Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 6

8.1 Albany House 6

8.2 Health Link North 6

8.3 Hobsonville Marine Sports Recreation Centre Trust 6

8.4 Windsor Park redevelopment 7

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held, Thursday 15 June 2017 9

13 Locally driven initiatives capital projects 2017/2018 37

14 Development of open space land - Sunderland Gully amphitheatre 51

15 Development of open space land - Headquarters Park 79

16 Development of open space land - Marlborough Oval and Jimmy's Point 111

17 Auckland Transport monthly update - July 2017 157

18 Auckland Plan refresh 2018: early feedback to inform draft plan 163

19 Local board involvement in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 179

20 Feedback on the 'Tākaro - Investing in Play' discussion document 183

21 Approval of a new road name created by a way of a subdivision at 137 and 141 Clark Road, Hobsonville 207

22 Approval of a new road name created by way of a subdivision at 9 Richard Hill Close, Albany 213

23 Approval of a new road name created by way of a subdivision at 126 Fairview Avenue, Albany 219

24 Approval of new road names created by way of a subdivision at 84 Laurel Oak Drive, Albany 225

25 Governance forward work calendar 231

26 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday, 8 and 22 June, and 6 July 2017 235

27 Board Members' Reports 243

28 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 June 2017, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Albany House

Purpose

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Upper Harbour Local Board and give an update on the activities of Albany House.

Executive summary

2. Mark Moffitt, Chairperson, and Shirley Dobbyn, Board Member, of Albany House will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to provide an update on the activities of the community house.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Mark Moffitt and Shirley Dobbyn of Albany House and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

8.2 Health Link North

Purpose

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Upper Harbour Local Board about the activities of their organisation in the local area.

Executive summary

2. Wiki Shepherd-Sinclair will be in attendance to present to the Upper Harbour Local Board to raise the profile of the work undertaken by Health Link North in the local area.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the public forum item from Wiki Shepherd-Sinclair of Health Link North and thank her for her attendance.

8.3 Hobsonville Marine Sports Recreation Centre Trust

Purpose

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to present plans to establish a marine sports and recreation facility at Hobsonville Point.

Executive summary

2. Mike Stanley, Greg Jones and Terry Zouch of the Hobsonville Marine Sports Recreation Centre Trust will be in attendance to discuss with the Upper Harbour Local Board, plans for a marine sports and recreation facility at Hobsonville Point.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Mike Stanley, Greg Jones and Terry Zouch of the Hobsonville Marine Sports Recreation Centre Trust and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

8.4 Windsor Park redevelopment

Purpose

1. The purpose of this deputation is for Andrew Diver and other Windsor Park board members to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to provide an update on their redevelopment plans.

Executive summary

2. Andrew Diver, along with other Windsor Park board members, will be in attendance to present to the Upper Harbour Local Board to give an update on their plans for redevelopment of the park and to share the outcome of their meetings with council staff and councillors.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Andrew Diver and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Locally driven initiatives capital projects 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/12783

Purpose

1. To approve locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital funding for projects in various locations within the Upper Harbour Local Board area, as recommended by Auckland Council staff.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has unallocated locally driven initiative capital funding remaining to the value of $999,460 for the financial year. The local board had requested that Auckland Council staff provide recommendations for new projects for funding consideration.

3. Auckland Council staff have identified the following proposed projects for the consideration of the Upper Harbour Local Board:

· Bay City Park spectator seating and access path, up to the value of $70,000;

· Hobsonville War Memorial cricket nets, up to the value of $100,000;

· Herald Island Domain basketball hoop, up to the value of $5000;

· Sanders Reserve dog bin, up to the value of $1500;

· Wainoni Park dog bin, up to the value of $1500;

· Wainoni Park dog restriction signage, up to the value of $1300;

· Malcolm Hanh Reserve basketball hoop, up to the value of $5000;

· Douglas Alexander Reserve picnic tables, up to the value of $15,000 and

· The Landing Reserve security measures, up to the value of $15,000.

4. Auckland Council staff have also identified that the already approved new 3-on-3 basketball court at Unsworth Reserve, to the value of $20,000 (resolution number UH/2015/211), requires additional funding to achieve the scope and quality recommended for the asset type, likely use, and reduced maintenance requirements. Design options with costs ranging from $33,000 to $50,000 have been identified and, at a cost of $40,000, Option B has been recommended. The recommended option requires an additional $20,000 of locally driven initiative capex funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve up to the value of $70,000, locally driven initiative capital funding for the design, consent and construction of new spectator seating and access path at Bay City Park.

b) approve up to the value of $100,000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design, consent and construction of new cricket nets at Hobsonville War Memorial Park.

c) approve up to the value of $5000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design and construction of a basketball hoop on Herald Island Domain.

d) approve up to the value of $1500 locally driven initiative capital funding for the installation of a dog bin at Sanders Reserve.

e) approve up to the value of $1500 locally driven initiative capital funding for the installation of a dog bin at Wainoni Park.

f) approve up to the value of $1300 locally driven initiative capital funding for the installation of dog restriction signage in Wainoni Park.

g) approve up to the value of $5000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design and construction of a basketball hoop on Malcolm Hanh Reserve.

h) approve up to the value of $15,000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design, consent and construction of a picnic tables in Douglas Alexander Reserve.

i) approve an additional $20,000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design and construction of the Unsworth Reserve 3-on-3 basketball court.

j) approve up to the value of $15,000 locally driven initiative capital funding for the design, consent and installation of security measures at The Landing Reserve.

Comments

5. At a workshop on 26 January 2017, various proposed locally driven initiative capex projects were brought before the local board for consideration, and to obtain guidance on which of the projects to scope up for funding allocation. The projects below were identified by the local board for consideration once further detail was available. This report provides the local board with additional information to assist with decision-making and allocation of locally driven initiative capex funding.

Bay City Park spectator seating and access path

6. The purpose of this proposed project is to install new spectator seating along the western embankment of the sports field, with adjoining pathways to the clubhouse. The design is to comply with current standards and be suitable for the gradient of the location and proposed level of use.

Proposed location for spectator seating

7. The proposed design is comprised of three sets of seats suitable for 30, 50 and 90 people, set on either side and in between the existing shelter on the side-line of the sports field. The seats will be treated timber and in the style of simple bleachers with concrete footings. The seats will be situated on terraces cut from the embankment.

Example of proposed seats

8. The benefits of this project will be an increase in spectator facilities and services for the active recreation activities located in the park.

9. The initial cost estimate for the project is up to $70,000. A preliminary design is included at Attachment A.

Hobsonville War Memorial Park cricket nets

10. The purpose of this proposed project is to install a two-lane practice cricket net facility close to the sports fields at Hobsonville War Memorial Park. The design is to comply with current standards and to use learnings from similar projects to achieve a quality asset.

Example of proposed nets

Proposed location for the new crickets nets

11. The benefits of this project will be an increase in practice facilities for the active recreation activities located in the park.

12. The initial cost estimate for design, consent, project management and construction of a suitable set of nets is up to $100,000.

Herald Island Domain basketball hoop

13. A member of the community contacted Auckland Council staff to propose a location for a basketball hoop for local youth in the area. Staff met the public on site in May 2016 and agreed that the hoop would add to the amenity of the space behind the community hall. It is recommended that council proceed with investigation and community consultation to confirm potential use, a specific location, and confirmed design specifications.

14. The estimated cost for the investigation, design and construction is $5000.

Sanders Reserve dog bin

15. A request was received from a member of the public to install a dog waste bin at the off-leash exercise area at Sanders Reserve. This request is likely to encourage dog owners to act responsibly and prevent dog waste (including waste in plastic bags) from being discarded at the park. There are currently no bins beside the paths in Sanders Reserve, apart from one near the toilets at the top building. Although it was intended for this reserve to be treated in the same manner as regional parks (i.e. having a ‘no-bin’ policy), it has been agreed by Auckland Council staff that the inclusion of a dog-waste bin in the off-leash area will add value and meet service level requirements.

16. The cost estimate to supply, install and manage this project is $1500.

Wainoni Park dog bin and dog restriction signage

17. A request was received from members of the public to install a dog waste bin in Wainoni Park. This request is likely to encourage dog owners to act responsibly and prevent dog waste (including waste in plastic bags) from being discarded at the park. There are currently no bins beside the paths in Wainoni Park. The same request raised the matter of a lack of dog restriction signage, both at the playground and at the sports fields (see examples in Attachment C). A request has been made for adequate appropriate signage to be installed in Wainoni Park to prevent dogs from being off-leash in the vicinity of the playground, as well as the sports fields. The cost estimate to supply, install and manage both the dog bin installation and the dog restriction signage is $2800.

Malcolm Hanh Reserve basketball hoop

18. Three students from the Hobsonville Point Secondary School presented a deputation to the local board at their business meeting on 15 June 2017. They requested that the existing basketball hoop in Malcolm Hanh Reserve in Whenuapai be replaced with an adjustable hoop, which will assist in their efforts to teach younger children in the community how to play basketball. The existing hoop is not currently in the three year renewal progamme and should the local board wish to replace the existing hoop with an adjustable hoop, the local board would need to fund the installation.

19. The estimated cost for the investigation, design and construction is $5000.

Douglas Alexander Reserve picnic tables

20. Douglas Alexander Reserve is located within a commercial location that is used by local workers to relax during lunchtime. A local worker approached council to suggest that seating and picnic tables would increase the benefits of the reserve during work hours by providing formal seating for park users. This suggestion is supported by Auckland Council staff.

21. The cost estimate for design, consent and installation of up to three picnic tables with seats is $15,000.

The Landing Reserve security measures

22. There is a history of anti-social behaviour associated with the car park and boat ramp located at The Landing Reserve. The car park is currently open to the public 24 hours a day and is situated in such a way that it encourages anti-social behaviour, including unauthorised dumping and noise complaints. Auckland Council staff have been on site to investigate the location and recommend that the car park be restricted to formal use of the boat ramp, as it was originally intended. The recommendation is that bollards and a gate are installed close to the road, which can be locked when required. The hours of access will need to be confirmed with the users of the boat ramp to ensure the amenity is retained, while providing some security and safety for the surrounding neighbours.

23. An estimate was received from Greenscene, including signage. The estimated cost for the installation of bollards and a gate is $15,000, including potential consent fees and project management. A cost estimate for the project is included at Attachment B.

Unsworth Reserve 3-on-3 basketball court

24. At a business meeting on 15 December 2015, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved construction of a new 3-on-3 basketball court near the playground at Unsworth Reserve to the value of $20,000 (resolution number UH/2015/211). The scope provided was high level and based on costs that were out of date.

25. Further investigation into the scope of the project has been completed and the following points have been confirmed:

· resource consent is not required as the proposed courts are a permitted activity under the Unitary Plan;

· the proposed location of the court is situated within a flood-plain and an overland flow path, and will need to be designed with this in mind (thicker than normal concrete pad); and

· the budget was based on an out-of-date estimate from two years ago and will be insufficient for a quality product in the current market.

26. After research and discussion with a designer specialising in court design, the following three options have been developed for review:

· Option A: Parklife 3-on-3 court design (full specification option) - $49,820;

· Option B: Parklife 3-on-3 court, coloured surfacing – $34,290; or

· Option C: Parklife 3-on-3 court, line marking on plain surface – $32,290.

27. Option A includes ‘high-five seats’ and coloured surfacing on a 125mm thick concrete pad, with a full specification hoop and back-board. The size of the court is designed to specifications that enable it to be increased to a full-sized court in the future if required. Court Option A is slightly larger than those of Options B and C. All three options are designed to competition size to give a top quality play surface, and have the potential to be used for 3‑on-3 training and competitions, as well as casual use.

28. All options include design, inspections and contract management by Parklife, who are the designers of the court. Contingency of 10 percent should be added to these costs to account for cost inflation and unforeseen construction conditions.

29. Considering the information above, it is recommended that the local board install Option B, the Parklife 3-on-3 basketball court with coloured surfacing at a cost of $34,290, which includes a 10 per cent contingency for cost inflation and unforeseen construction conditions.

30. Installation of Option B will require additional locally driven initiative capex funding of $20,000 to supplement the $20,000 allocated in December 2015.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. The Upper Harbour Local Board has previously approved funding of $20,000 for the Unsworth Reserve 3-on-3 basketball court and has previously shown support for the proposal, as it would provide a popular activity for local youth.

32. At a workshop on 26 January 2017, various locally driven initiative capex projects were presented to the local board for consideration and to obtain guidance on which of the projects to scope for funding allocation.

Māori impact statement

33. Mana whenua will be engaged as part of the resource consent process for the projects and the projects will be included in the next Parks and Recreation Engagement (North) hui for initial feedback.

Implementation

34. Should the Upper Harbour Local Board approve funding for the seating at Bay City Park, investigation and design can commence in August 2017.

35. Should the Upper Harbour Local Board approve funding for the cricket nets at Hobsonville War Memorial, investigation and design can commence in August 2017.

36. Should the Upper Harbour Local Board agree with the recommended design, and approve additional funding for the Unsworth Reserve 3-on-3 basketball court, detailed design can commence in August 2017, and it is planned for works to commence as weather permits.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Bay City seating preliminary design	45
b ⇩	Herald Island/Landing Reserve cost estimate	47
c ⇩	Dog signage	49

Signatories

Authors

Kirsten Reidt – Community Led and LDI Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Development of open space land - Sunderland Gully amphitheatre

File No.: CP2017/10266

Purpose

1. To seek approval for the proposed development of Sunderland Gully, in accordance with the Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) dated 28 October 2010 between the former Waitakere City Council and Homes, Land and Community (formerly Hobsonville Land Company).

Executive summary

2. Development of Sunderland Gully will be carried out by Homes, Land and Community (HLC).

3. HLC has prepared three concept plans for Sunderland Gully, including a preferred concept (see Attachment B) in consultation with council staff for local board consideration and approval.

4. The proposed Sunderland Gully reserve forms part of the wider Hobsonville Point open space network and play strategy developed on behalf of HLC by Isthmus and forms one of the nodes along the Hobsonville Point walkway. It is close to the Sunderland Lounge, a community facility owned by Auckland Council.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the Sunderland Gully ampitheatre concept plan preferred concept drawing (refer to page 13 of Attachment B of the agenda report) for the proposed development.

b) delegate approval of the engineering detail, once received, to the Head of Parks Services.

Comments

Background

5. Homes, Land and Community (HLC) is a subsidiary of Housing New Zealand and was formed specifically to oversee and facilitate the development of land at the former Hobsonville Point Airbase. HLC has prepared a comprehensive development plan for Hobsonville Point, which includes a mixed use residential development of up to 5000 homes over 167ha. This includes development of the Hobsonville land (subject to the IFA), the 2ha landing development (outside the IFA) and the 20ha marine industry precinct (outside the IFA).

6. On 28 October 2010, an IFA between Waitakere City Council and HLC (formerly Hobsonville Land Company) was signed where the parties agreed the reserves to be vested by HLC within the Hobsonville land, as shown on the reserves plan attached to that document to fully satisfy the reserve requirements of the development.

7. The development of reserves to be vested under the IFA will fully satisfy any requirement for development contribution for parks infrastructure with regard to the Hobsonville land (land area subject to the IFA). This means that any growth programme funding that may have been collected for the Hobsonville land has been fully offset for works to be completed by HLC. The standard of reserve development to be completed by HLC, in accordance with the agreement, is equal to and may exceed, council’s usual standard of reserve development.

8. The Sunderland Gully is approximately 2000m2 in size. The reserve is adjacent to existing esplanade reserve which has already been vested to council. The Sunderland Gully is part of a larger reserve due to be vested.

9. The project is one of a series of nodes along the Hobsonville coastal walkway, and is designed as an informal play space and viewing area opposite the Sunderland Lounge. The Sunderland Gully amphitheatre is intended to be an organic, playful style of landscape, providing a range of play experiences. The Sunderland Gully is intended for play for pre‑schoolers and younger children, aged nought to eight years.

10. The design programme is assumed to be approximately 10 weeks work, not including resource consent, with the construction programme approximately 16 weeks including the tender period. These will not be concurrent however, as there will be time in between design phases for reviews and meetings.

11. A Sunderland Gully concept package has been provided that includes three development concept plans, which have been prepared in consultation with council staff and the local board (refer Attachment A).

12. The previous concept (number 1) incorporated a look-out/hide/nest structure and an informal sloped timber climbing feature, both as part of the boardwalk and as a separate structure. The Upper Harbour Local Board thought the concept had merit but had concerns around the safety of the nest structure.

13. The previous concept (number 2) incorporated a nature play timber log climbing feature throughout the gully. The Upper Harbour Local Board liked the concept but preferred more than one play element.

14. The preferred concept incorporates the nature play timber log climbing feature from concept 2, with additional hide features incorporated to create a second play element. This concept was developed as a result of feedback from the Upper Harbour Local Board at a previous workshop.

Financial Implications

15. The local board has allocated decision making responsibility for the development and management of the Sunderland Gully, once the asset becomes vested to council. Operational costs of maintaining the proposed park will depend on the final extent of land acquired and how it is developed. Annual maintenance costs have been estimated by Community Facilities to be approximately $8600, subject to detailed design, and are expected to commence five years following practical completion in accordance with the IFA. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2018/19 financial year. Council will be expected to commence maintenance of the park in the financial year 2023/24.

Next steps

16. The developer wishes to develop the Sunderland Gully as soon as possible, once the local board’s approval is obtained. Parks staff have not been sent engineering details of the proposed park developments but when received, will review these to ensure the proposal meets council’s park construction standards.

17. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering detail once received.

Consideration

Local board views

18. The local board has allocated decision making responsibility for the development of local parks within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The board’s views and approval are sought on the proposed development of the Sunderland Gully.

Maori impact statement

19. No direct impacts on Māori arising from this development have been identified.

20. The preferred concept was presented to the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group (including representatives of mana whenua) on 8 March 2017 (minutes attached at Attachment B).

21. The safety of children near the stormwater outlet was discussed and HLC advised this will be addressed at the detailed design stage, either by fencing or strategic planting.

22. Mana whenua raised the issue of the treatment of stormwater, noting that mana whenua have a higher standard than council. HLC clarified to mana whenua that treatment of stormwater, which runs off carriageways and driveways before it reaches the stormwater outfall, is treated by way of a filter at the top of the gully capable of a catchment area of 8400m2. This stormwater is treated to Technical Publication 10 (TP10) requirements. When reviewing detailed engineering plans, staff will ensure there is sufficient planting or landscaping incorporated into the design of the stormwater outlet to assist with enhancing the quality of the water.

Implementation

23. The developer wishes to proceed with this project as soon as possible, once the local board approval is granted and engineering plan approval has been obtained. Once approval to a concept plan has been provided, council staff will work with HLC on engineering details for the proposed park developments to ensure the proposal meets council’s park construction standards.

24. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering detail once received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sunderland Gully concept package	55
b ⇩	Minutes of Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group meeting, 8 March 2017	73

Signatories

Authors

Maylene Barrett - Senior Parks Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Development of open space land - Headquarters Park

File No.: CP2017/10293

Purpose

1. To seek approval for the proposed development of Headquarters Park at Hobsonville Point, in accordance with the Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) dated 28 October 2010, between the former Waitakere City Council and Homes, Land and Community (formerly Hobsonville Land Company).

Executive summary

2. Development of Headquarters Park will be carried out by Classic Builders on behalf of Homes, Land and Community (HLC).

3. HLC has prepared three concept plans for Headquarters Park, in consultation with council staff and the local board, following a workshop held on 5 July 2016. These are attached for local board consideration and approval (Attachment A).

4. The proposed Headquarters Park forms part of the wider Hobsonville Point open space network and play strategy developed on behalf of HLC by Isthmus. Within that play strategy, Isthmus has designed Headquarters Park to cater for pre-schoolers and younger children aged 0-8 years. Parks, Sport and Recreation, Community Places - Arts Culture and Events, and the local board would like to see Headquarters Park developed for youth aged 12-24. It is close to the Headquarters Building and Sunderland Lounge community facilities, which are owned by Auckland Council and are intended to be used by the community.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve Headquarters Park Option 2 (as outlined on page 11 of Attachment A to the agenda report) with the following recommended changes:

i. a 10m x 10m basketball half court with an Urban Streetball Goal and Laykold surfacing, instead of the space net climbing structure;

ii. removal of the barbeque and further development of the central area with deck seating; and

iii. additional tables for a hangout area.

b) delegate approval of engineering detailed design to Parks, Sport and Recreation and Community Facilities once received.

Comments

Background

5. HLC is a subsidiary of Housing New Zealand and was formed specifically to oversee and facilitate the development of land at the former Hobsonville Point airbase. HLC have prepared a comprehensive development plan for Hobsonville Point, which includes a mixed use residential development of up to 5000 homes over 167ha. This includes development of the Hobsonville land (subject to the IFA), the 2ha Landing Development (outside the IFA), and the 20ha Marine Industry precinct (outside the IFA).

6. On 28 October 2010, an IFA between Waitakere City Council and HLC (formerly Hobsonville Land Company) was signed where the parties agreed the reserves to be vested by HLC within the Hobsonville land, as shown on the Reserves Plan attached to that document, to fully satisfy the reserve requirements of the development.

7. The development of reserves to be vested under the IFA will fully satisfy any requirement for development contribution for parks infrastructure with regard to the Hobsonville land (land area subject to the IFA). This means that any growth programme funding that may have been collected for the Hobsonville land has been fully offset for works to be completed by HLC. The standard of reserve development to be completed by HLC, in accordance with the agreement, is to equal and may exceed, council’s usual standard of reserve development.

8. Headquarters Park is approximately 2783m2 in size, but is not shown on the original reserves plan appended to the IFA. Council has agreed to accept Headquarters Park in accordance with the IFA, and to this effect, a condition has been placed on the land use and subdivision consent granted on 1 November 2016.

9. HLC have worked with Isthmus to develop a play strategy for Hobsonville Point and have identified in their concept design, that Headquarters Park is intended for play for preschoolers and younger children aged 0-8 years.

10. The local board hoped to see Headquarters Park developed to accommodate the youth age group demographic, aged 12-24 years. The Headquarters building is also being refurbished by Auckland Council following its acquisition, and one of the anticipated future functions is for the provision of youth facilities.

11. A Headquarters Park concept package (refer Attachments A and B) was developed that included three concept plans. These were prepared following consultation with council staff and the Upper Harbour Local Board after a workshop held on 5 July 2016. At the workshop, the local board did not support the Option 1 of the concept plan.

12. Option 1 had not changed and was developed in conjunction with the Hobsonville Point Residents Society. This included hard court surfaces for gutter ball, four-square and hopscotch, a space net climbing structure, toilets (included specifically at the request of the Hobsonville Point Residents Society), a public barbeque, a picnic table and bench seats;

13. Following the local board workshop on 5 July 2016, Option 2 was developed with the following changes:

· removal of the toilets;

· the four-square court was replaced with a giant nest swing; and

· the space net was upgraded to one with a crow’s nest at the top.

14. Option 3 is almost the same as Option 2, with the addition of ‘tiger turf’ within the curtilage of the council-owned land that was transferred as part of the acquisition of the Headquarters building. This option would be subject to landowner approval that council agrees to these works being completed on a council asset, and council would contribute towards the cost of developing the tiger turf courts. This option may also result in a higher maintenance costs.

15. Community Places – Arts, Culture and Events gave feedback on the ‘tiger turf’ in Option 3, as this department is coordinating the development of the Headquarters building refurbishment. This feedback indicated a preference to leave the area as grass, also raising concern that if the whole area was covered in turf, it may become solely a large active space. There was also concern around issues caused by ball sports so close to a heritage building. It was suggested that a basketball half-court at Headquarters Park may get more use and be more suited to this location. Community Places – Arts, Culture and Events are also not able to confirm at this stage whether there would be any budget available from the Headquarters building refurbishment project to contribute towards the development of the tiger turf courts.

16. A Hobsonville Point youth recreational study undertaken by the Hobsonville Community Trust in April-May 2017 identified that youth were keen to see ‘hang-out’ spaces in the area, i.e. places to eat and learn with the community. The study also identified a gap in basketball and tennis courts, athletics facilities and cricket nets. The trust completed the survey at the request of the local board and they identified an immediate priority to advocate for indoor recreational space and spaces suitable for youth.

17. The Hobsonville Point Residents Society Committee (HPRS) and HLC support Option 1, highlighting the following points:

· support provision of a toilet;

· do not support provision of a basketball half-court;

· HPRS also noted provision of parking spaces nearby and wish to support the need for pedestrian lighting and a barrier between the parking and the park area; and

· HPRS also expressed a desire for retention of the pohutukawa trees, while acknowledging that some trimming and shaping may be needed.

18. Council staff believe that Option 2 would be the most suitable, with some changes. The issues of reverse sensitivity are considered to be less of an issue for Headquarters Park, due to its close proximity to the two community buildings and the car park. It is recommended that detailed design be developed to incorporate the following changes:

· a basketball half-court to replace the space net climbing structure (10m x 10m could be accommodated in that space);

· the Kompan net swing remain in the location proposed with cushion fall, as these are popular ‘hangout’ items;

· the central area be developed with more tables and deck seating, similar to Myers Park or Hurstmere Green in Takapuna; and

· the barbeque should be removed as this is not an appropriate location, as there are already barbeques provided around Hobsonville Point at Catalina water play park, Harrier Point and Kotuku pocket park.

19. There are netball and basketball courts provided at the local Hobsonville Point schools. However, residents that do not attend those schools and potential users who are not of school age may feel uncomfortable using school facilities that they have no connection to.

20. A basketball half-court is a permitted activity under the Unitary Plan (operative in part) for open spaces. Potential noise issues can be minimised by using a Laykold surface, which reduces noise and can also be different colours and patterns. The Laykold product is an acrylic sports surfacing system that can be used for all-weather basketball courts. Noise associated with the basketball backboard can be reduced by installing an Urban Streetball Goal produced by the Playground People. The Urban Streetball Goal is metal with holes that are constructed to reduce both graffiti and noise.

21. It is also the opinion of council staff that, as Headquarters Park will be in an urban setting and is in proximity to the Headquarters building (recently awarded heritage status) a basketball half-court would have a preferable aesthetic in the landscape than a space net. It is a small reserve and council staff feel that a space net would crowd the park and also be in the wrong location.

22. With regard to the tiger turf proposal, council staff agreed this would be inappropriate due to the proximity of the Headquarters building, probably resulting in conflicts between park and building users. There may also be issues having balls so close to a heritage building.

23. The recommended changes agreed by council staff will provide activities for youth, which are currently not provided for in the area. This will also allow for inclusion of the ‘tiger turf’ option should the local board desire.

Financial implications

24. The local board has allocated decision making responsibility for the development and management of Headquarters Park, once the park becomes vested to council. The operational costs of maintaining the proposed park will depend on which option is chosen. It has been estimated that annual maintenance costs would be between $11,000 and $13,000 without the toilets, and $21,000 including the toilets, subject to detailed design.

25. It should be noted that installation of the proposed ‘tiger turf’ may result in higher maintenance costs.

26. It is expected that council’s obligation for maintenance of the landscaping items will commence five years following practical completion, in accordance with the IFA.

27. Due to health and safety implications, maintenance of the playground items and toilet would be passed to council immediately, although the responsibility to repair items during the defects period would be the responsibility of HLC.

28. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2018/19 financial year. Council will be expected to commence maintenance of the landscaping items in the financial year 2023/24, although the toilet and playground items would be much sooner than this.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. Option 1 was presented to the local board in a workshop in July 2016. At this workshop, the local board anticipated that Headquarters Park would be developed with the youth age group in mind. Feedback from the local board was that a space net would provide limited challenge for older children, and that this would not be used extensively by youth. The local board also added that if a space net was installed, it would need to have extra features that provide additional challenge. There was a preference from members to install a basketball half‑court or fitness equipment instead.

30. The local board did not see a need for another toilet block in such close proximity to two community buildings. Members also considered there is sufficient provision for public toilets within Hobsonville Point, with toilet blocks planned for the Hobsonville Point Park, the Rifle Range and the Landing. It is also considered this park would predominantly be used by local families.

31. It was agreed that if the toilet block remained, lighting should be incorporated (this has been noted and included in Option 1). It was also suggested that in the redesign options, footpaths be removed from council-owned land and bins be included.

32. The local board expressed concern around the predominance of play options at Hobsonville Point for children in the 0-8 year age group and the lack of facilities for youth. Currently there is no provision for courts in the plans at the Scott Point sports fields, as these sports fields are intended to cater for organised sport. A basketball half-court or skate park would provide casual recreation options for local youth.

33. After HLC requested Isthmus take into account this feedback from the local board and Options 2 and 3 had been drafted, all three options were presented to the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group, which is made up of representatives from HPRS, the local board, and mana whenua.

34. Nicolas Mayne, local board representative on the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group, expressed concern around the tiger turf option due to the reduction of water permeability. A sand surface was thought to be more appropriate if this were to proceed.

Māori impact statement

35. No direct impacts on iwi arising from this development have been identified.

36. The three options were distributed to the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group (including representatives of mana whenua, the Upper Harbour Local Board, and Hobsonville Point Residents Society) on 11 April 2017.

37. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara had no comment and is happy to move forward.

38. Te Kawarau o Maki were supportive of Option 1 and agreed with Local Board Member Mayne’s comments about stormwater management for the tiger turf. They were also interested to understand whether there were any opportunities for the integration of iwi art, and if so, whether this could be incorporated into the design of the toilet block, if Option 1 were chosen.

Implementation

39. The developer wishes to proceed as soon as possible, once local board approval is granted and the engineering plan approval has been obtained. Once approval for a concept plan has been received, council staff will work with Isthmus on engineering details of the proposed park developments to ensure the proposal meets council’s park construction standards.

40. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering detail once received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Headquarters Park concept package	85
b ⇩	Tiger turf information	109

Signatories

Authors

Maylene Barrett - Senior Parks Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Development of open space land - Marlborough Oval and Jimmy's Point

File No.: CP2017/12015

Purpose

1. To seek approval for the proposed development of Marlborough Oval, the Oval pocket park and Jimmy’s Point, in accordance with the Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) dated 28 October 2010 between the former Waitakere City Council and Homes, Land and Community (formerly Hobsonville Land Company).

Executive summary

2. Development of Marlborough Oval and Jimmy’s Point will be carried out by Marlborough Precinct Holdings.

3. The developer has prepared a concept plan for Marlborough Oval and Jimmy’s Point, in consultation with council staff, for local board consideration and approval (see Attachment A).

4. The proposed coastal bush reserve adjacent to Marlborough Oval, named ‘The Reserve’ in the concept plans, will not be gifted to Auckland Council and will be retained as a private lot.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the Landscape and Urban Design Concept drawings (as presented in Attachment A to the agenda report), in particular the following:

· The Oval RC401;

· Oval Steps RC402;

· Oval Edge Perspective RC404;

· Oval Park RC405;

· Oval Park Elevation RC RC406;

· Jimmy’s Point Plan RC408;

· Jimmy’s Point Section RC409; and

· Jimmy’s Point perspective RC410.

b) delegate to the Head of Parks Services, in consultation with Community Facilities, approval of engineering detailed design once received.

Comments

5. HLC is a subsidiary of Housing New Zealand and was formed specifically to oversee and facilitate the development of land at the former Hobsonville Point Airbase. HLC has prepared a comprehensive development plan for Hobsonville Point, which includes a mixed use residential development of up to 5000 homes over 167ha. This includes development of the Hobsonville land (subject to the IFA), the 2ha landing development (outside the IFA), and the 20ha marine industry precinct (outside the IFA).

6. On 28 October 2010, an IFA between Waitakere City Council and HLC was signed where the parties agreed the reserves to be vested by HLC within the Hobsonville land, as shown on the reserves plan attached to that document, to fully satisfy the reserve requirements of the development.

7. The development of reserves to be vested under the IFA will fully satisfy any requirement for development contribution for parks infrastructure with regard to the Hobsonville land (land area subject to the IFA). This means that any growth programme funding that may have been collected for the Hobsonville land has been fully offset for works to be completed by HLC. The standard of reserve development to be completed by HLC in accordance with the agreement is to equal, and may exceed, council’s usual standard of reserve development.

8. Marlborough Oval is approximately 4613m2. Jimmy’s Point is approximately 477m2 and is to be added to the existing esplanade reserve. Marlborough Oval and Jimmy’s Point will be developed as reserve in accordance with the IFA (refer Attachment B).

9. A development concept plan has been prepared for Marlborough Oval, the Oval pocket park and Jimmy’s Point in consultation with council staff (refer Attachment A). It is intended that the park retains the shape of the oval to reflect the historical link to the site’s previous use and to provide the community with a distinctive heart space. The oval will be retained as an open lawn, providing space for informal sports and activities. The existing trees of various sizes and quality will be removed and replaced with large deciduous trees, such as Claret Ash, to frame views of the park. There will be seats and steps down to the oval. The focus for this space is for families and activities, such as kite flying and a ‘kickabout space’, as the oval grassed area is being retained.

10. The proposed Oval pocket park adjoining the oval, will provide an area of shelter and shade for users, as well as provide play elements for very young children. The oval will retain its shape, it will have a connection to Jimmy’s Point, and there will be a shared space between the old officer houses on Marlborough Crescent and the oval. To the right of the oval, there will be a space with a shade structure, communal picnic table, and ‘mounds’ for abstract play.

11. Jimmy’s Point, which is at the northern tip of the Marlborough precinct, will provide a destination for users to view the surrounding Waitemata Harbour. The walkway to Jimmy’s Point can be accessed via the oval and provides a link to the coastal edge, but will not provide a link down to the coastal walkway.

12. Council staff identified that the footpath around the oval would be an ideal location for a bike path for young children/toddlers to practice riding in a loop. It has been noted there is potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians where three former officer houses are located by the right-of-way/shared space. It was suggested using surface treatment to separate pedestrians/children and vehicles. Installation of bollards is also recommended to the north of the pocket park to prevent vehicle access, and also around Marlborough Oval to prevent visitors and park users from parking on the grass.

13. Landscape designers, Studio Pacific Architects, queried lighting requirements and it was recommended that no lighting be installed in park areas or the accessways, including Jimmy’s Point. Lighting would only be recommended for commuter routes, which these are not. If the accessways were lit, this may give the impression that people are entering a safe area. Because the pocket park is geared towards young families, lighting may encourage antisocial gatherings after dark, which is not the intention.

Financial Implications

14. The local board has allocated decision making responsibility for the development and management of Marlborough Oval, the Oval pocket park and Jimmy’s Point, once the assets become vested to council. Annual maintenance costs are estimated by Community Facilities to be $17,000. Maintenance is expected to begin five years following practical completion, in accordance with the IFA. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2018/19 financial year. Council will be expected to commence maintenance of the park in the 2023/24 financial year.

Next steps

15. The developer wishes to proceed with these projects as soon as possible, once local board approval is obtained and detailed design approval has been provided. Parks staff have not been sent engineering details of the proposed park developments but when received, will review to ensure the proposal meets council’s parks construction standards.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. The local board has allocated decision-making responsibility for the development of local parks within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. Local board views and approval are sought on the proposed development of Marlborough Oval, the Oval pocket park and Jimmy’s Point.

Māori impact statement

17. No direct impacts on iwi arising from this development have been identified.

18. On 8 March 2017, the three options were distributed to the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group, including representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki, the Upper Harbour Local Board, and Hobsonville Point Residents Society.

19. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara were not in attendance at the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Group meeting but the minutes and copies of the plans presented at the meeting were emailed to them after the meeting.

Implementation

20. The developer wishes to proceed with these projects as soon as possible once local board approval is granted and engineering plan approval has been obtained. Once approval for a concept plan has been provided, council staff will work with Marlborough Precinct Holdings on engineering details for the proposed park developments to ensure the proposal meets council’s park construction standards.

21. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering detail once received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Marlborough Precinct Landscape and Urban Design Concept Plans	115
b ⇩	Sunderland precinct - scheme plan Block 10	155

Signatories

Authors

Maylene Barrett - Senior Parks Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Auckland Transport monthly update - July 2017

File No.: CP2017/12643

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· respond to resolutions and requests from the Upper Harbour Local Board on transport-related matters;

· provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF);

· request approval for new LBTCF projects;

· provide a summary of consultation material sent to the local board; and

· provide transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

· progress report on the board’s advocacy initiatives;

· progress report on the board’s transport capital fund projects;

· consultation documents on proposed safety improvements; and

· local board requests on transport-related matters.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update for July 2017.

Comments

Strategic alignment

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board has outlined, through its Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2014-2017, that it has a strong interest in the role of transport and how it helps to create well‑connected and easily accessible public transport networks, improve the road network, access to walkways and cycleways, and connects Westgate to the North Shore.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2014-2017 (pages 34-35) has a specific transport outcome ‘A well-connected and accessible Upper Harbour’, in which Auckland Transport (AT) has a key role:

· We, the Upper Harbour Local Board, have a well-designed road network with connected bus services, walkways and cycleways across the North Shore. We are well-connected to Westgate in the west and our central city, giving us choices as to where we work, study and play.

5. AT is supporting the board’s initiatives and delivering on its Statement of Intent strategic themes. Five strategic themes guide AT’s decisions and actions, and are aimed at providing an accessible, integrated, efficient and innovative transport system. They are also critical to realising Auckland Council’s vision for transport, as expressed in chapter 13 of the Auckland Plan. The five strategic themes are:

· to prioritise rapid, high-frequency public transport;

· to continually transform and elevate customer experience;

· to build network optimisation and resilience for travel times;

· to enable quality urban growth to meet demand; and

· to fast-track creative, innovative and efficient transport services.

6. Over the last six weeks, public transport improvements have seen construction continue on the Hibiscus Coast busway station and the Manukau bus station.

7. The New Network for West Auckland, including Helensville, Huapai and Kumeu, was launched on Sunday, 11 June 2017.

8. Otahuhu Station has been recognised at the 2017 New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects Awards.

9. AT has been recognised for its procurement success at the New Zealand Procurement Excellence Awards. The City Rail Link won the Sustainability Project of the Year, and AT’s Procurement Manager for Infrastructure was a finalist in the Procurement Professional of the Year award.

10. On 4 May 2017, AT launched a new phone application which makes catching a bus, train or ferry more intuitive and easier to use. The AT mobile application has introduced new features and has been designed from the customer’s point of view.

11. AT is improving public transport with the implementation of the New Public Transport Network, which has a revised bus service proposed for the area. This will increase bus service provision in the area and offer an enhanced public transport system.

12. AT plans to enhance timetables being delivered by ferry operators on both the Hobsonville and Beach Haven routes.

13. AT has improved the road network and access to walkways and cycleways through the completion of the upgrade of the Albany Highway and its associated footpaths and cycleways.

14. AT will work with the Upper Harbour Local Board when considering public requests for footpath improvements, through AT’s footpath renewals and new footpath programmes. If there are any safety issues in relation to existing footpaths, AT will assess them on an individual basis and repair as required.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

15. The Upper Harbour Local Board has recently considered a number of potential LBTCF projects in order to select those projects it wished to proceed with in the current political term. The Upper Harbour Local Board will be having a follow-up workshop to confirm the projects it will proceed with in due course.

16. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $355,167 per annum, and will receive an adjustment for inflation added in future years. The following tables note previous decisions, progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments:

Project

Description

Current Status

Gills Road pedestrian bridge

To construct a gravel footpath with a structural timber boardwalk in locations where the berm is too narrow to construct a footpath and a footbridge adjacent to the road bridge.

Detailed design for the gravel footpath is completed.

Road Safety Audit (RSA) and Non-Motorised User Audit (NMUA) indicate some sections along the proposed footpath are unsafe:

· After AT’s last meeting with the local board in May 2017, the detailed design for the gravel footpaths was finalised as agreed. The construction tender was advertised and the resource consent applications for the earthworks and tree removal logged, in an attempt to complete construction by early August 2017.

· AT’s process and good engineering practice requires independent RSA and NMUA to be carried out on developed designs, to ensure a proposal provides a safe environment for all road users. These independent audits raised a number of serious concerns for pedestrian safety. Hence, AT decided to revisit the design and include retaining structures and boardwalk with a gravel footpath to address localised issues. Identified unsafe sections will require retaining structures and boardwalks.

· Detailed design is to be revised to include retaining structures and boardwalks.

· Application is to be developed and lodged for additional resource consent and building consents for the boardwalk.

· Tender for construction of gravel footpath to be closed and re-advertised once the detailed designs are updated.

· Updated timeline for construction will be provided in AT’s August monthly report.

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,835,080
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$297,222
Remaining budget left	$1,537,858

Upcoming projects and activities

Bushlands Park Drive exit/entry safety issues

17. The Upper Harbour Local Board has had concerns raised regarding the safe entry and exit from Bushlands Park Drive onto Bush Road (particularly heading out from Bushlands to the east).

Response

18. AT can advise that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is undertaking the Northern Corridor Review (NCR) and this intersection will be included. While the intersection will be considered for improvement options, there will be no changes in the short term.

19. The road code states it is illegal to enter or attempt to cross an intersection unless there is space for your vehicle on the other side. Due to the continued road rule compliance challenges AT faces across the Auckland region, using road markings to indicate something that the motorist should already be doing might indicate that this behaviour is acceptable everywhere that there are none of these markings. AT only uses hatch markings across intersections in very rare circumstances, for example, where there is congestion at an intersection for the majority of the day i.e. near to a ramp of a motorway or for access purposes for emergency services.

20. As such, no changes are proposed for this intersection.

Various updates

Installing traffic signaling at intersection of The Avenue and Dairy Flat Highway and bridge widening on Dairy Flat Highway

21. AT has submitted an application to the Local Residential Growth Fund (LRGF) for design and construction funding of $18 million. Should this be approved by the end of July 2017, AT will begin the detailed design, with construction planned to begin on 1 October 2018 and lasting 18-24 months.

Twin Wharf Road parking restrictions

22. The situation at Twin Wharf Road has deteriorated to such an extent that residents in the area would prefer that the wharf be closed completely than continue to deal with the fallout from disgruntled and frustrated boaties.

23. AT is investigating the concerns highlighted by local residents and will report back once the investigation is complete.

Upgrade to the Northern Busway

24. AT is continuing to work with NZTA on strategic planning for cross-harbour travel. Recent changes to future land use projections by council has necessitated reassessing how different transport options, such as improved busway and new rail modes, would interact with NZTA’s planned motorway tunnels and meet demand. No firm timeframe on a further update to AT has been indicated.

Review of Albany Highway T2 lane

25. AT has completed the survey along Albany Highway and are in the process of analysing the data. AT will update the local board with these results in late August.

Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers Association concerns

26. Herald Island residents have concerns about roading and pedestrian access in their area with the planned developments in and around Whenuapai.

27. AT is investigating the concerns highlighted by the Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers Association and will report back once the investigation is complete. This update will be provided in the August monthly report.

Major capital works in Upper Harbour

28. Gills to Oteha Valley connection (estimated value $30 million):

· currently finalising the business case for design; and

· next step is to seek Regional Growth Fund (RGF) funding and, if approved, progress to design stage.

29. SH17 / The Avenue project (estimated value $12 million):

· re-initiate the project; and

· next step is to seek Regional Growth Fund (RGF) funding and, if approved, progress to business case for design.

30. Medallion Drive link (estimated value $9 million):

· currently undertaking production of business case for design;

· production of tender documents for procurement of design professional services contract; and

· estimated design completion by December 2017.

31. New busway station at Rosedale (estimated value $30 million):

· this project is led by NZTA as part of their Northern Corridor Improvements (NCI) project; and

· AT is currently negotiating a legal agreement with NZTA to confirm cost share and roles/responsibilities.

Major projects in the Upper Harbour area

32. Longer term major projects affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are shown in the following table:

Major arterial (10 year indicative programme)	Cost	Indicative completion
Albany Highway	$38 million	2017
Northern Busway additional stations	$6 million	2020/2021
Brigham Creek Road	$11 million	2022/2023
NorthWest Transformation PC14	$23 million	2023/2024
NorthWest Transformation PC15	$45 million	2018/2019
Penihana North	$400,000	2021/2022

Albany park and ride extension

33. AT is working with NZTA to confirm overall site planning and was hoping to have works started mid-year; however, this may be delayed until towards the end of the year. AT will provide a further update once progress is made.

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

34. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for feedback. The material below is included for general information purposes only:

· speed limit reduction on Brigham Creek Road and Totara Road, Whenuapai;

· roundabout signal metering on Rosedale Road and Apollo Drive, Rosedale; and

· proposed bus stops on new service route (N74) on Fairview Avenue and Gills Road.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

35. Decisions of the TCC over the month of June 2017 affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are shown below:

Hobsonville Road / Westpoint Drive / Laurenson Road / Suncrest Drive	Hobsonville	Lane restrictions, special vehicle lane (SVL)-cycle lane, no stopping at all times (NSAAT), cycle path, shared cycle path, traffic islands, give-way control, give-way controlled roundabout, flush median
Fernhill Way / Medallion Drive / Fields Parade	Oteha	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, lane restrictions, flush median, road hump, traffic island, give-way controlled roundabout, give-way control
Tamiro Road / Whenuapai Drive	Whenupai	NSAAT, traffic islands
Hobsonville Road / Hobsonville Point Road / Hudson Bay Road / Squadron Drive	Hobsonville	Bus shelter

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. The views of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

37. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Māori are triggered by this report, and any engagement with Māori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

38. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Auckland Plan refresh 2018: early feedback to inform draft plan

File No.: CP2017/11823

Purpose

1. This report invites formal feedback from local boards on high-level, strategic themes and focus areas to guide development of the draft refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan sets out a bold and ambitious 30-year vision to guide the growth and development of Auckland. The plan is council’s key strategic document that informs regional priorities that will be funded through the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP 2018-28). The current Auckland Plan was adopted in 2012 and provided strategic direction in a number of significant areas. The refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues in light of changes since the plan was adopted to ensure it continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

3. The refreshed plan will be more focused on a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. These themes are:

· Access and Connectivity;

· Protect and Enhance;

· Homes and Places;

· Belonging; and

· Skills and Jobs.

4. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy, which must achieve the social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives of the plan.

5. Over the last five months, local boards have been involved in Planning Committee workshops and local board cluster briefings on the Auckland Plan refresh as part of their shared governance role.

6. Local boards are now invited to consider their formal position on the themes and focus areas and provide further feedback. This formal feedback will be considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 August 2017.

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback, including any specific feedback on the challenges, opportunities, strategic themes and focus areas.

b) note that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the Planning Committee when it meets, to decide on direction to inform the draft Auckland Plan on 1 August 2017.

c) note that there will be further opportunities to provide feedback on the draft plan as council continues through the refresh process during 2017.

Comments

Background

7. Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan sets out a bold and ambitious 30-year vision to guide the growth and development of Auckland. The plan is our key strategic document that informs regional priorities that will be funded through the LTP 2018-28. The current Auckland Plan was adopted in 2012 and provided strategic direction in a number of significant areas. The refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues in light of changes since the plan was adopted, to ensure it continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

8. On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan will be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The key challenges for Auckland are identified as:

· scale and rate of population growth;

· greater environmental pressures resulting from that growth; and

· uneven distribution of growth benefits.

9. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy, which must achieve the social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives of the plan.

10. Over the last five months, local boards have been involved in Planning Committee workshops and local board cluster briefings on the Auckland Plan refresh as part of their shared governance role. All local board chairs were invited to the February, March and April Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan. In the March workshops, local board chairs generally indicated support for a refresh of the plan. Chairs (or their representatives) provided theme by theme feedback, noting that this expresses the views of local board chair(s) only.

11. Local board cluster briefings for local board members were held in February and April. The February briefing provided an initial introduction to the refresh. In April, a high-level summary of the Planning Committee workshop content was presented. Early information and feedback from local boards was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas. Key themes emerging from local board feedback are included in Attachment B. The results of these workshop discussions fed into an information report distributed to elected members on 1 May 2017.

12. Local boards are now invited to consider the strategic themes and focus areas and provide further formal feedback, including any specific feedback on the challenges and opportunities.

Strategic themes and focus areas

13. The high-level, strategic themes and focus areas are outlined in the table below. The key strategic themes include:

· Skills and jobs: recognising the importance of skills and jobs in enabling prosperity and individual and community well-being;

· Belonging: enabling participation in society to underpin a sense of belonging. Aucklanders’ willingness to live and work together and invest in Auckland’s future is based on trust, tolerance and mutual respect;

· Homes and places: enabling successful urban environments. Homes and places influence Aucklanders’ health, safety and well-being, living standards and financial position;

· Protect and enhance: acknowledging the impacts of growth and development on Auckland’s natural environment, cultural and built heritage, and their contribution to broader outcomes for Auckland; and

· Access and connectivity: enabling Aucklanders to get to where they want to go through connections between Auckland, other parts of New Zealand and the world, both in the physical sense and by digital means.

14. These strategic themes are intended to provide direction to the high-level development strategy, which guides how Auckland will grow and develop and council’s investment priorities. Further supporting material is provided in Attachment A.

Strategic framework

Strategic themes	Focus areas
Skills and jobs	Enterprise and innovation
	Education pathways and life-long learning
	Retain and attract talent and investment
Belonging	The importance of Māori and Māori values
	Equitable opportunities for all to achieve their full potential
	Inclusive, resilient and thriving communities
	Value and celebrate Auckland’s diversity
Homes and places	More homes (supply, choice and infrastructure)
	Affordable, safe, stable homes
	Urban areas that work
Protect and enhance	Sustainability and resilience embedded in how we grow and develop
	Environment and cultural heritage are critical to broader outcomes
	Recognise and provide for role of Māori
Access and connectivity	Easy to get to where you want to go
	Enabling and supporting growth
	Implement Auckland Transport Alignment Project
	Minimise harm (road accidents and deaths, environmental and cultural impacts)

15. The following questions may be useful in structuring feedback:

· What are the key challenges and opportunities facing Auckland in the future?

· What are the regional priorities for Auckland over the next 30 years from your local communities’ perspectives?

· Do the strategic themes and focus areas capture your communities’ regional priorities?

· Are we focusing on the right things?

· Are there any gaps?

Relationship to local board plans

16. In April/May 2017, local boards adopted their draft local board plans for consultation with the public. Many local boards used direction provided by the Auckland Plan when preparing their draft local board plans to support better alignment between local and regional investment and activities. It is anticipated that the draft plans and ongoing discussion with communities will continue to inform local boards’ input to the Auckland Plan.

17. Local board plans will help inform the draft LTP 2018-28 budget decisions. This includes identification of locally driven initiatives and advocacy initiatives, which will deliver on local board outcomes. Based on an analysis of the 2017 draft local board plan, there is strong alignment between draft local board plan and Auckland Plan outcomes.

Next steps

18. Local boards are well-placed to provide input on regional priorities following public engagement on their draft local board plans.

19. Further engagement with local boards on development of the draft plan will take place as part of local board cluster workshops in July 2017.

20. On 1 August 2017, the Planning Committee will meet to agree direction to guide the draft Auckland Plan. Local boards’ formal feedback will be considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 August 2017.

21. There will be further opportunities to provide feedback on the draft plan as council continues through the refresh process.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. Local board feedback is being sought via this report.

23. A summary of feedback received from local board members to date is provided in Attachment B.

24. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the governing body and providing input to regional strategies, policies and plans.

25. The refreshed plan will inform regional priorities that will be funded through the LTP 2018‑28.

Māori impact statement

26. Council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

27. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

28. The strategic themes acknowledge and celebrate Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and mana whenua as Treaty partners in a multicultural Auckland.

29. An additional Māori theme is currently under development following a request from the Planning Committee. Further engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka is planned in developing the draft plan.

Implementation

30. Feedback from local boards will be summarised and provided in full to the Planning Committee for consideration in decision-making to guide development of the draft plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Theme summary	169
b ⇩	Key themes emerging from local board feedback	177

Signatories

Authors

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Local board involvement in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028

File No.: CP2017/13729

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to ask each local board to nominate a local board member to attend workshops to determine regional strategic priorities for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP 2018-2028).

Executive summary

2. The LTP 2018-2028, our 10-year budget for Auckland, will set the direction for investing in our city over the next decade. The Mayor is inviting a local board member from each local board to attend initial regional strategic priority workshops on the LTP 2018-2028.

3. Over the next year of LTP 2018-2028 development, local boards will also hold workshops and meetings to propose local priorities, consult with local communities and provide formal feedback on regional strategic priorities.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) appoint a lead Local Board Member and alternate to take part in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Comments

4. The Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP 2018-2028) determines how much council is going to spend and invest over 10 years. The LTP is updated every three years, with feedback from Aucklanders, and is due to be adopted in June 2018.

5. As part of the development of the LTP 2018-2028, a series of workshops will be held on regional strategic priorities. These workshops are on topics such as infrastructure funding and investment, cost reviews, service delivery and rates modelling. There will be approximately 20 half day workshops to attend from August to November 2017. The proposed workshop schedule is attached (noting this is subject to change).

6. The Mayor is inviting a nominated local board member from each local board to attend these regional strategic priority workshops. This will allow local boards to work with Finance and Performance committee members to provide some early input into the LTP process.

7. The local board representatives will be invited to provide local board perspectives, but are not there to represent their local boards’ specific interests. The local board representatives will be responsible for gathering input from other local board members before the regional strategic priority workshops, and providing an update and feedback after them.

8. Local boards will also be able to provide formal feedback on regional strategic priorities next year.

9. Each local board will also hold workshops to discuss local priorities for spending, levels of service and performance measures for the LTP 2018-2028. These local priorities will be informed by local board plans, which will be completed by October 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Local board members will be able to provide local board perspectives when attending the regional strategic priority workshops on the LTP 2018-2028.

Māori impact statement

11. Auckland Council has an important role in enabling mana whenua and our Māori communities to fully contribute to and benefit from a successful Auckland. The LTP 2018-2028 will set funding priorities for the activities that will contribute towards this outcome.

Implementation

12. Local board members appointed by each local board will be asked to attend approximately 20 half day workshops from August to November 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028	181

Signatories

Authors

Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Feedback on the 'Tākaro - Investing in Play' discussion document

File No.: CP2017/13820

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’ discussion document.

Executive Summary

Auckland Council is developing a plan to improve the way it invests in play

2. Auckland Council is a significant investor in play spaces and play programmes throughout the Auckland region. However, it faces a number of emerging challenges including a growing population, financial constraints and increasing demand for play over the next 20 years.

3. In response, council is developing a play investment plan, Tākaro – Investing in Play. This will provide a guiding framework to support decision-makers across council to invest in ways that make the best use of available resources while maximising the benefits of play to Auckland’s diverse communities.

Local boards have an important role in shaping the plan

4. Local board decision-making is central to the planning and funding of play at the community level. The views of local boards will therefore be critical to the successful development of the investment plan.

5. Staff have prepared a discussion document to publicly test ideas and to gauge opinions on a range of investment possibilities and issues relating to play.

6. Local board members provided informal feedback on the discussion document at regional cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

7. Local boards are invited to submit formal feedback on the issues raised in the discussion document by 21 August 2017.

8. Analysis of the feedback will be finalised in October 2017. Staff will report to the Environment and Community Committee on the results of the public consultation in November 2017.

9. The analysis of feedback will inform the development of an initial draft investment plan in early 2018. Staff will then work with local boards and other stakeholders to refine the draft, including further rounds of consultation.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the questions presented in the ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’ discussion document by 21 August 2017.

Comments

Background

10. Auckland Council invests in play because it has the potential to provide a range of health, social, community and economic benefits to Aucklanders.

11. The total value of council’s playground equipment is $66 million. The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 allocates $33 million for renewing these assets, and a further $25 million to provide new play opportunities in areas of growth.

12. Key challenges are to respond to a growing population, financial constraints and increasing demands for play over the next 20 years.

13. The development of a play investment plan, ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’, will help decision-makers across the council family, in particular governing body and local boards, to invest in ways that make the best use of available resources, while maximising benefits to Auckland’s communities.

14. It will do this by:

· clarifying the causal relationship between investment in play and the benefits sought;

· providing guidance on how to support a diverse, accessible network of play; and

· establishing processes to assess the performance of past investments.

15. Development of the investment plan is a scheduled piece of work arising from the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013.

Discussion document

16. Staff have prepared a discussion document (Attachment A) as part of the initial consultation and planning phase of the ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’ project. It presents a summary of council’s current supply and practices towards play. Section nine of the document includes a summary of questions to help focus feedback.

17. The purpose of the discussion document is to describe the current state of play provision, and to gauge opinions on a range of investment possibilities. These include new approaches to nature play, risky play and play activations, as well as opportunities for council to partner with schools, businesses and community groups in the delivery of play.

Role of local boards

18. Local boards play a vital role as decision makers in the planning and funding of play in their communities. Local board views will be central to the development of the investment plan.

19. The statutory role of local boards include many decision-making responsibilities with relevance to provision and management of the play network:

· adoption of local board plans;

· agreement of local board agreements (with governing body) and monitoring the implementation of local board agreements;

· providing input into regional strategies, policies and plans;

· proposing bylaws for the local area; and

· community engagement, consultation and advocacy.

20. Local boards have a particularly important role in the delivery of play programmes through their budgets for open space activation. Some of these programmes are specifically targeted at attracting people to use public play spaces.

Current engagement with local boards

21. This report provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’ discussion document.

22. Local boards are invited to submit formal feedback on the issues raised in the document by 21 August 2017.

23. Feedback will inform the development of an initial draft investment plan in early 2018. Staff will then work with local boards to refine the draft, including further rounds of consultation.

24. The following table explains the timing and key processes in the development of the plan, including further consultation with local boards.

Process	Milestones
Consultation with the public	29 May to 10 July 2017
Consultation with local boards and advisory panels	19 June to 21 August 2017
Analysis of feedback and submissions	August to October 2017
Report to the Environment and Community Committee on the results of the public consultation	November 2017
Develop and refine a draft investment plan, in consultation with local boards	Early 2018
Public consultation on the draft investment plan	Mid 2018

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Local board members provided informal feedback on the discussion document at regional cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

26. Many members expressed support for the intent of the plan in principle, and for certain aspects of the plan in particular. These included:

· the value of providing communities with a diverse range of play;

· the importance of taking a future-focused approach to investment;

· the opportunity to make play more accessible and inclusive to people of different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds;

· the opportunity to partner with schools, community groups and others in extending the play network; and

· the value of using investment in play to support local community outcomes.

27. Some members expressed concern that the development of a regional plan could limit the ability of local boards to make investment decisions in the best interests of their specific communities. Staff clarified that the plan is intended to serve as a guiding document, not as a constraint. It will need to be designed in a way that empowers local decision-making, and which recognises the diverse needs of our communities.

28. This report now provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the ‘Tākaro – Investing in Play’ discussion document.

Māori impact statement

29. Māori are identified as a key target group for the investment plan, due to their young population profile.

30. In 2013, Māori comprised 15.7 per cent of all young people aged 0 to 24 years old living in Auckland. Half of all Auckland Māori (52.4 per cent) are under 25 years of age.

31. Statistics New Zealand’s projections (medium series) suggest that the number of children and young people in Auckland will continue to increase over the next twenty years by another 26.5 per cent. This, combined with high Māori birth rates, suggest issues affecting Māori children and young people will continue to be important into the future.

32. The plan will incorporate a mana whenua perspective and identify opportunities to express kaitiakitanga in local play spaces. Staff will consult with mana whenua on the discussion document as part of the current phase of the investment plan development.

Implementation

33. There are no implementation issues arising from the recommendations of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tākaro - Investing in Play discussion document	187

Signatories

Authors

Jacqueline Fa’amatuainu-Pointon - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Approval of a new road name created by a way of a subdivision at 137 and 141 Clark Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/10648

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a new road name, created by way of a subdivision at 137 and 141 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road name ‘Lapwing Road’ was determined to meet the road naming policy criteria and is recommended for approval to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted on the proposed names and no objections were received.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the road name ‘Lapwing Road’ proposed by the applicant for the new road, created by a subdivision at 137 and 141 Clark Road, Hobsonville, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Comments

5. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road or private accessway needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity to suggest their preferred new road names for local board approval.

6. Grande Meadow Development Limited (the applicant) obtained consent on 17 November 2015 for development of the site at 141 Clark Road, Hobsonville. Consent was granted to create 22 vacant residential lots, 11 super lots for future development, roads, drainage and recreation reserves to be vested to council in four stages.

7. The applicant also lodged two resource consents for development of the 11 super lots on 22 December 2016. It is noted that the applications are currently being processed and a decision for both resource consents has not been made.

8. Grande Meadow Development Limited obtained road name approval for four new roads and four private accessways on 18 May 2017, with the exception of road 11. Road 11 is a road to be created by a residential subdivision at 141 Clark Road and the neighbouring site at 137 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

9. The plan (Attachment A) shows the location of road 11. The applicant has proposed the following names for road 11, in order of preference:

Proposed Names	Meaning	Criteria
Lapwing Road	Local New Zealand bird	This name meets the criteria and is also accepted by New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)
Warou Road	Māori word for welcome swallow	This name meets the criteria and is also accepted by New Zealand Post and LINZ
Columbine Road	Type of garden flower -aquilegia	This name meets the criteria and is also accepted by New Zealand Post and LINZ

10. As the applicant’s preferred names meet the criteria, these names are recommended for consideration to approve.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

12. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome ‘A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The application includes the use of Māori names, which is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

13. The applicant has put forward the proposed names to the following local iwi:

· Ngāti Manuhiri;

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua;

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara;

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei;

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki;

· Te Kawerau a Maki;

· Te Akitai Waiohua;

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua;

· Ngāti Paoa;

· Ngāti Maru;

· Ngāti Whanaunga; and

· Ngāti Tamaterā.

14. An email was sent to the above local iwi on 16 March 2017 and two responses were received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Manuhiri on that date. They confirmed they do not need to be involved in this road naming process.

Implementation

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

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

17. The Resource Consent Project Management team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly, once an approval is obtained for the new road names.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location of road 11	211

Signatories

Authors

Dale Rewa – Subdivision Advisor, Western Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Approval of a new road name created by way of a subdivision at 9 Richard Hill Close, Albany

File No.: CP2017/12470

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a road name for one new private road, constructed to serve stage two of the subdivision comprising 11 lots, being undertaken by Golden Horse Development Ltd and Fairview Property Investment Ltd (the applicant), at 9 Richard Hill Close, Albany.

Executive summary

2. The applicant has submitted in order of preference, the following names for local board approval:

· Country View Lane; and

· Countryside Way.

3. The applicant consulted with all local iwi groups and received one response from Ngati Whanaunga, who suggested the following alternative names:

· Ngahere Lane;

· Te Nehenehenui Way; and

· Taane Mahuta Lane.

4. All names have been assessed against Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.

5. The names have also been assessed under New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and all, apart from ‘Ngahere Lane’, meet the criteria.

6. The applicant considers the alternative names suggested by iwi are not necessarily appropriate to the site, and could be better suited to a more intensely bush-covered environment.

7. The guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve one of the following names for the new private road constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by Golden Horse Development Ltd and Fairview Property Investment Ltd, at 9 Richard Hill Close, Albany, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

i) Country View Lane;

ii) Countryside Way;

iii) Te Nehenehenui Way; or

iv) Taane Mahuta Lane.

Comments

8. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of LINZ.

9. The applicant has submitted the following names in order of preference for the new private road constructed within the subdivision:

Preferred names	Meaning	Criteria
Country View Lane Countryside Way	Reflects the general outlook / locality of the large lots Reflects the general outlook / locality of the large lots	Meets criteria Meets criteria
Iwi’s alternative names	Meaning	Criteria
Ngahere Lane Te Nehenehenui Way Taane Mahuta Lane	Māori origin, translates to bush or forest Māori origin, translates to the great forest Māori origin, translates to god of forest	Does not meet criteria Meets criteria Meets criteria

10. Council’s road naming guidelines require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing name theme or introduction of a new name theme in an area.

11. Names need to be easily identifiable, easy to pronounce and spell, and intuitively clear to minimise confusion. The use of Māori names is encouraged where appropriate and names should not be duplicated in the wider Auckland region for safety reasons.

12. The applicant considers their preferred names are appropriate in recognising the topography and outlook of the lots, which are predominantly in pasture with some pockets of bush dispersed throughout.

13. The applicant considers the alternative names offered by iwi are not necessarily appropriate to the site and could be better suited to a more intensely bush-covered environment.

14. The names, apart from ‘Ngahere Lane’, are deemed to meet the assessment criteria as they have some relevance to the locality. However, the iwi alternatives are considered to be better suited to a more intensely bush-covered environment and could also be considered difficult to pronounce and spell.

15. Apart from ‘Ngahere Lane’, the names are not duplicated within the wider Auckland area and meet New Zealand Post and LINZ requirements.

16. The guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

20. The applicant has consulted with all local iwi groups and Ngati Whanaunga responded with the following alternative names:

· Ngahere Lane;

· Te Nehenehenui Way; and

· Taane Mahuta Lane.

Implementation

21. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

22. The cost of processing the approval of the new road name is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	9 Richard Hill Close Map	217

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivisions Advisor, Northern Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Approval of a new road name created by way of a subdivision at 126 Fairview Avenue, Albany

File No.: CP2017/12554

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a road name for one new private road, constructed to serve the subdivision comprising of seven lots, being undertaken by Tao Sun and Rongsheng Ling (the applicant), at 126 Fairview Avenue, Albany.

Executive summary

2. The applicant has submitted in order of preference, the following names for local board approval:

· Luda Way;

· Taurikura Way (suggested by iwi); and

· Ingham Way.

3. The applicant consulted with all local iwi groups and received responses from Ngati Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and Ngati Te Ata. Ngati Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust suggested ‘Taurikura Way’ and Ngati Te Ata suggested ‘Kapai Way’ as alternative names.

4. All names have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.

6. The guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve one of the following names for the new private road constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by Tao Sun and Rongsheng Ling, at 126 Fairview Avenue, Albany, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974:

i) Luda Way;

ii) Taurikura Way; or

iii) Ingham Way.

Comments

7. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of LINZ.

8. The applicant has submitted the following names in order of preference for the new private road constructed in the subdivision:

Preferred names	Meaning	Criteria
Luda Way Taurikura Way Ingham Way	Chinese origin meaning lucky, good fortune and prosperity and a reflection of the multiculturalism of Albany Māori origin meaning prospering, healthy and strong, at peace An early Albany settler	Meets criteria Meets criteria Meets criteria
Iwi’s alternative names	Meaning	Criteria
Taurikura Way Kapai Way	Māori origin meaning prosperity, healthy and strong, at peace Māori origin meaning good or to feel good, spiritually well	Meets criteria Does not meet criteria

9. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing name theme or introduction of a new name theme in an area.

10. Names need to be easily identifiable, easy to pronounce and spell, and intuitively clear to minimise confusion. The use of Māori names is encouraged where appropriate and names should not be duplicated in the wider Auckland region for safety reasons.

11. The applicant considers their preferred names are appropriate in that they either reflect the multicultural mix of Albany, enhance the ambience for the subdivision, or have a historical link to the area.

12. The names are deemed to meet the assessment criteria.

13. Apart from ‘Kapai Way’, the names are not duplicated within the wider Auckland area and meet New Zealand Post and LINZ requirements in that regard.

14. The road naming guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

18. The applicant consulted with all local iwi groups and received responses from Ngati Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and Ngati Te Ata. Ngati Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust suggested ‘Taurikura Way’ and Ngati Te Ata suggested ‘Kapai Way’ as alternative names. Ngati Whatua also responded but deferred to other iwi to reply.

Implementation

19. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

20. The cost of processing the approval of the new road name is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Map - 126 Fairview Avenue	223

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivisions Advisor, Northern Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 July 2017

Approval of new road names created by way of a subdivision at 84 Laurel Oak Drive, Albany

File No.: CP2017/12556

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for road names for two new private roads, constructed to serve the subdivision comprising 31 lots, being undertaken by 3rd Fairway Developments Limited (the applicant), at 84 Laurel Oak Drive, Albany.

Executive summary

2. The applicant has submitted, in their order of preference, the following road names for local board approval:

Road 1:

· Third Fairway Place;

· Laurel Fairway Place;

· Laurel Golf Estates Place; and

· Laurel Golf Place.

Road 2:

· Doctor Alfred Vincent Way;

· Alfred Vincent Way; and

· Lucas Creek View Way.

3. The applicant consulted with all local iwi and received two responses acknowledging the consultation and advising that, due to other priorities, they would not consider the application at this time. Therefore, no alternative names have been suggested by any local iwi.

4. The names have been assessed against Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) criteria and, apart from ‘Laurel Fairway Place’, ‘Laurel Golf Estates Place’ and ‘Laurel Golf Place’, they meet the criteria.

5. The guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve one of the following names for the new private Roads 1 and 2, constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by 3rd Fairway Developments Limited, at 84 Laurel Oak Drive, Albany, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974:

i) Third Fairway Place (Road 1);

ii) Doctor Alfred Vincent Way (Road 2);

iii) Alfred Vincent Way (Road 2); and

iv) Lucas Creek View Way (Road 2).

Comments

6. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of LINZ.

7. The applicant has submitted the following names, in order of preference, for the new private roads constructed in the subdivision:

Applicant’s preferred names

Meaning

Criteria

Road 1

Third Fairway Place

Laurel Fairway Place

Laurel Golf Estates Place

Laurel Golf Place

Reflects development company name and the property location adjacent to North Shore Golf Club

Reflects location off Laurel Oak Drive and adjacent to North Shore Golf Club

As above

Meets criteria

Does not meet criteria

Road 2

Doctor Alfred Vincent Way

Alfred Vincent Way

Lucas Creek View Way

Named after the shareholder’s late father who was a leading obstetrician and pioneer in the field of natural child birth

As above

Reflects the outlook from this road to Lucas creek

Meets criteria

8. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing name theme or introduction of a new name in an area.

9. Names need to be easily identifiable, easy to pronounce and spell, and intuitively clear to minimise confusion. The use of Māori names is encouraged where appropriate, and names should not be duplicated in the wider Auckland region for safety reasons.

10. The applicant considers their preferred names are appropriate as they reflect the location of the property adjacent to the North Shore Golf Club, Lucas Creek and Laurel Oak Drive, or have historical significance and are not out of keeping with other names in the area.

11. The names have been assessed against council’s road naming guidelines, New Zealand Post and LINZ criteria and, apart from ‘Laurel Fairway Place’, ‘Laurel Golf Estates Place’ and ‘Laurel Golf Place’, they meet the criteria. It is considered these names are too similar to ‘Laurel Oak Drive’ and could cause confusion for emergency services.

12. The guidelines suggest that a road of the type constructed can be referred to as a Lane, Close, Way, Mews or Place.

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

16. The applicant consulted with all local iwi and received two responses acknowledging the consultation. They advised that, due to other priorities, they were unable to consider the application at this time. Therefore, no alternative names have been suggested by any local iwi.

Implementation

17. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

18. The cost of processing the approval of the new road name is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charging policies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Map - 84 Laurel Oak Drive	229

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivisions Advisor, Northern Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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

Authors	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager