Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

Waiheke Local Board

27 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 5

9 Public Forum 5

9.1 Waiheke Youth Voice - Kara Veugelers 5

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Notice of Motion - Paul Walden, Kennedy Point Marina - carpark 7

13 Councillor's Update 11

14 Management of Coastal Erosion at Picnic Bay Reserve 13

15 Proposal to classify Putiki Reserve, Shelly Beach Road, Surfdale as a recreation reserve to enable the Waiheke Sea Scout lease to be granted. 21

16 Market research – Rest home level care facilities on Waiheke Island 27

17 Proposal to alter the existing geographic name of Omiha to Rocky Bay 37

18 Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan Review 69

19 Reconsideration of the Project 17: Auckland Council maintenance contracts report 83

20 Local board involvement in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 141

21 Feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document 145

22 Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services 169

23 Chairperson's Report 175

24 List of resource consents 177

25 Waiheke Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings 185

26 Governance Forward Work Programme 197

27 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 22 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 Waiheke Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Waiheke Youth Voice - Kara Veugelers

Purpose

1. Kara Veugelers, from Waiheke Youth Voice, will be in attendance to provide a verbal report on the past year's activities.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) thank for Kara Veugelers for her attendance and presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 3.11.1 a Notice of Motion has been received from Chairperson Paul Walden for consideration under item 12.

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Notice of Motion - Paul Walden, Kennedy Point Marina - carpark

File No.: CP2017/14258

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Board Chairman Paul Walden for inclusion on the agenda for the Waiheke Local Board meeting being held on 27 July 2017.

Executive summary

1. Chairperson Paul Walden has given notice of a motion that he wishes to propose.

2. The notice, signed by Chairperson Paul Walden, is appended as Attachment A.

3. Supporting information is appended as Attachment A.

Motion

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) oppose the establishment of a pontoon for vehicle parking and any other commercial activity at Kennedy Point.

b) note the significant Council land holding at Kennedy Point, used in part presently for car parking.

c) support the Council car park being developed for car parking associated with the Marina as an alternative to development in the bay, should the development proceed.

d) request relevant council and CCO officers establish a range of options for an increase of capacity for car parking at the Kennedy Point car park for at least 75 extra cars.

e) request that the concepts include landscaping design to mitigate the impact of the parked cars and any buildings associated.

f) request council officers consider mechanism’s available which could enable the extra capacity to be developed and leased commercially to a private developer in the event a marina is approved at Kennedy Point.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Paul Walden - Motion on Kennedy Point Marina carpark	9

Signatories

Author	Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Management of Coastal Erosion at Picnic Bay Reserve

File No.: CP2017/10889

Purpose

1. To seek land owner approval for the build of a community owned rock revetment sea wall partly located on the esplanade reserve below properties at 69 to 75 Donald Bruce Rd and to secure funds for Auckland Council to manage and monitor coastal erosion at the adjacent Picnic Bay Reserve.

Executive summary

2. The ‘community’ around Picnic Bay Reserve has a desire to complete the build of a 130 metre long rock revetment sea wall on the esplanade reserve below properties 69 to 75 Donald Bruce Rd (shown as blue line in attachment A). This is in order to address concerns related to coastal erosion. Consent was obtained to achieve this outcome in 2008 and sections of the wall were built, some to the required standard and others that did not meet the quality standard determined by the consent application.

3. The community are now looking to complete the build of the 130 metre rock revetment wall at their own expense and to bring all existing sections of the wall up to the required engineering standard. The community are also looking to the Waiheke Local Board to continue the build of the sea wall by an additional 75 metres (shown as red line in attachment A) so that it extends directly below Picnic Bay Reserve.

4. Because the construction component of the resource consent issued in 2008 has expired a new consent to cover the build of the wall is required. The Waiheke Local Board at their June 2017 business meeting resolved to engage a planner in order to assist the community group to acquire a new consent.

5. As land owner, the Waiheke Local Board are being asked to consider granting approval for the completion of a community funded and built 130 metre long rock revetment wall on the esplanade reserve. A wall funded and delivered by the community (as detailed in the 2008 consent and to be set out in the anticipated 2017 application) is considered an appropriate and effective response to the erosion issue below the esplanade reserve in this location.

6. The Waiheke Local Board are also being asked to consider funding a council led project to manage coastal erosion below Picnic Bay Reserve. Whilst the community’s proposed seawall application, if granted, would provide for a hard engineering solution for this area (approximately 75m of the 205m long seawall), a softer engineering option is supported by staff for this part of the Picnic Bay Reserve. This softer engineering option would involve undertaking more planting on the bank of the reserve and addressing drainage issues. Given current levels of erosion in the general area, this softer engineering approach is supported by the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and the regulatory framework applied by Auckland Council. This option is also regarded as the most appropriate approach when site, environmental and cost considerations are taken into account.

7. The resolutions set out in this report reflect the views of the four different council departments (Community Services, Community Facilities, Resource Consents and Infrastructure and Environmental Services) involved on this project to date.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve in principle, and subject to gaining resource consent, the granting of landowner consent for the build of a 130m long rock revetment wall on the esplanade reserve below 69-75 Donald Bruce Rd.

b) fund the design and implementation of a soft engineering option, estimated at approximately $65,000, to manage coastal erosion along a 75m stretch of foreshore immediately below Picnic Bay Reserve by means of:

I. recontoring the toe of the bank

II. increasing the vegetative cover across the relevant sections of bank

III. installing improved drainage to address geotechnical instability issues across the reserve.

Comments

History of community desire to build a rock revetment sea wall

8. The community’s desire to have a sea wall built at Picnic Bay Reserve dates back to May 2007 when Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council received notification that a structure was being built along the coastal edge directly below 71 Donald Bruce Rd. At this time staff met with residents and confirmed any structure in the coastal margin would need to be consented and approved.

9. In July 2007 a resource consent application was made by Ramon and Pamela Nash (71 Donald Bruce Rd, Kennedy Point) for the build of a 205m long sea wall following the toe of the foreshore below their property and local reserve (Picnic Bay Reserve). The application was publicly notified in September 2007.

10. In December 2008, coastal permits were issued to construct, occupy, and use the Coastal Management Area (CMA) as per the consent application. This consent and the associated permits have recently expired.

11. The relevant section of coastline is located within Huruhi Bay, along the western side of a 2km long (approx.) peninsular that extends to Kennedy Point on the southern side of Waiheke Island. This coastline is typified by steep well vegetated headlands separating small bays containing pocket beaches.

12. The concept wall design detailed in the 2008 consent ranged in height from 1.5m to 2m. Local red rock was specified for construction, in order to match existing rock found naturally along the adjacent cliff face.

13. The purpose of the wall was to address erosion to the coastal edge at Picnic Bay Reserve and adjoining esplanade reserve, where shoreline retreat is estimated to be occurring at the rate of approximately 5-10m per century. It was proposed that the seawall would be constructed incrementally in stages as budget allowed.

14. Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council considered at the time that a rock seawall would be an appropriate and effective response to the erosion issue, with the adverse effects on the environment regarded as minor. This was in a large part due to the limited height and extent of the sea wall and the proposed use of local rock that forms part of the natural landscape around much of the coastal edge.

Auckland Council’s approach to coastline management

15. The extent of Auckland’s coastline and the number of assets that sit on or close to the coastal edge means that Auckland Council has to carefully prioritise the management of erosion across the region. Investment is made in coastal defences where the recreation value of reserves are threatened, where essential services could be compromised or where key access for vehicles or pedestrians could be lost. In this context the active management of erosion along the esplanade reserve below Donald Bruce Rd is considered a low priority for Auckland Council. The esplanade reserve neither provides a critical pedestrian or vehicle link, nor does it provide for key infrastructure that needs protection. However, the sea wall as proposed will act to slow the rate of erosion, with only minor environmental effects and the council on these grounds supports the community’s endeavour to complete the build of a wall at their own cost in this location.

16. This does not mean that other requests by private property owners to build coastal defences on esplanade reserves will be automatically approved. Each application will be assessed by Auckland Council, both as land owner and regulatory authority, on a case by case basis and with reference to the success of this, and any other similar, community led initiatives. No precedent is being set in this instance.

The process a community funded and led project would have to follow

17. The following steps set out the process / principles that would be applied should the board give land owner approval for a community funded and led project to complete the build of a rock revetment wall on the esplanade reserve below 69 to 75 Donald Bruce Rd:

• Community to apply for resource and landowner consent

• Auckland Council to process consent application and Waiheke Local Board to consider the granting of land owner consent - detailed design to be assessed as part of consenting process

• Appropriate works methodology including H/S provisions submitted by the ‘community’ and signed off by Community Services Department prior to start of works

• Physical works to be project managed by the community but with council’s Coastal and Geotechnical Services plus Compliance teams overseeing works to ensure the relevant engineering standards are met

• Works potentially to be staged

• Community to own the structure / asset on completion and noting the resource consent will be applied for the by the community.

18. The Waiheke Local Board at their June 2017 business meeting passed a resolution (WHK/2017/89) approving budget ($9,000) from the board’s Community Response (Locally Driven Initiatives) budget to review and update the expired 2008 coastal permit and land use consent for a sea wall at Picnic Bay.

Coastal management options at Picnic Bay Reserve

19. While the community are proposing that they fund and build the section of the sea wall below their own properties, they are looking to the Waiheke Local Board (Auckland Council) to fund and build the 75 metre section of wall below Picnic Bay Reserve.

20. Two options are presented in this report with regard to management of coastal erosion below Picnic Bay Reserve (extent shown as red line attachment A):

I. Hard engineering option - extend the rock revetment sea wall that the community are looking to complete by 75 metres in order to address erosion issues directly below Picnic Bay Reserve at an estimated cost to Auckland Council of $255,000. This excludes enduring maintenance costs over the life of the structure.

II. Soft engineering option - increase vegetative cover on bank of reserve and address drainage issues at the top of the reserve at an estimated cost of $65,000 and noting that these costs will only be confirmed after geotechnical investigations have been completed.

21. The adoption of option two is preferred by officers. It is promoted via the relevant sections of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 plus supporting regulatory framework and is considered appropriate given that the rates of erosion being experienced are not currently threatening the integrity of the larger part of the reserve, any high value infrastructure or any private development.

22. While the adoption of option two might not slow erosion as significantly as option one, it will still be an effective approach. It is also considered appropriate for this location because a degree of regression along the reserve edge can be better tolerated than on the esplanade reserve and anticipated levels of regression on the reserve edge will not significantly impact on recreation outcomes. This option does not exclude consideration of a sea wall at a later date.

23. This soft engineering option could involve agreeing a suitable regression line onsite that would require Council to consider alternative options for management if the bank regresses faster than anticipated (i.e. more than 5-8m over the next 5-10 years). The location of this line could be surveyed on site and essentially is intended to serve as a commitment that council will continue to monitor and respond to any increased rates of erosion in an appropriate way.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24. Staff have attended two workshops with the Waiheke Local Board (20 April 2017 and 29 May 2017) to discuss the issues of managing coastal erosion at Picnic Bay Reserve and the adjoining esplanade reserve. The second meeting was attended by representatives from the community. The board were informed of the community’s desire to complete the build of the rock revetment wall along the esplanade reserve and their desire to see Auckland Council commit to the build of a 75 metre extension to this wall, immediately below Picnic Bay Reserve.

25. No decisions were made at this meeting with regard to granting land owner consent for the community or the means by which, if any, erosion should be addressed at Picnic Bay Reserve. The board did however make a verbal commitment to grant funds to assist the ‘community’ compile information for a consent and formalised this commitment by means of a resolution at their June 2017 business meeting (WHK/2017/89).

Māori impact statement

26. Mana whenua will be consulted as part of the resource consent preparation process.

Implementation

27. The ‘community’ could undertake the build when sufficient funds have been raised to undertake all, or a reasonable portion, of the wall. Once funds are available the community will be required to submit project time lines to the Community Facilities (CF) Department for approval.

28. A pre start site meeting would need to be held and attended by the ‘community’s’ project lead, the engineer overseeing works on behalf of Auckland Council and a representative from CF. CF will provide the board with quarterly project updates.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aerial map of Picnic Bay Reserve	19

Signatories

Authors

David Barker - Parks and Places Specialist – Team Leader

Paul Klinac - Coastal Management Services, Engineering & Technical Services

Authorisers

Mace Ward – General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

John Nash – Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Proposal to classify Putiki Reserve, Shelly Beach Road, Surfdale as a recreation reserve to enable the Waiheke Sea Scout lease to be granted.

File No.: CP2017/13807

Purpose

1. To endorse the proposed classification of Putiki Reserve, Shelly Beach Road, Surfdale Waiheke Island as a recreation reserve to enable the lease to the Waiheke Sea Scouts to be granted.

Executive summary

2. A lease granted to the Waiheke Sea Scouts in 2010 was later found by staff not to comply with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. This was because the status of the land is currently “a controlled and managed by council”, reserve.

3. As a result the renewal of the lease due in 2012 was not progressed while options to resolve the non- compliance with the Act were investigated. The options considered are detailed at paragraph 15.

4. Because of the current status of the land, the only suitable option is to classify the land which will then allow for a lease to be granted in accordance with the Reserve Act 1977 provisions.

5. Completing classification of the reserve will allow the Board to consider granting a complying lease to the Scout Association of New Zealand.

6. This report recommends that the board endorses the classification of the reserve and for staff to undertake the procedures to classify Putiki Reserve as recreation reserve.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) endorse to the Governing Body Environment and Community Committee the proposed classification of Putiki Reserve, Shelly Beach Road, Surfdale, Waiheke Island described as Lot 1 DP 29734 comprising 9611 square metres contained in t title NA492/111 (Cancelled) as a recreation reserve, pursuant Section 16 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Comments

7. This request to classify Putiki Reserve Shelly Beach Road, Surfdale Waiheke Island is to facilitate the granting of a conforming lease agreement for the Scout Association of New Zealand.).

8. A lease under the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 was granted to the scouts in May 2010. The lease was for an initial term of five years from 19 July 2007 with two rights of renewal with final expiry on 18 July 2022. Subsequent investigation showed the lease had been issued contrary to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 because of the status of the land. The 2012 renewal of the lease was not progressed because of this issue.

History of land title and legal mechanism for classification

9. Putiki Foreshore Reserve is legally described as Lot 1 DP 29734 comprising 9611 square metres contained in title NA492/111 (cancelled).

10. The land was acquired by the Crown as a recreation reserve on the deposit of DP 29734 in 1941. The land was later declared by the Crown to be a domain and later still was declared by the Crown to form part of the Waiheke Domain. This was then controlled and managed by the Waiheke Domain Board later absorbed by the Waiheke Road Board and the succeeding county council after 1970.

11. When the Reserves Act 1977 came into force in 1978, Lot 1, along with the balance of the Waiheke Domain became an unclassified recreation reserve and remained under the control and management of the Waiheke County Council in terms of Section 16 (7) (a) of the 1977 Act.

12. Auckland City Council then inherited control and management of Lot 1 after its establishment in 1989 and the current Auckland Council inherited management after 2010.

13. Lot 1 DP 29734 remains held by the Crown through the Department of Conservation as an unclassified recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act and under the control and management of the Auckland Council.

14. Since 1996 Section 59A (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 has required that where any permit, easement, licence or lease is to be granted over any lands that holds the same status as that of Lot 1, it has to be granted in the form of a concession and in terms of Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987. The current lease granted pursuant to the Reserves Act to the scouts is therefore invalid and "ultra vires" in terms of the Reserves Act.

15. Staff investigated options for providing an agreement to scouts to regularise their occupation of the land. These included

· Doing nothing

· Granting a concession under the provisions of the Conservation Act.

· Providing an agreement outside the parameters of the Reserves and conservation Acts

16. Doing nothing is not acceptable as it does not solve the impasse of an ultra vires lease. Further advice from council’s legal team and the Department of Conservation on granting a concession or exemption from granting a concession (a strand alone agreement) confirmed that these options were not able to be used.

17. Advice from council’s legal team is to classify the land as recreation reserve. This has the benefit that upon classification the ownership of the reserve will automatically vest in the council, in trust, for recreation purposes and enable the council to grant a formal lease to the scouts under the Reserves Act in the normal way.

18. Classifying the reserve aligns with the Waiheke Local Board Plan criteria of “thriving, strong and engaged communities” and “vibrant places for people that reflect the character of the island”.

19. Council’s land advisory team who will manage the classification process has capacity to process this classification now.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. This matter was workshopped with the board on 1 June 2017 and the board has subsequently requested a report outlining the problem and process to correct the situation.

Māori impact statement

21. Mana whenua identified as having an interest in land in the Waiheke Local Board area will be engaged as part of the classification process.

22. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of the proposed classification, a treaty clause will be included to any new lease to the scouts to record the underlying Crown ownership through the Department of Conservation, which only vests in trust in the council and as such, may be identified in future years for treaty settlement.

Implementation

23. If the board resolves to endorse the classification of the reserve staff will undertake the statutory steps required by the Reserves Act 1977 including reporting to the appropriate governing body committee to formally resolve to classify the land.

24. Once the classification is confirmed staff will report again on granting a new lease to the scouts.

25. There is no advertising required to classify the reserve. Any costs relating to this activity will be met from Community Facilities budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Putiki Reserve Site Plan	25

Signatories

Author

Ron Johnson - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Market research – Rest home level care facilities on Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2017/14087

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to approve funding for a market research study on the need for rest-home level care facilities on Waiheke Island.

Executive summary

2. Feedback to the board has been that many elderly people requiring rest home level care are leaving the island due to the lack of facilities on the island. The Waiheke Retirement Village and the four beds available at the Seaside Assisted Living Programme do not offer this level of care.

3. At a joint meeting in June this year, the Waiheke Housing Steering Group requested that the board support a piece of market research on the need for rest home facilities on Waiheke. The group stated that it is necessary to establish demand, confirmed by an industry-standard study, if the island were to attract a possible future provider.

4. Drs Pam Oliver and Sue Watson, through Community Network Waiheke, have submitted a proposal to research the need for rest home level care on the island, with a view to engaging with potential future island providers. The cost of the proposed survey is $10,500.

5. The Board has a budget of $20,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives Operating Expenditure Financial Year ending 2018 Arts, Community and Events (LDI:Opex FY18 ACE) : Community Empowerment Housing budget. This budget was allocated for an extension to the Housing Quality Project, should the pilot prove successful. Note that use of these funds for the proposed market research will reduce the funds available for the Housing Quality Project.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve a grant of $10,500 from the LDI:Opex FY18 ACE: Community Empowerment Housing budget for Community Network Waiheke to undertake a market research study on the need for rest home level care facilities on Waiheke.

Comments

6. A survey is proposed to be undertaken by Drs Pam Oliver and Sue Watson to:

· Assess the market demand for a range of rest home and associated residential level care services, and the projected timing for such services

· Inform discussions with providers of residential-level care services who may be interested in rest home and residential level care provision on the island.

7. The proposed methodology is via paper or online survey to be promoted through island- based media and locations including:

· Relevant social media, e.g. the Waiheke Community Page

· Three newspapers on the island

· The websites of the Waiheke health providers and aged care/support agencies

· Membership lists of other relevant Waiheke agencies, e.g. Red Cross, RSA, residents associations

· Email and postal address list of Waiheke stakeholders from the Waiheke Local Board

8. Tablets will be set up at the Waiheke Local Board Office and at the Waiheke Library for people to answer the survey online, with support available from board and library staff if needed.

9. Paper questionnaires will be available at key locations, e.g. Waiheke health care centres, aged care providers, Waiheke library, Waiheke Local Board Office and other venues recommended by the board.

10. Sue Watson is a self-employed consultant with over twenty years’ experience in research and evaluation. Sue is a member of the Waiheke Housing Steering Group and is currently undertaking a feasibility study for Piritahi Marae Committee on the need for community education facilities at the marae.

11. Pam Oliver has 25 years’ experience in market research, social research and evaluation, strategy and community development across a broad range of health, education and social services sectors. She has undertaken more than 130 major research projects for public sector, private sector and community organisations, including iwi.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

12. Members of the public at the Waiheke Local Board Plan pre-engagement sector meetings indicated that there was a need for rest home level care facilities on Waiheke.

13. The draft Waiheke Local Board Plan includes an action to support the development of on-island aged care and respite options for Waiheke residents. This proposal would therefore assist the board to progress this action.

Māori Impact Statement

14. The survey will be promoted via the Piritahi Marae networks and Piritahi Hau Ora to

encourage participation by Maori. The survey will be piloted by four respondents from target

groups, one of whom will be Maori. Demographic questions will be asking people for information on cultural background in line with the categories used for the New Zealand Census. This analysis will assess how many people who identify as Maori, including tribal affiliation, are seeking supported living on Waiheke Island for themselves or for members of their families. The researchers recommend that the Local Board consider sharing the survey findings with Piritahi Marae Trust and Piritahi Hau Ora directly.

Implementation

15. The following schedule is proposed subject to approval by the Local Board:

Task	Completion
Survey development	21 August
Survey data collection	20 September
Data analysis	30 September
Report	31 October

16. The completed report will be critical in evidencing the demand on the island for rest-home

level care when progressing discussions with providers who may be considering establishing rest home level services on Waiheke.

17. The funds will be umbrellaed and paid through Community Network Waiheke.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Market research – Rest home level care facilities on Waiheke Island	31

Signatories

Author

Mark Inglis - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Proposal to alter the existing geographic name of Omiha to Rocky Bay

File No.: CP2017/13544

Purpose

1. To consider the Notice of Proposal from the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) to alter the existing geographic name of Omiha to Rocky Bay.

Executive summary

2. In March 2016 the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) received a proposal from a Waiheke resident to alter and discontinue the following Waiheke Island names:

· Omiha (locality/village) to Rocky Bay (locality/village),

· Omiha Bay (bay) to Rocky Bay (bay),

· Rocky Bay (Whakanewha) to Whakanewha Bay, and to redefine its extent,

· discontinue (‘expunge’) the two existing Omiha names (for the bay and the locality/village) ‘from the record’, ie to then remove the replaced names.

3. The proposal to alter the existing geographic name of Omiha to Rocky Bay (bound to the south by Kuakarau Bay and Omiha Bay) has been accepted for consultation. This was in part based on concern for accurate addressing and identification.

4. The other proposals to alter the names for the bays were not accepted, though they may be revisited depending on the final outcome of the proposal for the locality.

5. Online forms together with the reports considered by the NZGB are available here: http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/place-name-consultation

6. Submissions will be open from 22 June until 22 September 2017. The NZGB will consider all submissions at its October meeting.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) consider the Notice of Proposal from the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) to alter the existing geographic name of Omiha to Rocky Bay.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	23 June 2017 place name proposal acceptance	39
b ⇩	Proposal to NZGB to alter name/s	43
c ⇩	Proposal to NZGB to alter name/s deferal report	55
d ⇩	Gazette notice 22 June 2017	67

Signatories

Author	Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan Review

File No.: CP2017/11872

Purpose

1. To provide feedback on the proposed direction of management programmes being developed as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of its Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be controlled in Auckland. It provides a framework to control and minimise the impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach.

3. The National Policy Direction for Pest Management identifies five approaches that can be implemented to manage pests including exclusion, eradication, progressive containment, sustained control, and site-led programmes as further described in this report.

4. This report seeks feedback from the Waiheke Local Board on the proposed management approach for some specific regional programmes as detailed in Attachment A, in particular:

· Cats

· Possums

· Widespread weeds

· Ban of sale of some pest species.

5. The proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 seeking approval to publically notify the draft plan. Feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this report.

6. A range of pest species and issues have previously been discussed with the Waiheke Local Board, and the approaches being developed for these local board specific interests have been included as Attachment B. Feedback on these approaches is also being sought.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed direction of specific regional and local programmes being considered as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review (as per Attachment C of the agenda report).

Comments

7. A Regional Pest Management Plan is a statutory document prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993 for controlling pest plants, animals and pathogens in the region.

8. Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy, prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council. The expiry date of 17 December 2012 was extended to 17 December 2017, while the National Policy Direction on Pest Management was completed and changes to the Biosecurity Act were made.

9. On 14 February 2017, the Environment and Community Committee resolved that council’s current strategy is inconsistent with the National Policy Direction on Pest Management 2015, and that the changes necessary to address the inconsistencies could not be addressed by minor amendment to the current Regional Pest Management Strategy (resolution ENV/2017/7). As a consequence of this determination, council is required to initiate a review to address the inconsistency, in accordance with section 100E(5) of the Biosecurity Act by 17 December 2017, which is the date that the current plan will expire.

10. For a proposal to be initiated, council is required to have resolved by 17December 2017 that it is satisfied a proposal has been developed that complies with sections 70 and 100D(5) of the Biosecurity Act. A report on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be considered at the November 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting in order to meet this deadline.

11. Once operative, following public consultation, governing body approval of the plan, and resolution of any appeals, the plan will empower Auckland Council to exercise the relevant advisory, service delivery, regulatory and funding provisions available under the Biosecurity Act to deliver the specified objectives for identified species using a range of programme types.

Programme types

12. The National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 outlines five different management approaches that can be implemented to manage pests through a pest management plan. These approaches are defined as ‘programmes’:

· Exclusion – aims to prevent the establishment of a pest that is present in New Zealand but not yet established in an area

· Eradication – aims to reduce the infestation level of the pest to zero levels in an area in the short to medium term

· Progressive containment – aims to contain or reduce the geographic distribution of the pest to an area over time

· Sustained control – provides for the ongoing control of a pest to reduce its impacts on values and spread to other properties

· Site-led pest programme – aims to ensure that pests that are capable of causing damage to a place are excluded or eradicated from that place, or contained, reduced or controlled within the place to an extent that protects the values of that place.

13. A regional pest management plan sets out programmes as listed above, but does not specify the methodology for achieving these objectives.

Previous engagement

14. Engagement on the revision of the plan has been ongoing since 2014 including local board members, mana whenua, council and council-controlled organisation staff, industry representatives, and the wider public. Further information on engagement has been included as Attachment D.

Key regional issues

15. During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. Feedback is being sought on these specific programmes, as they are either likely to be of wide public interest or are proposed to be delivered through a new approach.

16. A summary of the proposed approach for each of the regional programmes currently being developed is set out below. Additional information including the current management approach and rationale for change has been included in Attachment A.

· Cats: Redefining the definition of a pest cat to enable greater clarity for the management of ‘unowned’ cats when undertaking integrated pest control in areas of high biodiversity value

· Possums: Proposing a shift from possum control focused on areas of high biodiversity to a region-wide programme

· Widespread pest plants: Shifting from species-led enforcement to a multiple species site-led programme focused on parkland with significant ecological areas

· Ban of sale for some pest species: Increasing the number of pest species (both plants and animals) currently banned from sale.

17. At its recent 1 June 2017 workshop, the Waiheke Local Board noted general support for the proposed approaches outlined above.

Waiheke specific issues

18. In addition to the specific regional issues, the Waiheke Local Board has provided feedback at its 27 June 2014 workshop, and more recently at its 1 June 2017 workshop in relation to the issues discussed in Attachment B. The proposed approach in relation to these issues, and the rationale, is also provided in Attachment B.

19. Specific pest management issues previously identified by the Waiheke Local Board included:

· Weeds on council land: Support around the issue of weeds on council land, and the need to control them more effectively if the public are asked to control their own weeds

· Feral pigs, rodents and mustelids: Support eradication programmes for feral pigs and stoats and the costing of eradication of rats on Waiheke Island. Support the provision of advice and support to community groups undertaking pest control. Support enhanced investment in pathway management to prevent reinvasions within the Hauraki Gulf Controlled Area.

· Kauri dieback: Support for the designation of kauri dieback disease as pest in the region with an exclusion programme with pathway management rules to prevent the establishment of kauri dieback in high priority kauri dieback-free zones, particularly in southern sector parkland including the Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Pathway management of marine pests: Support the development of an inter-regional marine pathway management plan to manage spread of marine pests.

· Education around pests: Provision of information and advice on pest identification, impacts and control for members of the public.

20. This report seeks feedback from the local board on the regional and local board relevant approaches, as outlined in this report. Attachment C has been provided to facilitate formal feedback from the local board at its July 2017 business meeting.

Financial implications

21. The budget for implementing the plan will be confirmed through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. Consultation on the Regional Pest Management Plan is proposed to be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan in early 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. An initial workshop was held with the Waiheke Local Board in 27 June 2014, where the issues raised in Attachment A were discussed. A recent workshop with the board was held on 1 June 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. Issues discussed at these workshops have been considered under the Waiheke specific issues in Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

23. Section 61 of the Biosecurity Act requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

24. Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland Region as described earlier in this report and conversations are ongoing. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species. The impact statement required by section 61 of the Biosecurity Act, along with feedback received by mana whenua, will be part of the development of the draft plan for consultation.

25. Some key topics raised during hui and kōrero with mana whenua included management of the following species such as cats, rats, rabbits, mustelids, deer, pest birds, freshwater pest fish, widespread weeds, emerging and future weeds (including garden escapees), and kauri dieback disease.

26. Mana whenua recognised cats were an increasing problem, indicating a desire for cat-free areas next to sensitive sites. There was also support for kauri dieback disease to be included in the proposed plan as it will enable implementation of regionally specific pathway management rules for kauri protection. Mana whenua identified a strong partnership with council and regional leadership in their role as kaitiaki and owners of kauri in many rohe.

27. Wider issues raised included:

· the importance of building the capacity of mana whenua to directly undertake pest management in each rohe

· acknowledgement that council should control pests on its own land if asking public to do the same on private land

· the definition of pests versus resources (such as deer and pigs)

· the need for coordination of all environmental outcomes across the region, and the alignment of the Regional Pest Management Plan document with other plans, such as Seachange

· the need for more education around pests

· the need to look holistically at rohe (regions)

· the importance of community pest control by linking scattered projects

· the need for the plan to be visionary and bicultural, reflecting Te Ao Māori, Te Reo.

Implementation

28. As the management approaches proposed in the Regional Pest Management Plan will have financial implications, consultation on the plan is proposed to be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan. This will ensure that any budget implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key regional issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan	75
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board issue for the Regional Pest Management Plan	77
c ⇩	Regional Pest Management Plan Feedback Form	79
d ⇩	Previous engagement of the Regional Pest Management Plan	81

Signatories

Authors

Dr Nick Waipara – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Dr Imogen Bassett – Environmental Advisory Manager

Rachel Kelleher – Biosecurity Manager

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Reconsideration of the Project 17: Auckland Council maintenance contracts report

File No.: CP2017/13599

Purpose

1. To re-consider the Project 17: Auckland Council maintenance contracts report following discussion with the Community Facilities team and provide further feedback on site specific issues that are unique to Waiheke.

Executive summary

2. At its meeting held 22 June 2017 the Waiheke Local Board resolved as follows:

Project 17: Auckland Council maintenance contracts

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) defer consideration of this item to the July business meeting noting the following site specific issues.

Site specific issues that are unique to Waiheke:

1. Working in collaboration with the board:

The board requests that contracts are delivered in collaboration with the board’s Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) programmes and Local Board Plan priorities.

2. Employing locally:

The board wishes to continue to support and give priority to working with local contractors in order to promote local knowledge, capabilities and employment and to support the local economy. This includes contractors and community groups involved in the delivery of facility maintenance and renewals programmes.

3. Volunteering and community empowerment:

Our islands have a strong history and philosophy of community led action and the board wishes to ensure that where appropriate or sought, contracts have the ability to involve community groups and individuals where this makes sense.

4. Use of Agri-chemicals:

Use of agri-chemicals (such as glysophate) on council land (including the road corridor) on Waiheke is restricted unless dispensation is approved by the board.

This is as a result of reallocated services levels to enable mechanical / non agri-chemical weed management to continue with no budget top up required.

This is the baseline service and must be built into any Waiheke contract relating to weed management as the standard maintenance service specification.

5. Ecological restoration:

The board is trialling a methodology for ecological restoration for native bush and wetland areas which minimises agri-chemical herbicide use by planting and the use of manual weed control where necessary. Encouragement and management of volunteers is also a key outcome of the programme.

6. Vegetation management in the road corridor:

The board supports the intention that contracts to manage vegetation in the road corridor will be transferred from Auckland Transport to Community Facilities.

The board wishes to have assurances that the circumstances that enabled recent tree pruning in the road corridor will be addressed prior to new contracts being established.

7. Service levels around toilets and rubbish bins:

The board requests that contracts have sufficient flexibility to enable enhanced levels of service to be accommodated, in particular during the visitor season.

8. Waste:

The board requests particular emphasis is placed on “minimise and manage all aspects of waste” which is a specific matter of importance to our community. We would like to see the supplier acknowledging the board’s aspiration of maximising recycling and reuse and minimising waste taken off island, and working towards a target which supports this. We would like to have specific discussions with officers in regards to this. We would also like to discuss how current community initiatives to reduce waste can be incorporated.

9. Kauri Dieback Prevention:

Kauri Dieback prevention protocols for machinery and personnel are strictly followed.

10. Living Wage:

All contractors and sub-contractors are living wage employers.

b) request further discussion with Community Facilities in regards to the above prior to the next business meeting.

CARRIED

3. In line with resolution b) the Community Facilities and the Infrastructure and Environmental Services team met with the board on 20 July 2017.

4. The report has been included on this agenda for re-consideration of site specific issues that are unique to Waiheke.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) provide feedback on site specific issues that are unique to Waiheke.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report - Project 17: Auckland Council maintenance contracts	87
b ⇩	Attachment A Community and Workforce measures	93
c ⇩	Attachment B Full facilities specifications	95
d ⇩	Attachment C Waiheke asset list	137

Signatories

Author

Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

PDF Creator

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/13731

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

That the Waiheke 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) determines how much the 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	143

Signatories

Author

Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document

File No.: CP2017/13822

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

1. 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.

2. In response, the 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

3. 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.

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

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

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

7. 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.

8. 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 Waiheke Local Board:

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

Comments

Background

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

10. 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.

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

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

13. 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

· establishing processes to assess the performance of past investments.

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

Discussion document

15. 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 the council’s current supply and practices towards play. Section nine of the document includes a summary of questions to help focus feedback.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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 the Governing Body) and monitoring the implementation of local board agreements

· providing input into regional strategies, policies and plans

· proposing bylaws for the local area

· community engagement, consultation and advocacy.

19. 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

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

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

22. 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.

23. Table 1 below explains the timing and key processes in the development of the plan, including further consultation with local boards.

Table 1: Timing and process

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

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

25. 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

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

26. 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 which empowers local decision-making, and which recognises the diverse needs of our communities.

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

Māori impact statement

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

29. 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%) are under 25 years of age.

30. 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.

31. 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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document	149

Signatories

Author

Jacqueline Faamatuainu - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

27 July 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/14073

Purpose

1. To seek approval of local board input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services.

Executive summary

2. Council is reviewing Citizens Advice Bureaux services in Auckland following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3. The review will determine ongoing level of support for Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated and Citizens Advice Bureaux services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4. Thirty-one Citizens Advice Bureaux operate in the Auckland region.

5. Auckland Council fund Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated approximately $1.8 million a year which then distributes the funds to bureaux.

1. Local boards hold relationships with their local bureaux. Local bureaux report to local boards on service usage and other matters of interest to the community.

2. A briefing of the review was provided at regional local board cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

3. Local boards informally discussed input to the review in workshops in June and July 2017 and are requested to formalise their input through resolution.

4. Analysis of the input will inform the development of options on future funding of Citizens Advice Bureaux and service provision. This will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2017.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve the Waiheke Local Board input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services by 18 August 2017.

Comments

5. On 7 April 2016 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

“seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.” (REG/2016/22)

6. Since 2013 Auckland Citizens Advice Bureau Incorporated (ACABx), a board made up of nine representatives from across Auckland Bureaux, has been distributing the council funding to bureaux using a population based funding model which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

7. ACABx receives $1.796 million on an annual basis for FY2017 and 2018, plus an annual inflation provision. Provision for this expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

8. ACABx distribute funds to local Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services so that communities are provided with access to information, advice, referral and client advocacy services.

9. Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

· local board plans

· the Auckland Plan (chapter one, strategic direction one): to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders

· the Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whanau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions.

10. Currently there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 19 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum; 75% of the service is delivered face-to-face.

The review

11. The review seeks input from the 21 local boards on their relationship with ACABx, local bureaux and service provision. In September 2017 staff will report the findings of the review to the Environment and Community Committee.

12. The review will inform council’s future approach to its funding relationship with ACABx and CAB, including how responsive they are to the changing demographics and growth in local communities. It will also consider other funding models.

Role of local boards

13. Local boards have detailed knowledge of both their individual bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs.

14. Some local boards provide funding to their local bureau in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx. Such funding is at the board’s discretion.

15. Local bureaux are expected to:

· report to local boards on service usage and other matters of interest

· provide informal updates

· provide opportunities to input into future local bureaux service development

· consider opportunities for co-location or location in Auckland Council-owned facilities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. Local boards have discussed their input to the review informally at workshops during June and July 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided to resource and support the discussions.

17. On the basis that CAB services are not currently provided in Franklin and Great Barrier, these local boards have not participated in a workshop discussion.

18. The following questions guided the workshop discussions and where applicable the board’s input from the workshop is attached.

· What is your relationship with your local CAB?

· What is the value of your local bureau service to your community?

· Is your local bureau delivering outcomes that support the local area and local board objectives?

· Is the current funding model effective in terms of delivering what is required for Auckland and locally?

· What kind of factors should be considered in the funding of local bureaux to ensure fair and equitable service distribution across the region?

· What type of information does the board wish to receive when local bureau are reporting?

· Would you prefer that the local bureau report quarterly or six monthly to the local board?

· Do you understand the role of ACABx in relation to your local bureaux?

· Regarding CAB services, what is working well in your local board area?

· What would you change if you could?

19. Once approved, future options for funding of CAB’s and service provision will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2017.

Māori impact statement

20. From the information available for 2015/2016, Māori users of CAB services comprised between 2.5% of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster to 13.2% in south/east Auckland cluster.

21. Through the review there may be opportunities to improve Māori engagement with CAB services which can be explored in the development of options for the future.

Implementation

22. The timeline for the review is provided below:

Date	Phase	Action
June 2017	Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state	Local board chairs forum; local board cluster briefings
June – August 2017	Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state	Local board workshops; local board business meetings
September 2017	Phase two - development of options for the future state	Report to the Environment and Community Committee

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waiheke Local Board input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services	173

Signatories

Author

Carole Blacklock,Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit

Authorisers

Graham Bodman, General Manager – Arts, Community and Events

Karen Lyons, General Manager – Local Board Services

Chairperson	Paul Walden
Deputy Chairperson	Cath Handley
Members	Shirin Brown
	John Meeuwsen
	Bob Upchurch

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20170614 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings	187
b ⇩	20170615 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings	189
c ⇩	20170622 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings	191
d ⇩	20170629 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings	193
e ⇩	20170706 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings	195