transport relevant to Waitemata Local Board

3. The report includes the following attachments:

a) Traffic Control Committee decisions September to November 2016 in the Waitemata Local Board area (attachment A)

b) An update on Local Board advocacy (attachment B)

c) Auckland Transport’s Quarterly Report to Waitemata Local Board in two parts. (attachment C and D)

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive this report Auckland Transport Update - December 2016 Auckland Transport Update - December 2016.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

4. During the period 2012-2017 the Local Board had funds totalling $2,374,174 available comprising $469,789 per annum from 2012 – 2016 and $495,018 in the 2016-2017 year. Of this the Board committed $2,340,988 to projects as summarised below:

Project Name	Value
Investigation of projects that did not progress	$17,470
Investigation of projects that became funded out of AT Programme funds	$3,195
Grey Lynn Shops Footpath Enhancement	$20,000
Cyclist Fountains - Four sites	$27,288
Drinking Fountains Carlton Gore Rd and Nelson St	$12,987
Lower Khartoum Place Renaming Plaque	$7,048
Greenways G1 - Grey Lynn Park Shared Path	$350,000
Newmarket Laneways	$850,000
Ponsonby Road	$703,000
Parnell Station Footpath	$350,000
Total	$2,340,988

5. Four projects remain underway:

Project Name	Committed	Currently Spent (Oct 2016)
Greenways G1 - Grey Lynn Park Shared Path	$350,000	$318,839.11
Newmarket Laneways	$850,000	$340,860.41
Ponsonby Road	$703,000	$147,320.89
Parnell Station Footpath	$350,000	$18,522.00

6. As of October 2016 there was $33,187 from the 2016-2017 year unallocated.

7. For the 2017-2018 year the Waitemata Local Board’s funding allocation is currently $508,878.

Workshop overview

8. Auckland Transport attended a workshop on the 6^th of September 2016 with the Waitematā Local Board on the following subjects:

· An update on the investigation into City to South mass rapid transit

· A briefing on the results of consultation for the proposed New Network for Central Suburbs

· A briefing on the results of consultation into Ponsonby Residential Parking Zone and proposed changes to Ponsonby Road paid parking

Summary of requests for comment from the Board

Great North Road, Bullock Track - Intersection Improvements

9. Auckland Transport was seeking feedback on a proposal to install intersection improvements at Great North Road and Bullock Track, Grey Lynn.

10. It is difficult for drivers to safely turn right from Bullock Track onto Great North Road. Records show that a number of crashes have occurred at this intersection as a result of this issue. The proposal aims to improve safety of all road users by providing a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians to safely travel out of the traffic flow along this section of Great North Road, designated crossing points for pedestrians to safely cross the road, and a signalised intersection making it safer for drivers turning onto Great North Road.

11. AT recognises that this may impact the efficiency of the intersection and cause inconveniences to local residents by restricting the right turn from Tuarangi Road into Great North Road, but in this case, the safety benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

12. The Local Board’s response to Auckland Transport proposal following public feedback:

“The Board supports the proposal to signalise the GNR/ Bullock Track intersection as a way of improving the safety of the 7th most dangerous intersection in NZ.

There are positive aspects of the design that will improve safety for people walking by providing additional crossing points. It is also good to see the extension of the bus lane. However it is not clear that a best practice approach has been taken to all aspects of the design to ensure it offers the highest levels of safety for all users.

The intersection is located near a town centre, major visitor destinations and residential areas. At the time of consultation over the St Lukes Interchange Auckland Transport and NZTA gave undertakings that the long planned upgrade of the Bullock Track would be the opportunity to connect the existing and planned cycling facilities. It is disappointing that this has not happened. There is no connectively to the newly planned cycle lanes on Great North or to the cycling facilities that were installed as part of the St Lukes project. The extent of the project needs to be widened.”

13. We note the following concerns raised through the consultation:

“The footpath should not be turned into a shared path as proposed as this raises safety concerns for walkers. There is a lack of connectively from the proposed shared path to existing facilities.

Removal of the RH turn from Tuarangi Road is likely to create new safety issues

The on road cycling facilities need to be separated from traffic lanes especially in such a high speed environment

The intersection improvements do not provide sufficient safety for people walking. Raised tables should be installed on the zebra crossings.”

14. In addition:

“If the shared path is maintained it needs to be redesigned to provide connectivity to cycling facilities along the rest of the route (The shared walking cycling path has no entry or exit from the road network and or links to the shared bus network. AT may want to consider curbing and channeling to assist with the entry and exit onto the path.)

The kerb build out on Tuarangi Road looks like it has room to plant a new tree. Can we please look across all the new road buildouts for opportunities for tree pits, planting and storm water reduction through “water sensitive design”.

MOTAT have outlined the need for a bus entry and exit onto Stadium Road as part of their 10 year master plan to make this the new main entrance. Can AT please double check that the proposed design meets the future needs of MOTAT.

Can AT please advise how these issues are going to be addressed through the final design?”

15. Auckland Transport is considering this feedback and preparing responses to the Board’s requests.

Great North Rd, King St and Dean St Roading Changes

16. Resource Consent has been granted by Auckland Council for the development of a Bunnings Warehouse in Grey Lynn. As part of the development it was proposed to improve the safety and operation of Great North Road by widening and lengthening the flush median near the Great North Road / King Street intersection. To allow the safe movement of vehicles into and out of the site it was proposed to install new sections of no stopping at all times, broken yellow lines. The following changes to the road network are proposed:

· Great North Road: Widen the flush median to 2m and lengthen the flush median to 71m, near the Great North Road / King Street intersection, install new no stopping broken yellow lines outside 276-300 Great North Road, remove a short section of no stopping broken yellow lines outside 276 Great North Road, and Install two new driveways and reinstate kerb over four existing driveways outside 276 and 300 Great North Road.

· King Street: Install new no stopping broken yellow lines outside 276 Great North Road and 264-270 Great North Road, and install two new driveways outside 276 Great North Road.

· Dean Street: Install new no stopping broken yellow lines outside 272 Great North Road and 300-302 Great North Road, and Widen one existing driveway outside 300-302 Great North Road and reinstate kerb over four existing driveways outside 272 Great North Road.

17. The changes to the flush median on Great North Road were required to allow vehicles turning right into King Street to queue without interrupting the through vehicle flow. The changes to the broken yellow lines on Great North Road, King Street and Dean Street were required to allow sufficient width for vehicles to enter and exit the development.

18. The Local Board commented that these road changes should be consistent with the cycleway/bus stop plans which are scheduled to be implemented in 2017/2018 (or earlier) so that the work doesn’t have to be retrofitted.

300 Queen Street (Lorne Street) - Airspace licence - Request for comment

19. The owners of 300 Queen Street are developing the Lorne Street side of the property. The development contains plans for a canopy which extends from the front of the building over the Lorne Street footpath. The owners have applied for an airspace encroachment licence from Auckland Transport.

20. A loading dock is currently located adjacent to Lorne Street. It is proposed to remove this loading dock and provide for a new retail sushi (or similar) tenancy in its place. A second retail tenancy is proposed on the corner of Lorne Street and Wellesley Street. This tenancy is to be leased to a café which together with the smaller retail store will effectively activate the street frontage and will complement the existing café on the opposite side of Lorne Street. Additional to this a new 2.25m wide x 8.2m long canopy is proposed over Lorne Street that will traverse over both proposed tenancies and the vehicle entrance area into the parking area beyond. The canopy will be finished in black aluminum composite material cladding.

21. The proposed canopy will project 2.25m from the front of the building over the Lorne Street footpath; the proposed canopy will run 8.21m along the building; the minimum height of the canopy will be 3.45m; the setback from the edge of the canopy to the channel is 2.35m.

22. A copy of the proposal was sent to the Board for any comment.

Wider Grey Lynn improvements: Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road route

23. AT Walking, Cycling and Road Safety are currently planning walking, cycling and bus stop improvements for four routes in the Grey Lynn area. The ‘Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road’ route is proposed for Surrey Crescent, Old Mill Road and Garnet Road, from the intersection of Great North Road and Surrey Crescent up to but not including the roundabout intersection with Meola Road. Funding for this route was obtained under the ‘Waitematā Safe Streets’ title (along with Route 2: Richmond Road and Route 3: Greenways Route).

24. A consultation in March 2016 for the area from Pt Chevalier to the city fringe, bounded by the motorway and the sea, identified where people want to cycle, and their barriers to cycling. This formed the basis for the Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road route, to begin implementation of this network. The results of this March consultation can be found here: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/pt-chev-to-city-cycle-improvements/

25. The primary focus of these works are to: provide a safe and convenient cycling route, provide improved pedestrian facilities, and create a safe cycling link to the rest of the proposed cycling network.

26. This proposal included two options for cycling facilities: one a mixture of on-and-off road (Option A) and one consistently on-road (Option B), each with different associated on-road parking changes. Improvements of pedestrian facilities and intersections were common to both options. There was no tree removal proposed for this route.

27. Following public feedback the Local Board’s response to Auckland Transports proposal:

“The Board requests that AT carry out analysis with AC Parks and Healthy Waters teams on using the berm for a cycleway to ascertain the environmental and amenity impacts. These impacts should be considered in AT’s final response.

The Board doesn’t support the use of berms for cycleways unless all the potential impacts are addressed

For both options, though particularly Option A, residents will no longer be able to continue the long standing practice of parking on the berm crossing. Residents have a reasonable expectation that this practice is acceptable to AT. The Board requests that AT clarify its approach to consistent enforcement of the illegal practice of parking on the berm crossing before taking any steps to remove the berm crossing spaces.

Option A is problematic due to the design at intersections with 2 cycle lane options (on the footpath and on the road) that creates additional hazards and uncertainty for drivers and people on bikes. The Board requests that these safety issues are addressed.

Option B is on road but requires the removal of substantial parking. The Board requests that AT accommodate parking requirements of residents (for example providing access to off street parking, visitor parking and parking needed to support household without off street parking or with mobility requirements) and local businesses.

Overall the Board considers neither option to be fit for purpose on this route and requests AT consider a new hybrid option that utilises the road space, for example , with a protected, connected cycleway on the inside of car parking. The new option also needs to provide for pedestrian improvements on side streets (eg raised tables) and sufficient parking for residents. The new option may need to result in a reduction in the width of the berm on the kerb side to allow for sufficient parking on the outside of the cycle lane but requests that AT look at the opportunities for new planting and landscaping improvements on the route.

The Board requests that AT undertakes further public consultation on a new hybrid option. Further consultation will also assist AT in addresses the issues raised in a petition and public feedback received by AT.”

28. Auckland Transport is considering this feedback and preparing responses to the Board’s requests.

Wider Grey Lynn improvements: Richmond Road route

29. The ‘Richmond Road’ route is proposed for Richmond Road from the intersection with Surrey Crescent to just after Parawai Crescent. It will connect the Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road route (Route 1) and the Greenways Route (Route 3). Funding for this route was obtained under the ‘Waitematā Safe Streets’ title (along with Route 1: Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road and Route 3: Greenways Route).

30. The primary focus of these works were to: provide a safe and convenient cycling route, provide improved pedestrian facilities, slow traffic and enhance the West Lynn shopping center environment, and create a safe cycling link to the rest of the proposed cycling network.

31. The key features of this proposal included changing the Peel St, Kingsley Street and Richmond Road intersection to a roundabout, installing an on-road cycling facility, gateway treatments, raised speed tables, intersection enhancements, and plantings in the West Lynn shopping center area.

32. Follow public feedback the Local Board’s response to Auckland Transport:

“The Board notes that there are a lot of positive features in the Richmond Road design including traffic calming through the West Lynn shops, the connection for the Greenways route to cross Richmond Rd at Westmoreland St and the roundabout at Peel Street (which has considerable public support).”

33. However the following issues need to be addressed by AT:

“The lack of separation on sections of the route in particular the section between Castle Street and Surrey Cres

The safety of the Surrey Cres intersection. AT upgraded this intersection in 2010 and at the time the Board objected to the lack of provision for safe crossing points on a school route. The Board requests that AT improve the proposed design to ensure the safety of all users.

The concerns of businesses regarding the location of the bus stops in the West Lynn shops.”

34. The Board also requests:

“That the best features of the proposed new roundabout on Franklin Road (designed for maximum safety of all users, slower speeds and amenity) are incorporated into the Peel street roundabout design.

Information on the net loss of car parking at the West Lynn shops and the results of the parking surveys.

What is proposed to the management of parking as a result of the surveys.”

35. Auckland Transport is considering and preparing responses to the Board’s requests.

Wider Grey Lynn improvements: Greenways route

36. The ‘Greenways’ route connects existing facilities improved by the Local Board in Cox’s Bay Reserve in the north to Great North Road in the south, via Westmoreland Street, Hakanoa Reserve (already completed by Local Board), Cockburn Street, Dryden Street, Grey Lynn Park (already completed by Local Board), and Grosvenor Street. Traffic calming and other measures proposed for Dryden and Cockburn Streets to provide safer access to the route. Funding for this route was obtained under the ‘Waitematā Safe Streets’ title (along with Route 1: Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road and Route 3: Greenways Route).

37. The primary focus of these works are to: provide a safe and convenient cycling route, provide improved pedestrian facilities, slow traffic and provide safe access to the route and Grey Lynn Park, and Create a safe cycling link to the rest of the proposed cycling network.

38. The key features of this proposal included a new signalized pedestrian crossing on Richmond Road, widening the footpath on Westmoreland Street to create a shared walking and cycling path, traffic calming along the route (and some surrounding streets), installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Williamson Avenue and Grosvenor Street, parking changes and stop controls at intersections along the route to clarify priority.

39. Following public feedback the Local Board’s response to Auckland Transport:

“The Board requests that AT address the issues raised last term regarding the proposal by AT to divert the greenways route through the Grosvenor Street entrance. These issues are still outstanding (for example the conflict with the playground design) on this basis the board doesn’t currently support this route.

The Board requests AT provides details of the feedback on the Grosvenor Street route to the Board.

The Board requests that AT looks at alternative options that avoid Grosvenor Street (which is steep and not a desirable route in any case) and that are more consistent with the desire lines of those using the Greenways Route (for example leaving GL park riders are likely to wish to head north to the city via Williamson Ave, east towards Mt Eden/NW cycleway via the Waima Bridge or west via Crummer Road or Williamson Ave).

The Board requests that AT includes responses to other issues raised through the consultation such as those regarding parking and traffic congestion at Westmoreland Street and improvements to the proposals for Dryden Street (noting the considerable support for the traffic calming proposals on Dryden St).”

40. Auckland Transport is considering this feedback and preparing responses to the Board’s requests.

Wider Grey Lynn improvements: Great North Road

41. The ‘Great North Road’ route runs from Crummer Avenue before the Grey Lynn shops up to but not including the intersection with Ponsonby Road. It will connect with the Greenways route (Route 3) via Grosvenor Street.

42. The primary focus of these works are to: provide a safe and convenient cycling route, provide improved pedestrian facilities, and make bus journeys in peak times faster and more reliable.

43. The key features of this proposal include an on-road cycle lane for most of the route, a new large loading zone near Nixon Street (to accommodate car transporter vehicles), intersection enhancements, and the narrowing of the central median. Bus stop and lane improvements include a reduction in bus stops from 14 to 10 along the route, extension of bus priority lanes by one hour in peak times (city-bound in the morning; west-bound in the afternoon), physical extension of bus lanes at intersections, and new bus stop designs (where space permits) which directs the cycle path behind the stop (so cyclists are not hindered by buses stopping for passengers). Parking changes are required and the removal of one non-native 3m high tree near Araki Street.

44. Following public feedback the Local Board’s response to Auckland Transport:

“The Board requests information about what surveying AT has been done regarding the car parking requirements on GNR and surrounding residential streets.

The Board requests information on how the proposal will be impacted by the Grey Lynn Residential parking scheme. The Board notes that a number of businesses rely on stop and go parking (eg a café) and requests that these are accommodated.

The Board notes that issues have been raised regarding the consolidation of bus stops and that these issues will need to be addressed

The Board notes that the design for the Bond street intersection was not included in the consultation but is a critical part of the route and needs to be made safe for all users. Board requests that AT complete the design and brief the Board on this proposal before seeking public input.

The Board requests that AT works to connect the GNR cycleways through the Grey Lynn shops to connect with Route 1 and to cycling facilities at the St Lukes interchange (as requested in feedback on the proposals for the GNR/Bullock Track intersection)

The Board also requests that AT brings to the attention of the Board any further issues that have been raised through the consultation and seeks the Board’s input on these issues before finalising the design.”

45. Auckland Transport is considering this feedback and preparing responses to the Board’s requests.

Dean St – No stopping at any time lines

46. Auckland Transport received a complaint from a resident about vehicles not being able to turn around at the end of Dean Street. After investigation it was proposed to remove one parking space at the end of the road with broken yellow lines and also install broken yellow lines at the end of road for 6m as per the Road Code.

47. A copy of the proposal was sent to the Board for any comment.

Summary of other items provided for the Boards information

48. For the Board’s information:

· Pier 3 Downtown Ferry Terminal - the developed design for the Board’s information

· Airedale Street - Car Share Initiative

· Pre-consultation letter on the Parnell Cycleway and Parnell Residential Parking Zone Nov 2016

· Pre-consultation Letter on the Tamaki Drive - Quay St Cycleway Nov 2016

· Update on Ponsonby Road pedestrian safety improvements project update - detailed design phase

· Pre-consultation letter on the Herne Bay to Westhaven traffic calming treatments project

· Pre-consultation letter on the Jervois Road and Wharf Road, Herne Bay

· Pre-construction notice on Beaumont Street interim cycleway

· Pre-consultation notice on Westhaven to City Cycle route

· Auckland Transport’s Quarterly Report to AC 30 September 2016 - Attachment 1

· Pre-construction notice on the College Hill road renewal

· Franklin Road/Stakeholder management - bus stop outside #99

· Auckland Transport Vending Machine Trial

General Information Items

Speed reduction plans for Herne Bay

49. Traffic speeds in Herne Bay will be reduced as a result of a plan announced by Auckland Transport. AT is seeking feedback on the Herne Bay walking and cycling improvements which will benefit local people by creating an environment with quieter streets and fewer cars.

50. The proposal includes traffic calming measures in Herne Bay north of Jervois Rd. The traffic calming measures comprise raised tables and will be on intersections and on the mid-block of streets running north-south. The improvements will include planting to further beautify what is already a green, leafy suburb.

51. Auckland Transport has been working with the local community to develop this project the objective of which is to reduce traffic speeds, reduce traffic volumes by discouraging motorists to use the area to ‘rat-run’, and make it easier to cycle and walk. The project also intends to improve local amenity with roadside planting.

52. Feedback is open until 18 December. More details at: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/herne-bay-cycling-and-walking-improvements/

A big win for the pink Lightpath

53. The World Architecture Festival has announced Auckland’s Te Ara I Whiti as the winner of the transport category at its annual awards in Berlin.

54. The path, which was built by connecting a new bridge to the unused Nelson St motorway off-ramp, beat projects in Sweden, Chicago, Denmark and Taiwan to take out the Transport – Completed Building category.

55. Two Auckland architects, Monk MacKenzie Architects and LandLAB worked with Auckland Council, NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport on the design.

56. The surface of the path has been coated with a pink resin and 300 custom made LED lights on the eastern side of the path. The lights have sensors so they can be programmed to change colour when someone passes creating a ‘wave effect’.

57. With its first birthday of 3 December approaching, there have been more than 200,000 cycle trips at an average of 564 per day.

58. For more on cycling and walking: https://at.govt.nz/cycling-walking/

Local board views and implications

59. The report includes Waitemata Local Board’s views when these have been detailed by the Board to Auckland Transport.

Māori impact statement

60. No specific issues with regard to Maori are triggered by this report.

General

61. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, as all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with Auckland Transport’s budget and Regional Land Transport Plan documents. In addition, there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation

62. Where applicable next steps for implementation have been included in the information above.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Traffic Control Committee decisions September to November 2016	37
b ⇩	Waitematā Local Board Advocacy update	41
c ⇩	Quarterly Report A	45
d ⇩	Quarterly Report B	71

Signatories

Authors

Ben Halliwell – Auckland Transport, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport, Team Leader, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Request for a Temporary Alcohol Ban for a Guns N' Roses concert at Western Springs Stadium on 4 February 2017

File No.: CP2016/24014

Purpose

1. To seek a decision about adopting a temporary alcohol ban on streets surrounding Western Springs Stadium before and after the Guns N’ Roses concert scheduled for 4 February 2017.

Executive summary

2. Temporary alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified areas for specified times. They have been adopted for major events at Western Springs Stadium in the past. This makes it difficult for the police to provide documented evidence to justify new bans. Alcohol bans are enforced by the New Zealand Police (police).

3. On 21 November 2016, police requested that the local board adopt a temporary alcohol ban surrounding Western Springs Stadium for the Guns N’ Roses concert scheduled for Saturday 4 February 2017.

4. Under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (the bylaw), local boards have the delegated authority to make temporary alcohol bans. The request is for surrounding streets and parks in the Waitematā and Albert-Eden local board areas.

5. The Albert-Eden Local Board would have decided whether or not to adopt the ban prior to the Waitematā Local Board’s meeting. Staff have recommended that any decision of the Albert-Eden Local Board to adopt the ban should be subject to the decision of the Waitematā Local Board, for consistency.

6. In determining whether to make the temporary alcohol ban, the Waitematā Local Board must be satisfied that there is evidence of a high level of crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area, and that the ban is proportionate and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

7. Staff have identified two reasonably practicable options for the board to consider:

Option 1 – decline to make a temporary alcohol ban

Option 2 – adopt a temporary alcohol ban that operates from 6am Saturday 4 February 2017 until 6am Sunday 5 February 2017.

8. Staff recommend adopting Option 1 due to insufficient documented evidence to satisfy the legal requirements for decision-making.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

EITHER

a) Decline to adopt a temporary alcohol ban on streets and parks surrounding the Guns N’ Roses concert at Western Springs Stadium, on 4 February 2017.

b) Adopt a temporary alcohol ban on the streets and parks surrounding the Western Springs Stadium that are within the Waitematā Local Board area as shown in Attachment B, for the Guns N’ Roses concert, from 6am Saturday 4 February 2017 until 6am Sunday 5 February 2017.

Comments

9. Temporary alcohol bans are enforced by the police. Under section 169 and 170 of the Local Government Act 2002, police have the powers of search, seizure and arrest for the specified times and places that a ban applies.

Request for temporary alcohol ban

10. On 21 November 2016 the police requested [refer Attachment A] a temporary alcohol ban for the Guns N’ Roses concert on Saturday 4 February 2017 as follows:

· operate between 6am Saturday 4 February 2017 until Sunday 5 February 2017

· cover streets near the Western Springs Stadium as outlined in Attachment B.

11. The nearest alcohol ban is a permanent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week alcohol ban in the Grey Lynn Town Centre (see Attachment C).

Making temporary alcohol bans

12. Local boards have the delegated authority to make temporary alcohol bans under the bylaw (resolution GB/2014/121). The requested ban area is located in the Waitematā and Albert Eden local board areas.

13. In determining whether to make a temporary alcohol ban pursuant to the bylaw, the Waitematā Local Board must be satisfied that:

· there is evidence of a high level of crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· the ban is proportionate

· the ban can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

14. This is a higher threshold than in the past and was driven by alcohol reform legislation that was introduced into the Local Government Act and subsequently the bylaw.

Evidence

15. Temporary alcohol bans have been approved for major events at Western Springs Stadium in the past. This makes it difficult for the police to provide documented evidence to justify new bans against the high evidential threshold. However, police maintain that they are able to effectively manage alcohol related crime or disorder because the bans:

· act as a deterrent for people drinking alcohol and engaging in crime or disorder in the vicinity of the stadium

· provide police with the powers to effectively deal with problems when they arise.

16. During the 2015 review of permanent alcohol bans, the board received no submissions referring to Western Springs Stadium.

Options

17. Staff have identified two reasonably practicable options for the board to consider:

Option 1 – decline to make an alcohol ban

Option 2 – adopt a temporary alcohol ban that operates from 6am Saturday 4 February 2017 until 6am Sunday 5 February 2017

18. The tables below assess the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with each option.

Assessment of Option 1 – decline to make an alcohol ban

	Analysis
Advantages	· no risk of legal challenge due to insufficient evidence · no unreasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms · no temporary alcohol ban implementation costs · may result in evidence to support an events venue ban · may identify that temporary alcohol bans are no longer required at the Stadium.
Disadvantages and Risks	· alcohol related crime or disorder may occur that otherwise might have been prevented by a temporary alcohol ban.
Risk mitigation	· police can use powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 to address incidents of crime or disorder if they occur.

Assessment of Option 2 - adopt a temporary alcohol ban that operates from 6am Saturday 4 February 2017 until 6am Sunday 5 February 2017

	Analysis
Advantages	· addresses concerns about alcohol related crime and disorder around the venue as raised by police.
Disadvantages and Risks	· possible challenge in the High Court on the basis that the high evidential threshold has not been met · temporary alcohol ban implementation costs.
Risk mitigation	· the risk of legal challenge in the High Court is considered to be low.

Staff recommendation

19. Staff recommend that the Waitematā Local Board decline the request to adopt a temporary alcohol ban (option 1) due to insufficient documented evidence to satisfy the legal requirements for decision-making.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The Waitematā Local Board has previously supported police requests for temporary alcohol bans at Western Springs Stadium for the Auckland City Limits concert in March 2016 and AC/DC concert in December 2015.

21. The request includes streets within the Albert-Eden Local Board area. The Albert-Eden Local Board would have decided whether or not to adopt the ban prior to the Waitematā Local Board’s meeting. Staff have recommended that any decision of the Albert-Eden Local Board to adopt the ban should be subject to the decision of the Waitematā Local Board, for consistency.

Māori impact statement

22. Managing alcohol related harm associated with events increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. Iwi have been consulted widely on the use of alcohol bans and have previously been supportive.

Implementation

23. If Option 1 to decline a temporary alcohol ban is selected, police can use powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 to address incidents of crime or disorder if they occur. Event monitoring may establish that a ban is no longer required or provide evidence to inform decisions about future alcohol bans.

24. If Option 2 to adopt a temporary alcohol ban is selected, Regional Facilities Auckland will manage its implementation. Regional Facilities Auckland’s proposed alcohol management strategy for the Guns N’ Roses concert on 4 February 2017 will include:

· standard Auckland Council signage to inform of the public of the ban area dates and times

· event planning involving the police to ensure sufficient resources are met

· advising the Waitematā Local Board of the type and conditions for on-site alcohol licenses granted for this concert

· asking Auckland Council alcohol licensing inspectors to visit all licensed premises in the area prior to the concert

· supply signage advertising the ban to off-license premises inside the ban area

· advising ticket holders of the conditions of entry, public transport options, parking restrictions and the ban area prior to the event

· sending a notification letter to all local businesses and residents informing them of the ban area dates and times

· monitoring of the event to document evidence to support future alcohol ban requests.

25. The costs associated with implementing the ban will be covered by Regional Facilities Auckland. These costs may include the statutory requirement of a public notice in either the local paper or the New Zealand Herald advising of the ban, temporary signage, and any other reasonable requirements of the police or the Waitematā Local Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Police request	77
b ⇩	Map of the temporary alcohol ban area	79
c ⇩	Map of the Grey Lynn Town Centre alcohol ban	81

Signatories

Authors

Katherine Wilson - Advisor - Governance Support

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Waitematā Quick Response, Round Two, 2016/2017 Grant Applications

File No.: CP2016/24746

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for Waitematā Quick Response Round Two and four late applications received for the first local grants round of 2016/2017. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Waitematā Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000 for the 2016/2017 financial year. A total of $74,334 remains to be allocated for the three quick response and one local grant round for 2016/2017.

3. Twenty eight applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $65,251.00. Four late multi-board applications have been received for local grants round one requesting a total of $16,200.00.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) consider the quick response grant applications listed in table one and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table one: Waitematā quick response round two grant applications

App ID	Applicant	Project	Requested	Eligibility
QR1720-206 Arts and culture	Shane O'Connell	Towards reimbursement for shipping costs of the “Dayo” book.	$1,000	Ineligible as the project has already taken place
QR1720-209 Arts and culture	Same Same But Different	Towards “Same Same But Different Youth Poetry Slam” and festival enabling free access to youth and their supporters.	$2,880	Eligible
QR1720-215 Arts and culture	Wet Hot Beauties	Towards venue hire for Wet Hot Beauties production “Sea Change”.	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-228 Arts and culture	Auckland and District Pipe Band Incorporated	Towards air travel costs to the Pipe Band National Contest in Nelson	$2,156	Eligible
QR1720-229 Arts and culture	The Actors` Program	Towards the purchase of six video cameras.	$2,034	Ineligible as applicant has applied for the same project in this financial year.
QR1720-234 Arts and culture	Colleen Altagracia	Towards painting and drawing workshops, art supplies and artist fee for artists project “Where do you rest your head at night?”	$817.00	Ineligible as the project has already taken place
QR1720-235 Arts and culture	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust (NZDA)	Towards rental of storage space in Kumeu for equipment used across NZDA's performances and workshops.	$2,087	Eligible
QR1720-238 Arts and culture	Ensemble Polymnia Trust, trading as Aorangi Symphony Orchestra	Towards venue hireage of the Auckland Town Hall for the dress rehearsal and concert of "White Night in Saint Petersburg".	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-202 Community	RainbowYOUTH	Towards printing costs, basic event costs, wages and koha for contributors to exhibition “Know Who You Are, Be Who You Are”.	$930	Eligible
QR1720-208 Community	Grey Lynn Business Association	Towards preparation, design and distribution costs of monthly electronic newsletter.	$1,200	Eligible
QR1720-210 Community	North Harbour Community Patrol	Towards provision of fuel to enable the regular patrolling activities of North Harbour Community Patrol.	$3,600	Ineligible as amount requested exceeds the maximum for quick response grants
QR1720-211 Community	The Girl Guides Association of New Zealand Incorporated	Toward venue hire for three Waitemata locations.	$2,588	Eligible
QR1720-213 Community	Parnell Community Trust	Towards tutor and event costs for sustainable Urban Living Workshops and Sustainable Urban Living Family Fun Day.	$1,770	Eligible
QR1720-214 Community	The Parenting Place - Attitude Youth Division	Towards delivery Attitude life-skills presentations at Waitemata High Schools and handbooks on drug and alcohol education.	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-216 Community	Auckland Women's Centre	Towards garden equipment, planter boxes, child size gumboots, seedlings, gas bottle for vegetable barbeques and a child safety gate in a children's community garden.	$2,888	Eligible
QR1720-218 Community	Volunteering Auckland	Towards service delivery of providing volunteering opportunities, recruiter’s professional development, retention and advisory in best practice.	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-222 Community	Dance Therapy NZ	Towards running two "parent workshops" and the programme costs for "Arts 4 Us" in term one 2017.	$2,965	Eligible
QR1720-223 Community	St Columba Anglican Church and Community Centre	Towards materials, playground supplies and labour for St Columba Anglican Church and Community Centre Children's playground repair and restoration project.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1720-225 Community	Grafton Residents Association	Towards newsletters, flyer and annual general meeting material.	$480	Eligible
QR1720-226 Community	Auckland Old Folks Association Incorporated	Towards re-roofing the premises	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-227 Community	New Zealand -Filipino Sto Nino Devotees Trust	Towards venue hire of Sinulog New Zealand Cultural Festival	$2,000	Eligible
QR1720-230 Community	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards the costs to facilitate “Youth Health Councils” in three Waitemata region schools	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-233 Community	New Zealand AIDS Foundation (NZAF)	Towards professional supervision costs for four NZAF's counsellors and psychotherapists.	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-237 Community	Tumeke Cycle Space Incorporated	Towards workshop rental	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-239 Community	Rainbow Youth Incorporated	Towards servicing, insurance, road user charges, registration and petrol (diesel) of “Mahipahi” (van) for usage as a community resource	$2,556	Eligible
QR1720-224 Events	Asian Family Services	Towards public address system, gazebos, water, bouncy castles, advertising, resources, printing, balloons and stationery materials for the “Red Christmas Family Fun Day” event.	$1,300	Eligible
QR1720-232 Sport and recreation	Auckland Indian Sports Club Incorporated	Towards venue hire to host the New Zealand Indian Sports Association’s National Indian Sports Tournament.	$3,000	Eligible
QR1720-207 Historic heritage	John Coster	Towards safe removal of a dying Norfolk Pine for public protection	$3,000	Eligible
Total			$65,251

b) consider the multi-board grant applications listed in table two and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table one: Multi-board round one grant applications

App ID	Applicant	Project	Requested	Eligibility
LG1712-112	Chinese New Settlers Services Trust (CNSST)	Towards CNSST Cultural Learning Centre as part of the Parnell Education Programme	$4,000	Ineligible as applicant has overdue accountability reports
LG1705-130	Waitakere Arts and Cultural Development Trust	Towards “TEMP” an outdoor public arts science multi-week free event	$5,000	Eligible
LG1608-111	The Korean Society of Auckland	Towards 2017 Korean Day	$2,200	Ineligible as applicant has requested an amount which is below the minimum for local grants
LG1712-115	Japanese Society	Towards Japan Day 2017	$5,000	Eligible
Total			$16,200

Comments

4. The implementation of the new Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and review their programme each financial year. The Waitemata Local Board adopted its 2016/2017 grants programme on 10 May 2016 (see Attachment A).

5. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

6. The Waitematā Local Board will operate two local grants and four quick response rounds for this financial year.

7. The Waitematā Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000 for the 2016/2017 financial year. A total of $74,334 remains to be allocated for the three quick response and one local grant round for 2016/2017.

8. Twenty eight applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $65,251.00. Four late multi-board applications have been received for local grants round one requesting a total of $16,200.00.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

13. Following the Waitematā Local Board allocating funding for this round Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitematā Local Board Grants Programme	89
b ⇩	Waitemata Quick Response Round Two 2016 2017 application	97

Signatories

Authors

Jaimee Wieland – Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitematā

File No.: CP2016/24690

Purpose

1. To receive the Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitemata report (as part of the 2015/2016 local environment and development work programme) for the board’s information.

Executive summary

2. The Waitematā Local Board identified aspirations in their local board plan 2014-2017, to achieve ‘the natural environment is respected and enhanced.’

3. To give effect to this aspiration, the local board allocated budget to local environment projects in their locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget for 2015/2016.

4. As part of the 2015/2016 local environment and development work programme, the board resolved to allocate $5000 towards reducing food waste from businesses, through a business food waste feasibility study in Waitematā. This was approved at their meeting held on 10 November 2015 (resolution number WTM/2015/187).

5. The funding for this initiative was allocated from its low carbon implementation budget and helps implement the Waitematā Local Board Low Carbon Action Plan.

6. This two-part project will help the local board to understand the food waste generated by businesses and the potential for reduction in the Waitematā Local Board area. The board can then consider ways that businesses can be supported to reduce food waste.

7. The 2016/2017 local environment and development work programme allocated funds towards part two of the project which was approved by the board at their meeting held on 12 July 2016 (resolution number WTM/2016/113). A further $5,000 was committed towards reducing food waste from businesses in the Waitematā area.

8. Part one of the project, the Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitematā Report has been included as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitematā report.

Comments

9. The Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitematā report is a research and feasibility project and part one of a two stage project to inform an understanding of business food waste challenges and opportunities within Waitematā. The full study is appended as Attachment A to this report with the findings summarised below for the board and community’s information.

10. In summary, the Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitematā report aims to inform potential future investment in this area by:

· Identifying potential sources of food waste;

· Assessing food waste;

· Identifying potential users of food waste;

· Identifying barriers and issues;

· Gaining an understanding of what works for businesses and why;

· Contacting other similar council and/or community run projects (We Compost, Kai to Compost, Wellington; Food Know How, Melbourne);

· Identifying ways to run the pilot;

· Gaining an understanding of how businesses like to receive information (e.g face to face, written material, social media); and

· Writing a report with recommendations for phase two.

Report summary

11. While the exact amount of food waste generated from businesses in the Waitematā Local Board area is unknown, information from Statistics New Zealand indicates that a high proportion of industry in the area is made up of restaurants, cafes and takeaway services. This sector is known to generate high volumes of food waste and is also less likely to divert their food waste from landfill when compared to other food generating industries. The reasons for this include cost, lack of space in kitchens, lack of information on service providers and difficulty for processors to manage post-consumer waste.

12. Sustainability programmes such as Conscious Consumers and Environmark are gathering momentum as the restaurant industry embraces global trends in sustainable practice and such programmes could be explored and supported further in Waitematā.

13. Processing of food waste requires rigorous management and should be supported by a solid legislative framework and support in terms of advice and monitoring compliance. Concerns were noted around a perception of a lack of support and adequate leadership in this area.

14. The infrastructure for collection and processing of food waste, particularly post-consumer food waste is still in its infancy. Improvements in this area are influenced by Auckland Council’s policy and plans for food waste collection for households.

15. It was noted that the waste levy is too low for the recycling industry which makes the economics for recycling less viable.

Report recommendations

16. The second stage of this project is currently underway and involves awareness raising with the food industry. This has been informed by the research and feasibility project described in this report.

17. There will be further action to raise awareness of the food waste issue amongst the café and restaurant sector through a targeted campaign in early 2017. This includes providing a context for the food waste problem and promoting currently available services such as Conscious Consumers.

18. The specific project actions include:

· Developing collateral for a food waste awareness campaign;

· Direct marketing to local cafes and restaurants;

· Using existing networks such as Auckland Council’s Low Carbon Network; and

· Developing case studies.

19. Overall the local board has an opportunity to raise awareness of the food waste issue and gather further information from this sector while providing an opportunity to engage businesses with a new way of operating in a low carbon way.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. This activity supports and gives effect to the Waitematā Local Board Plan’s outcome that ‘the natural environment is respected and enhanced’ and the goals of Becoming a Low Carbon Community: An Action Plan for the Waitematā Local Board area.

Māori impact statement

21. No consultation with Māori is required for this project.

Implementation

22. Part one of the project is now complete and phase two is underway. Discussions were held with the environment portfolio holders in September 2016 to better refine the scope of the project.

23. The project plan is now complete and early stages of implementation are now underway including the development of collateral. Plans for the third quarter of 2016/2017 are to continue implementation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Business Food Waste Feasibility Study in Waitemata	191

Signatories

Authors

Desiree Tukutama - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Waitematā Local Board

13 December 2016

Local board Portfolio Allocation, Appointments and Delegations

File No.: CP2016/24189

Purpose

1. To adopt a range of portfolios and allocate these to local board members and confirm key projects, appointments and relevant delegations for the 2016 – 2019 triennium.

Executive summary

2. In the 2013 – 2106 electoral term the Waitematā Local Board established portfolios which included the appointment of members to lead or oversee activity areas and regularly meet with council staff. The portfolio holders were responsible for overseeing work programmes and progressing relevant advocacy matters.

3. In the current electoral term the Local Board Services Department has recommended that where programme leads/portfolios are appointed matters progressed by leads/portfolio holders are managed in a transparent manner enabling all members to have input into local board business. This would require, for example, work programme matters to come to a workshop or business meeting following portfolio discussions. The Waitematā Local Board has indicated support for this approach acknowledging that key projects may require closer oversight and additional meetings.

4. The Waitematā Local Board Chairperson, in consultation with board members, has developed a new set of portfolios for the current electoral term. A number of key projects which require greater oversight by members in the short term have also been identified. Delegations relating to feedback aligning with these portfolios are also proposed.

5. It is recommended that the local board adopt the recommended portfolios, key projects and delegations for the 2016 – 2019 electoral term.

6. Additionally, a number of appointments were resolved in the local boards November 2016 business meeting, however a number of these were deferred until December as they align with portfolios. It is recommended that these are now confirmed.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) acknowledge that the chairperson, and deputy chairperson when required, are responsible for civic and local leadership including civic events, board communications and oversight of local board planning, finance and policy

b) confirm that Waitematā portfolio responsibilities include:

i) champion for project proposals and development

ii) policy leadership

iii) approved work programme oversight and progress

iv) portfolio advocacy

v) development of new ideas and initiatives for inclusion in the future work programme

vi) sounding board for council officers on portfolio projects

vii) interaction with the community on the portfolio area

viii) lead for the relevant board approved work programme

c) adopt the portfolios as outlined in Attachment A to this report and appoints members as portfolio lead and co-portfolio holder for each portfolio area as outlined in the following summary table:

Local Board Portfolio	Portfolio holders
Local Board Portfolio	Lead	Co-portfolio holder
Arts, Culture & Events
Community Development
Infrastructure and Environment
Parks, Sports and Recreation
Economic Development
Transport
Planning and Heritage

d) appoint the planning and heritage portfolio lead or co-portfolio holder where required, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent applications

e) confirm the following projects as key projects that may require specific guidance from portfolio holders, including working meetings with officers, for set periods as follows:

Key Project	Appointee	Timeframe
Ellen Melville Centre		Until the centre is open and operational on and about July 2017
254 Ponsonby Road Development		Until the community has completed the plan for the project and actions to implement are considered by the local board
Newmarket Laneways		For the duration of the term
Western Springs Native Bush Restoration		Until such time as the pines are removed and the restoration planting is underway which is anticipated to be November 2017
Newmarket Viaduct Youth Space		Until the youth space is designed, funded, constructed and opened
Western Springs Precinct Master Plan		Until the masterplan has been adopted which may be 12 to 18 months, being November 2017 – June 2018
Ponsonby Road Pedestrian Improvement Project (including MacKelvie Street)		Until the project is delivered which is anticipated to be by July 2017
Grey Lynn Park Multipurpose Facility		Until the facility is designed, funded, constructed and opened

f) appoint the following board members to the external organisations and community groups listed below:

External organisation	Appointee	Alternate
Ponsonby Community Centre Board
Grey Lynn Community Centre Committee
Grey Lynn Park Advisory Committee
Uptown Innovation Project Steering Group
Local Government New Zealand

g) delegate the portfolio lead, or co-portfolio holder where required, responsibility for providing informal feedback on matters relevant to the portfolio holder and feedback on all other matters not specifically relating to a portfolio to the chair of the local board; subject to the opportunity for all members to provide input into the feedback.

h) Appoint members x, x, and x to provide recommendations on applications for the exemptions of fencing of swimming pools and spa pools including undertaking site visits where required

i) agree the following delegations originating from the 2013 – 2016 electoral term:

i) delegates final approval of the MacKelvie Street design to the Transport Portfolio lead and co-portfolio holder jointly.

ii) delegates the approval for any minor changes to the work programme to the relevant portfolio lead and co-portfolio holder jointly following the opportunity for input from all board members and consultation with the relevant officer reporting on the work programme.

Comments

Portfolios

7. In the previous electoral term, portfolio areas varied and the way in which these were supported and information from them shared with the full board varied widely across the local boards. Local Board Services undertook a review of ways of working in the previous term and as a result suggested programme leads which directly align with the work programme.

8. The Waitematā Local Board has discussed their proposed approach and has indicated that they wish to adopt the portfolios outlined in Attachment A. The main variance from the work programme alignment is that community facilities is not a standalone portfolio, rather as the delivery arm of other activities such as parks and arts it is proposed to form part of each portfolio as relevant.

9. In terms of the way of working with portfolios, in order to achieve greater efficiencies whilst effectively delivering the local board’s work programme and championing projects, Local Board Services has recommended that local board business goes through workshops to enable collective direction setting with subsequent formal decision making occurring at business meetings. This approach has followed significant improvements in the way that work programmes are prepared and reported to local boards and improvements to the quarterly reporting to directly reflect progress on each work programme item. The Waitematā Local Board has indicated that this approach is their preferred way of working for the 2016 – 2019 triennium.

10. Attachment A sets out the proposed portfolio areas developed by the local board chairperson in consultation with board members. These proposed areas are:

· Arts, Culture and Events

· Community Development

· Infrastructure and Environment

· Parks, Sports and Recreation

· Economic Development

· Transport

· Planning and Heritage

11. As mentioned above all relevant community facilities delivery matters such as renewals and operational matters fall under the relevant portfolio activity area i.e. a sportsfield renewal or upgrade would be the Parks Sport and Recreation Portfolio Holder. Additionally matters relating to the Development Project Office (DPO) fall under the relevant portfolio activity area rather than the department which has oversight of the DPO being Infrastructure and Environmental Services.

Portfolio holder role and key projects

12. The portfolio holder’s focus is to act as champion, sounding board and driver for the portfolio activity area. The role of the portfolio holder is as follows:

· champion for project proposals and development

· policy leadership

· approved work programme oversight and progress

· portfolio advocacy

· development of new ideas and initiatives for inclusion in the future work programme

· sounding board for council officers on portfolio projects

· interaction with the community on the portfolio area

· lead for the relevant board approved work programme

13. Programmes, projects and ideas being progressed by portfolio holders will be reported to the full board through workshops so that all board members have the opportunity to input before decisions are made. It is envisaged that meetings between portfolio holders and department staff are focused on specific objectives, rather than some past practices across local boards where meetings happened as a matter of course. Departmental staff will be expected to take action points and local board services will attend the meetings by exception. In addition to portfolios, there will be key projects that require additional support direct with officers for set periods of time. The local board chairperson has suggested that these include the following:

Key Projects

· Ellen Melville Centre

· 254 Ponsonby Road Development

· Newmarket Laneways

· Western Springs Native Bush Restoration

· Newmarket Viaduct Youth Space

· Western Springs Precinct Master Plan

· Ponsonby Road Pedestrian Improvement Project (including MacKelvie Street)

· Grey Lynn Park Multipurpose Facility

14. The important consideration for members is that they are appointed to be the local board representative on a particular area – they represent the views of the board (not their own views) to give direction to staff. If a portfolio holder doesn’t know what the board view is on a particular issue, they will need to discuss the issue with the local board chairperson to see if general advice can be given, if not, it may be necessary to refer that issue to a workshop of the full board for discussion.

15. Portfolio holders should have a lead and an alternate (or co-portfolio holder) to help share the workload.

Decision-making

16. Decision-making is carried out at formal board business meetings. However in some cases, generally quite limited, decision-making has been delegated to the portfolio holder, for example when it is a straight forward issue and a decision may be needed quickly. Any delegation of decision-making to portfolio holders would need to be made through a formal business meeting. If a portfolio holder has delegated decision-making and is asked to consider a significant or complex decision it is advisable to refer to the wider group of board members.

Notification decisions on resource consent applications

17. In the previous electoral term, the governing body considered the role of local boards in regulatory matters, and resolved, amongst other things, that local boards be given the opportunity, within statutory timeframes, to provide their views on whether or not certain resource consent applications should be notified.

18. Currently the agreed approach is for the local board portfolio holder or spokesperson to provide comments within three working days on applications that the board requested and that trigger local board input. Those comments are then included in the planners' report on the application.

19. By enabling local boards to have input into notification decision, the local voice can be heard at an early stage in the resource consent process.

20. Local boards that wish to have input into notification decisions on applications that trigger local board input, should appoint a lead and alternate for this role.

21. Local boards should also be aware that in May 2016, the Hearings Committee, resolved to set up a working party of governing body and local board members and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, to review the current local board involvement and the associated processes. The working party reported back to the Hearings Committee in September 2016. The Hearings Committee endorsed the working party’s recommendations and resolved (in summary) that:

i) Existing local board-identified triggers for provisions of full details of resource consent applications, for the purpose of making comment on notification, be reviewed and refined

ii) Enhanced training is provided to local board members (in the first instance as part of the induction process)

iii) The purpose of the Resource Consents weekly list is principally for information purposes rather than comments and will be clearly communicated to local boards

iv) A standard practice is developed and endorsed to enable local boards to speak to their local views and preferences when a hearing occurs in relation to a resource consent application

v) That the Hearings Committee policy on elected members sitting on hearings panels within their own local board area is supported, with close attention to consideration of issues of conflict of interest on a case by case basis

22. There are a number of pieces of work that will soon be underway to support those resolutions including:

· the hearings team, consents team and local board services will work together to develop working practices to enable local board members to speak to their communities views and preferences at a hearing

· supported by the consents team, each local board will review the specific triggers for notification decisions early next year

· the elected members training on their involvement in the resource consent applications is on the training teams work programme, and will be scheduled for early 2017.

External Organisations

23. 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.

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

25. As local board representatives, the nominated members represent the board, not in a personal capacity. Board members will 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.

26. 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

27. 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

· historical relationship with the organisation and Auckland Council

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

29. 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.

Ponsonby Community Centre Board

30. Ponsonby Community Centre Board is the committee that is responsible for governance decisions and has oversight of the smooth running and financial well-being of the Ponsonby Community Centre. The Board members are elected from the local community at the Annual General Meeting. They have skills in management, finance and governance and have the interests and health of the Centre and its activities at heart.

31. The previous local board representative was Pippa Coom.

32. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Ponsonby Community Centre Board.

Grey Lynn Community Centre Committee

33. Grey Lynn Community Centre Committee is the organisation that operates the Grey Lynn Community Centre. The role of the appointee is to provide relevant updates to the committee and a voice for the management of the centre.

34. The previous local board representative was Deborah Yates.

35. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Grey Lynn Community Centre Committee.

Grey Lynn Park Advisory Committee

36. Grey Lynn Park Advisory Committee is an active group that provides advice on various parks matters.

37. The previous local board representative was Vernon Tava.

38. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Grey Lynn Park Advisory Committee.

Uptown Innovation Project Steering Group

39. This group will resolve key issues, approve changes to scope and offer guidance and direction to the Uptown Innovation Hub project team. This is a new appointment.

40. The local board is asked to appoint one member (and an alternate) to the Uptown Innovation Project Steering Group.

Local Government New Zealand

41. Membership of the Local Government New Zealand Zone One (i.e. Auckland and Northland) Committee includes a representative from each of the 21 local boards.

42. Each local board needs to consider selecting their representative, as well as an alternate. Meetings take place four times a year and the venue for meetings is shared across the entire Zone One area.

43. The venues for Local Government NZ Zone One meetings are shared across the entire Zone One area and some travel costs may be incurred by local boards as a result of the appointments.

44. Further information on LGNZ is available in Attachment B.

Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Applications

45. 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.

46. 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.

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

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

49. 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

· appropriate level of administrative support can be provided.

50. There is a risk with this approach 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 boards decisions.

51. 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.

52. 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.

Delegations from Previous Term

53. Elected members frequently agree to delegate authority to approve minor variations or to finalise aspects of projects in order to minimise delays and streamline delivery of local initiatives.

54. The end of the 2013-2016 electoral term brings many of the delegations within that term to an end due to the manner in which they are stated. The delegations from the 2013 – 2016 electoral term have been reviewed for relevance. As a result it is recommended that the following delegations be transferred with minor amendments to the 2016-2019 triennium:

Delegation Topic	Delegation Resolution	Recommended Delegation
MacKelvie Street Design	WTM/2016/62 iii) Delegates final approval of the MacKelvie Street design to the Transport Portfolio leads.	Delegates final approval of the MacKelvie Street design to the Transport Portfolio lead and co-lead.
Parks, sport and recreation draft annual work programme financial year 2016-2017	WTM/2016/90 ii) Delegates the approval for any changes to the Parks, Sport and Recreation Annual work programme 2016/2017 to the relevant delegated Parks & Open Space Portfolio holders or the Sport & Recreation Portfolio holders, in consultation with the appropriate Parks, Sport and Recreation advisor(s).	Replace all work programme delegations with the following delegation: Delegates the approval for any minor changes to work programmes to the relevant portfolio lead and co-lead jointly following the opportunity for input from all board members and consultation with the relevant officer reporting on the work programme.
Waitematā Local Board Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017	WTM/2016/92 ii) Delegates the approval for any changes to the Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017 to the Community Portfolio holders, in consultation with the appropriate Community Facilities advisor.
Waitematā Local Board Libraries Work Programme 2016/2017 (community)	WTM/2016/93 ii) Delegates the approval for any changes to the Libraries Work Programme 2016/2017 to the Community Portfolio holders, in consultation with the appropriate Community Facilities advisor.
Waitematā Local Board Arts, Community and Events Work Programme 2016/2017	WTM/2016/94 iv) delegates approval of any budget to the Board Chair Shale Chambers and Community Portfolio holders, members Pippa Coom and Deborah Yates;
Waitematā Local Board Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017 (parks)	WTM/2016/112 ii) delegates the approval for any changes to the Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/17 – Parks, Sport and Recreation Activity to the relevant delegated Parks and Open Space Portfolio holders or the Sport and Recreation Portfolio holders, in consultation with the appropriate Community Facility Advisor.
Approval of Proposed 2016/2017 Local Environment and Development Work	WTM/2016/113 iv) delegates the approval of any changes to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Work Programme 2016/17 either to the delegated Natural Environment Portfolio holders or to the relevant Elected Members Working Party.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

55. This report seeks the local board’s decision on the allocation of portfolio roles, representatives to outside organisations and to confirm delegations.

56. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees, members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and powers, with some specific exceptions.

57. The decisions in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority and the local board has informally discussed these matters with the local board chairperson prior to this report being prepared.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

59. There are no known issues envisaged in implementing the recommendations in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitematā Local Board Roles and Portfolios 2016-2019	237
b ⇩	Local Government New Zealand	241

Signatories

Authors	Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor
Authorisers	Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Chairperson	Pippa Coom
Deputy Chairperson	Shale Chambers
Members	Adriana Avendaño Christie
	Mark Davey
	Richard Northey, ONZM
	Vernon Tava
	Rob Thomas

Authors	Sibyl Mandow - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor

Authors	Judy Lawley - Regional Facilities Auckland, Manager, Local Board Engagment
Authorisers	Kathryn Martin - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor