I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday, 16 August 2017 4.30pm Council Chamber |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Julia Parfitt, JP |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Janet Fitzgerald, JP |
|
Members |
Chris Bettany |
|
|
David Cooper |
|
|
Gary Holmes |
|
|
Caitlin Watson |
|
|
Vicki Watson |
|
|
Mike Williamson |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Vivienne Sullivan Local Board Democracy Advisor
14 August 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3317 Email: vivienne.sullivan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
DELEGATIONS HIBISCUS AND BAYS LOCAL BOARD 2016-2019
Portfolio |
Description |
Local Board Members |
Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events
|
Confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation |
Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson |
Transport Information Group |
Discuss transport issues/projects |
David Cooper Janet Fitzgerald Julia Parfitt |
Resource consent applications |
Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications |
Gary Holmes Janet Fitzgerald |
Urgent Decision Making |
To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board |
Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson |
Appointments to outside organisations
Organisation |
Local Board Member |
Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society) |
Julia Parfitt Chris Bettany - Alternate |
Estuary Arts Charitable Trust |
|
Victor Eaves Management Committee |
Mike Williamson |
Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland) |
Janet Fitzgerald
|
Business Improvement Districts (BIDS) |
|
Destination Orewa Beach |
Vicki Watson David Cooper - Alternate |
Torbay |
Chris Bettany Julia Parfitt - Alternate |
Browns Bay |
Gary Holmes Chris Bettany - Alternate |
Mairangi Bay |
David Cooper Julia Parfitt - Alternate |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 16 August 2017 |
|
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
8.1 Regional Facilities Auckland 5
8.2 New Zealand Transport Agency Update 6
8.3 Torbay Sailing Club 6
9 Public Forum 6
10 Extraordinary Business 6
11 Notices of Motion 7
12 Envirofill and Weiti Developments sediment discharge enquiry 9
13 Landowner approval for offset mitigation planting of D'Oyly Reserve Stanmore Bay 73
14 Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for August 2017 79
15 Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development Six Monthly Report to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 141
16 Feedback on the proposed direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan 157
17 Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services 171
18 Ward Councillors Update 177
19 Land owner application for permanent access through an easement agreement on an unclassified plantation reserve at 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, from 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads. 179
20 Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 187
21 Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for Quarter Four, 1 April - 30 June 2017 201
22 Governance Framework Review 245
23 Feedback on Takaroa Investing in Play Discussion Document 269
24 Submissions and Feedback on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Board Plan 2017 293
25 Local board involvement in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 327
26 Approval for new road names for the Long Bay Subdivision at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay - SUB60033219 331
27 Governance Forward Work Calendar 337
28 Record of Workshop Meetings 341
29 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.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 19 July 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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.
Executive summary 1. Judy Lawley from Regional Facilities Auckland will be in attendance to present an overview of Regional Facilities Auckland.
|
Recommendation/s That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Thank Ms Lawley for her presentation.
|
Executive summary 1. Mr Peter Clark from New Zealand Transport Agency will be in attendance to provide an update on NZTA projects in the local board area.
|
Recommendation/s That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Thank Mr Clark for his presentation.
|
Executive summary 1. Michelle Bain of the Torbay Sailing Club has requested a deputation to make a presentation on the upgrade of the Torbay Sailing Club.
|
Recommendation/s That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Thank Ms Bain for her 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.
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 16 August 2017 |
|
Envirofill and Weiti Developments sediment discharge enquiry
File No.: CP2017/14552
Purpose
1. This report has been requested by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to report in regards to the sediment discharge from the Envirofill cleanfill site, situated at 1627 East Coast Road, Redvale and the recent streamworks at the Weiti Village Development.
Executive summary
2. On 21 June 2017, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board received a presentation by Lezette Reid and Geoff Reid from the Friends of Okura Group. Concerns were raised about the amount of sediment running into Karepiro Bay from the Envirofill site during heavy rain and also about the stream blockage on the Weiti Village development site.
3. This report identifies that the sediment discharge is within scope of industry standards and the streamworks comply with resource consent requirements.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) receive the Envirofill and Weiti Developments sediment discharge enquiry report.
|
Comments
Resource Consents associated to Envirofill
4. On 8 July 2016, three resource consents were granted at the Envirofill cleanfill site situated at 1627 East Coast Road, Redvale.
5. Resource consent LAN-65387 was granted to expand an existing cleanfill operation, including the importation of approximately 1,420,000m³ of clean fill and non-cleanfill material (managed fill), under an acceptance criteria over an area of 12.38ha. The works will be undertaken within two stages:
· stage 3 - 800,000m³ over an area of approximately 5.93ha (over the top of the previous stage 2 footprint for LAN 40949); and
· stage 4 - 620,000m³ over an area of approximately 6.45ha (over the top of the previous stage 1 footprint for LAN 40949).
6. The proposal also included the reclamation of approximately 31 metres of an intermittent watercourse, which will be filled in as a result of the fill operation, as well as earthworks over an area of approximately 13ha, across two separate stages and sub-stages. The application states that it is anticipated the cleanfill/managed fill as proposed will have a lifespan until approximately 2025-2027.
7. Resource consent REG-65390 and REG-65389 were granted to conduct stream works and discharge contaminants to:
· develop stages 3 and 4 (stage 1 and 2 extensions) of existing cleanfill,
· bulk earthworks stage 3 (stage 2 extension) - 800,000m³,
· bulk earthworks stage 4 (stage 1 extension) - 620,000m³,
· continued use of existing vehicle crossing and existing 1km internal road,
· continued use of sediment pond exceeding TP 90 requirements,
· discharge contaminants; and
· stream works (infilling culvert and 31m of the upper central watercourse).
Overview of site investigations at Envirofill
8. A suite of conditions were imposed within the Envirofill consents to ensure, amongst other things, the protection of the receiving environment. These conditions are monitored by council staff and senior earthworks specialist on a regular basis to ensure compliance. In addition, a number of specialist reports have been provided to council to confirm all stormwater discharge into the Karepiro Stream contains no more than acceptable levels of sediment.
9. There is no requirement contained within the resource consent granted to test for contaminants leaching from the site, however there is a requirement for all imported cleanfill to be below a consented limit of contamination prior to entering the site. Having said this, Envirofill commissioned a chemical test of the surface water leaving the site from two downstream locations to identify the concentration of contamination present (Attachment A). In summary, the chemical test identified extremely low levels of contaminants as would be expected on a compliant site.
10. Site inspection reports are completed after each inspection is conducted by the senior earthworks specialist (Attachment B). The vast majority of these reports have a shown no significant levels of non-compliance. There are two reports that required remedial action to upgrade erosion and sediment control devices, with one poor score due to a major slip that occurred in June 2016.
11. Council have received water sample data from Hills Laboratories, taken on the site during rain events as recently experienced this year (Attachment C). This testing identifies the levels of sediment contained in the stormwater discharging from the site towards the Karepiro Stream. The samples obtained have identified that the stormwater devices are operating effectively as designed.
12. In addition to the above monitoring regime Envirofill have commissioned their own professional independent consultant to inspect the site on a regular basis. This is currently done on a weekly basis.
Resource Consent for stream works at Weiti Village development
13. Auckland Regional Council granted Permit 34156, aurthorising the damming of water with off stream dams for the landscape lake, wetlands and wetland features in accordance with section 13, 14 and 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991
Overview of site investigations at Weiti Village development
14. The stream works in question, consisting of approximately 30 metres of infill in an area referred to as the Hay Paddock, obtained approval through the former Auckland Regional Council (Attachment D) and ultimately the Environment Court.
15. Prior to granting any resource consent, a full assessment of environmental effects is undertaken. In this instance, the stream works being conducted will ultimately create wetlands. This will give habitat for a wide range of wildlife, whereas the land is currently a grassed paddock, and the wetlands will assist with the treatment of stormwater from the catchment above.
16. The earthworks and stream works at this site have been regularly inspected by council’s senior earthworks specialists who have confirmed that the works have been, and continue to be, undertaken in full compliance with resource consent requirements.
17. I note that there is some debate between the community groups’ experts and council’s experts regarding the tidal influence and connectivity of this stream. I believe this matter was also considered and debated during the Environment Court proceedings that concluded with the granting of the subject consent.
18. It is council’s understanding that the estuarine stream referred to as the centre stream is not tidal and that the water levels contained within this stream are only influenced by the water table levels rather than tidal flow. As such, the connectivity between the stream and the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) only eventuates during heavy rain events when stormwater would breach the dune area and connect with the CMA. Therefore, any habitat contained within this particular stream would not use or rely upon entry/exit to the CMA.
19. In addition, Williams Land Limited have also commissioned a report in May 2017 investigating the stream works and their relationship to the immediate environment, in particular the existence of a sandbar in Karepiro Bay and its reliance of the centre stream (Attachment E). This report concludes that today there are no features on the beach that resemble a sand bar, which is fed by sediment from the stream discharge. Nor is there any tidal channel away from the discharge location.
20. I have been advised that the stream is not part of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and that the Gazetted maps identifying the Long Bay Marine Reserve do not contain the centre stream in question.
21. Considering all of the above matters, I am satisfied that the development has the appropriate consents and is in full compliance with them.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
22. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board had requested this report as a result of a public forum presentation on 21 June 2017. This report is for the local board’s information.
Māori impact statement
23. Consultation with Māori was initially undertaken as part the application and assessment process for resource consent for the Weiti Development. They have not been involved in this particular point of interest.
Implementation
24. Site inspections have been conducted and further documentation was requested due to Lezette Reid’s concerns. Water sampling has been conducted at Envirofill’s expense over and above what is required of them within the resource consent conditions or council’s immediate concerns. The site will continue to be monitored by the senior earthworks specialists to ensure compliance on a regular basis.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Chemical Test Results from two locations |
13 |
b⇩ |
Site Inspection Reports |
17 |
c⇩ |
Water Sample Data |
45 |
d⇩ |
Site Plan |
61 |
e⇩ |
Copy Beca Report |
63 |
Signatories
Authors |
Kerry Flynn – Team Leader Northern Monitoring Compliance |
Authorisers |
Steve Pearce – Manager Compliance |
16 August 2017 |
|
Landowner approval for offset mitigation planting of D'Oyly Reserve Stanmore Bay
File No.: CP2017/13547
Purpose
1. To seek approval from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for mitigation planting of the historical stream running through D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay.
Executive summary
2. Development of 8 Link Crescent (family centre site) and 20 Link Crescent (housing development site), Stanmore Bay, will result in an unavoidable loss of streams and wetlands within the subject site. Through the resource consent process, this loss has been required to be offset through the enhancement of streams and wetlands as close as possible to the affected sites where loss will occur.
3. The currently piped stream in D’Oyly Reserve presents an ideal opportunity for meeting these offset requirements as a result of the development at 8 and 20 Link Crescent, Stanmore Bay.
4. The remainder of D’Oyly Reserve may also provide offset opportunities for additional offset requirements as a result of future stream or wetland loss. Restoration of streams in advance of offset requirements provides an opportunity for more efficient consenting processes and better ecological outcomes.
5. This project will contribute to the local board’s outcome of “a protected and enhanced environment” – the offset proposal would result in a net gain in ecological function and stormwater treatment.
6. The costs associated with the ecological offset mitigation requirements as a result of the proposed subdivision at 8 and 20 Link Crescent, Stanmore Bay, will be met by Panuku and Auckland Council’s Heathy Waters department.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) approve the landowner approval request for mitigation planting in D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay b) delegate to the Manager Land Advisory Services, Community Facilities exercising of their delegation to execute the land owner approval for mitigation planing of the historical stream running through D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay .
|
Comments
7. D’Oyly Reserve currently comprises mown parkland on top of what was historically a stream environment. The reserve has negligible ecological value and no formalised recreational opportunities. The reserve is primarily used for informal recreation as it is a lawn area although this use is restricted due to the boggy conditions in winter. In addition to low grade slopes through the reserve which inhibit effective drainage, the stormwater pipe running beneath D’Oyly Reserve has a relatively small capacity, and surcharges from this pipe end up flowing through the reserve within an overland flow path, contributing to wet conditions.
8. It is proposed to return the piped stream to the surface by bringing the water within the pipe, which is fed by a relatively large upstream catchment, into a reinstated natural stream bed. The stream channel would be designed to have sufficient capacity to convey natural flows, and suitable riparian margins would be established to create an ecologically sound and attractive stream environment. Both passive and active amenity opportunities (potentially including cycleways, lawn play areas, park ‘furniture’, outdoor classrooms, view points, and walkways) would be integrated into the design, taking into account local board, parks, and community needs (including local schools). Opportunities for improving water quality would be integrated into the design through wetland creation, which would serve a dual purpose (to offset wetland loss and ‘polish’ stormwater flows).
9. Resource consents LAN-66945 (Stage 1) and LAN-67343 (Stage 2) have been granted. The consents have been separated into two stages however the works will be completed as one project. Initial discussions with iwi, parks, HealthyWaters and Environmental and Infrastructure Services have been positive. The stormwater flood mitigation function of the reserve would be retained.
10. The scope of work would at minimum comprise the downstream 250 metres of D’Oyly Reserve up to the existing stormwater dam wall. However, design and consent work have considered the remainder of D’Oyly Reserve, so that additional areas may also be improved (subject to discussions with Watercare regarding their wastewater pipelines running through the reserve).
11. The project is an opportunity for improvement of a council and community asset (D’Oyly Reserve), which would otherwise not take place due to significant costs. The proposed changes would create a public space more in line with the current land use of the reserve, which comprises active open space.
12. The project aligns with national and regional policy, including the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2014), Auckland Plan, Auckland Unitary Plan Operative In Part, Auckland Biodiversity Strategy, and the draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction.
13. The project is a great opportunity for exploring public–private partnering, enabling sensible growth in the region by working together across council and with external stakeholders.
14. The costs associated with the ecological offset mitigation requirements as a result of the proposed subdivision at 8 and 20 Link Crescent, Stanmore Bay, will be met by Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Council’s Heathy Waters department.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
15. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board have previously received a memo outlining the scope of work and consider the application more than minor. The proposal aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board outcomes of protecting and enhancing the environment. It also aligns with creating a quality network of open spaces and recreation facilities for residents. This report has been prepared for their review and seeks their approval for the proposal.
Māori impact statement
16. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. In particular natural environment protection and water quality are of significant importance to Mana Whenua in their role as kaitiaki. Panuku accordingly developed a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region and contacts these groups for feedback and input whenever there is change considered for a Panuku Development Auckland managed property.
17. There are thirteen mana whenua hapū with registered interests in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. Consultation with these groups on the proposed development at 8 and 20 Link Crescent, Stanmore Bay commenced through Panuku’s predecessor in March 2014. Contact was made with mandated representatives from the iwi authorities for these groups to gain feedback around the proposed residential and open space development on the site. Consultation included feedback around potential location for the planned family centre.
18. Representatives from Ngati Maru, Ngati Manuhiri and Te Kawerau a Maki provided input into the project at this time. Mana whenua commentary and queries on water source, water management and ecological values of the land has been worked into planning for the site. The off-site mitigation plan for D’Oyly Reserve has been a result of collaborative work with these three groups.
19. An update on consultation since March 2014, and an outline of the D’Oyly Reserve off-site mitigation plan was provided to all thirteen mana whenua hapu in December 2015. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki signaled their interest in becoming involved in further planning for these sites at that time. The initial discussion with the Ngati Manuhiri representative in December highlighted again the importance of water quality, a desire to provide input as to the design and selection of plants, ability for Maori organisations to provide competitive bids for the supply of the plants and planting and the opportunity that the works could provide educational merits.
20. Site visits and further discussion with all interested groups is planned prior to works being undertaken in January 2018. Collaborative work will continue through the implementation of the project plan. Interested groups include at minimum the local board, parks, environmental services, healthy waters and iwi. Further consultation will include workshops, focus group meetings, and the establishment of a steering group (which will include the above parties). This will be undertaken prior to physical works.
21. Panuku and the Auckland Council’s Heathy Waters team (in collaboration with the other infrastructure and environment staff as required) will manage the community engagement with interested parties and will provide regular updates to the local board.
Implementation
22. Panuku and Auckland Council’s Heathy Waters Department, in collaboration, will regularly report on the implementation of this project through the quarterly performance report update, with progress reported to the steering group every three months. Any significant changes to this project will be brought back to the local board for approval.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
D'Oyly Planting Plan |
77 |
Signatories
Authors |
George McMahon – Land Use Advisor |
Authorisers |
Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for August 2017
File No.: CP2017/15800
Purpose
1. To respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects, a summary of consultation material sent to the local board and information on transport-related matters of specific application and interest to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and its community.
Executive summary
2. This particular report provides updates and information on:
· The local board’s Transport Capital Fund Projects;
· Consultations on regulatory processes;
· Traffic Control Committee results;
· Issues Raised by Elected Members;
· Whangaparaoa Dynamic Laning;
· Quarterly Report Materials;
· Browns Bay Parking Study;
· Creation of City Rail Link Ltd;
· Waterview tunnel opened;
· Airport Access;
· New 10-year Cycling Strategy; and
· The Auckland Cycling Account.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) notes the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for August 2017.
|
Comments
Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Capital Fund Projects
3. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) has now been operating for five years.
4. The budget for the 2016/2017 financial year was $10.6m, but with projects carried forward from previous years, the actual spend was $16.2m. This was however augmented with a further $17.5m of Auckland Transport (AT) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) spending.
5. A total of 79 projects were completed during 2016/2017, ranging from shared paths to traffic calming, bridges, seating, a covered walkway at a railway station and a new ferry facility at Half Moon Bay.
6. As at 14 July 2017 the balance of LBTCF monies available to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for allocation prior to 30 June 2019 was $1,812,442 comprising:
· $494,000 from the 2016/2017 financial year;
· $649,799 from the 2017/2018 financial year; and
· $668,643 from the 2018/2019 financial year.
7. An additional amount of $688,702 is available to the local board from the 2019/2020 financial year commencing on 1 July 2019.
8. A range of projects are being considered by the local board’s Transport Interest Group (TIG) and will be brought to the local board for confirmation before being assessed against the criteria for the LBTCF by AT staff. Assuming these projects meet the criteria, a rough order of cost for each will be provided for further consideration by members.
Consultations on Regulatory Processes
9. No feedback has been requested from the local board on regulatory processes since AT’s update report for July 2017.
Traffic Control Committee Results
10. Decisions made in relation to regulatory processes by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area during July are listed below:
Street Name, Suburb |
Report Type |
Nature of Restriction |
Decision |
Rishworth Avenue / Karepiro Drive, Stanmore Bay |
Permanent Traffic and Parking changes |
No Stopping At All Times, Flush Median, Traffic Island, Edge Lines, Give Way Control |
Carried |
Millwater Parkway / Stables Lane / The Settlement / Galbraith Greens, Silverdale |
Permanent Traffic and Parking changes |
No Right Turn, Lane Restrictions, Angle Parking, Loading Zone, P60 Parking, Mobility Parking, Footpath, Give-Way Control, Flush Median |
Carried |
Glamorgan Drive / East Coast Road, Browns Bay |
Permanent Traffic and Parking changes |
No Stopping At All Times, Lane Restrictions, Traffic Island, Footpath, Give-Way Control, Flush Median |
Carried |
Issues Raised by Elected Members
11. The following table lists issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 2 August 2017:
|
Location |
Issue |
Status |
1 |
Glenvar Glade, Torbay |
Request for signage restricting heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) on Glenvar Glade, Torbay. |
Member Cooper requested a second sign prior to the intersection of Glenvar Road/Ian Sage Avenue in Torbay on 16 March 2017, advising that Glenvar Glade is restricted to HCVs and encouraging these drivers to seek an alternate route. Under consideration by Traffic Engineering. |
2 |
Moenui Avenue, Orewa |
Request for second footpath on Moenui Road, Orewa. |
Member Parfitt requested a second footpath on Moenui Avenue, Orewa, on 21 March 2017, advising that that there was no ramp access for wheel chairs or mobility scooters to the existing footpath, necessitating use of the grass verge or the road to access a ramp onto the footpath. Referred to AT's Walking and Cycling Team for response. |
3 |
Beach Road, Mairangi Bay |
Request that the zebra crossing on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, be raised. |
Member Cooper asked on 8 May 2017 that the crossing on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, be raised to allow easier and safer crossing for pedestrians. On 31 July 2017 members of the TIG were advised that a check of police reported crashes for this area over the last five years had indicated there had been no incidents involving pedestrians recorded in NZTA’s crash database. A vehicle speed survey carried out in the area of the crossing during the week 16-22 June 2017 had shown that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85 percent of all vehicles are observed to travel under free flowing conditions past a nominated point) was 32.7 km/h. There is a refuge island at the existing pedestrian crossing which reduces the safe crossing distance by half and provides protection for waiting pedestrians at the centre of the road and site observations had shown that pedestrians had no issue crossing at this location due to the low speed environment. Based on these factors installation of a raised table at this location could not be justified. |
4 |
Knights Road, Rothesay Bay |
Request for improved safety on Knights Road, Rothesay Bay. |
Member Parfitt asked on behalf of a constituent on 2 June 2017 for an investigation into improved safety on Knights Road, Rothesay Bay, in light of continuing high vehicle speeds and accidents. Referred to Network Operations and Safety. |
5 |
Hibiscus Coast |
General queries about Special Event Buses. |
Cr Watson asked on 14 June 2017 on behalf of a constituent whether the promoter had paid for all public transport services to Eden Park for the recent Lions vs. Blues rugby match; how much the ratepayers had subsidised the transport services for the event; if ratepayers had subsidised the transport costs for this event, why was this subsidy only available to some and not all ratepayers (i.e. those travelling from the Hibiscus Coast/Silverdale area); were special buses/trains laid on for this event or was subsidised travel also available on normal scheduled services; if subsidised travel was available on a mix of normal and special services, why were those on the Hibiscus Coast excluded from travel even on the normal services; had the ratepayers of Auckland ever subsidised travel costs for a function to the benefit of a commercial promoter and if so by how much; and what was the benefit to the ratepayer if such a thing was happening. On 1 August 2017 Cr Watson was advised under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act that the special event buses had been jointly funded by AT and the event organiser, with the cost to ratepayers being $110,474.10. He was advised that the areas that receive free public transport are recommended by AT and approved by the event organiser. Free travel was only available on buses and trains with a valid event ticket. AT only provides public transport to events where there is a commercial agreement between AT and the event organiser in place, or when not having a service will cause large disruption to the public. |
6 |
Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale |
Pedestrian access across Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale. |
Member Parfitt forwarded the concerns of a Whangaparaoa resident regarding safe access, particularly for the disabled, from the east of Hibiscus Coast Highway to the new Silverdale Centre (the mall, medical centre etc.) Referred to Network Operations and Safety. |
7 |
Beach Road, Mairangi Bay |
Request for 'Welcome to' signage on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay. |
Member Cooper asked on 14 July 2017 that ‘Welcome to Mairangi Bay Village’ signs, of the style recently installed at the entrance to Silverdale Village, be installed in the berms at the intersection of Brighton Terrace / Beach Road adjacent to 1D Brighton Terrace, (i.e. North of the village) and the intersection of Newhaven Terrace / Beach Road adjacent to 346 Beach Road, (i.e. 2 – South of the village) Referred to Traffic Engineering for consideration. |
8 |
Glenvar Road, Torbay |
Request for installation of a second lane on Glenvar Road at its intersection with East Coast Road, Torbay. |
Member Parfitt asked on 14 July 2017 that consideration be given to easing the right turn out of Glenvar Road, Torbay onto East Coast Road by widening the left hand side of the exit and repainting the centre line. This would allow installation of a second lane, so that larger right-turning vehicle can swing across onto East Coast Road and not hold up traffic behind them, also allowing left turning vehicles to reach the intersection more rapidly, make their turn and others to move up into their place, considerably reducing the long back up queues. Referred to Traffic Engineering for consideration. |
Whangaparaoa Road Dynamic Laning
12. Auckland Transport’s responses to the resolutions made by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its meeting on 16 July with regard to the Whangaparaoa Road Dynamic Laning Project (HB/2017/1) follow:
b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes that the local board has raised concerns over the Whangaparaoa Road Dynamic Laning Project in its current form about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles exiting both side roads and properties along Whangaparaoa Road.
13. While the dynamic lane controls on Whangaparaoa Road have been designed to increase efficiency and to trial a valuable tool for addressing congestion on Whangaparaoa Road and across the region, the safety of road users is also a key element of the design. To optimise safety, AT have undertaken an independent safety audit of the preliminary design and are currently undertaking a second safety audit of the latest design. These safety audits are undertaken by independent parties and are carried out to identify and mitigate safety risks.
14. Monitoring of safety is also a critical component of the trial. AT will be implementing a series of CCTV cameras along the trial route to facilitate active and accurate monitoring of the trial. The issues highlighted will be closely considered as part of the monitoring. AT will seek to act quickly where significant issues arise through mitigation measures or ultimately a halt of the trial if it is deemed unsafe.
15. AT acknowledges that removal of the flush median may cause some delay for right turners and it is expected that right turning vehicles will block through lanes at various times. Those users that are not confident in making right turns during peak periods may need to change their travel routes which may result in increased travel times. However, it should be noted that there are a number of other sections of busy, multilane roads across Auckland which operate without flush medians.
16. Pedestrians crossing Whangaparaoa Road between Hibiscus Coast Highway and Red Beach Road currently experience difficulty due to the consistent stream of traffic in peak periods. Consequently, AT’s survey data shows very few pedestrians currently cross mid-block away from signals. As part of the trial AT will encourage pedestrians to make their way to either the Red Beach Road or Hibiscus Coast Highway intersections to cross. While there is not a footpath for the entire section, there is berm which pedestrians can use. AT recognises that this is an inconvenience to pedestrians who are centrally located on this stretch of road. While the installation of new pedestrian facilities is not a part of this trial, AT will monitor and consider improved pedestrian facilities as a separate project, should the trial prove successful. Part of the monitoring will also include confirming whether the change in layout results in more gaps in traffic for safer pedestrian crossing opportunities due to the previous single-file queue of traffic along Whangaparaoa Road being split across two lanes.
17. Survey data also indicates that there are very few cyclists using this section of Whangaparaoa Road. Reduced lane widths and removal of the flush median during peak periods will constrain the available space for motorists to pass cyclists, however providing two lanes of flow in the predominant direction will enable vehicles to change lanes in order to pass cyclists. The reduction in speed limit at the beginning of the trial should contribute to mitigating safety concerns for cyclists.
18. Throughout the trial, AT will closely monitor travel times, driver behaviour, delay for right turners and the safety of everyone using the road. The impact of the scheme on pedestrians, cyclists and right turners together with any change in travel times will be factored into reporting on the success of the trial. If at any time during the operation of dynamic lanes there are issues that result in a significant safety concern, the configuration of the road will be returned to its existing format.
c) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request AT urgently report back on the specific concerns raised about the dynamic laning trial and confirm the changes they intend making as a result of local board and community feedback, including:
i. confirmation that traffic lights will be phased to give traffic, pedestrians and cyclists exiting side roads and properties enough time to safely cross or access Whangaparaoa Road
19. We believe that the current phasing of traffic lights will create sufficient gaps to give traffic, pedestrians and cyclists exiting side roads and properties enough time to safely cross or access Whangaparaoa Road. The site will also be actively monitored at our control centre and AT will actively manage the phasing of traffic signals to optimise the movement of traffic. It should also be noted that the change in layout which will split the previous single-file queue along Whangaparaoa Road across two lanes, may also create more gaps.
ii. whether this dynamic laning solution will work on a road corridor rather than a bridge.
20. Our analysis indicates that the use of a dynamic lane will work on road corridors. Whangaparaoa Road was chosen as the site of the trial because it best fits the criteria needed for the successful implementation of a dynamic lane system on a road corridor. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether the analysis is correct. If the trial is successful on Whangaparaoa Road, dynamic lanes may be rolled out to relieve congestion on other arterials in the region where appropriate.
d) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request AT advise what other measures will be looked at to address the volumes of traffic travelling along Whangaparaoa Road at peak times such as providing a direct express bus to take commuters to and from the Silverdale Bus Station
21. AT is currently in discussions with AT Metro regarding the possibility of providing an express bus to the Hibiscus Coast Station. Should the dynamic lane trial be successful, there is also potential for the dynamic lane system to be adapted to create a special vehicle lane instead of a second general vehicle lane which would further encourage public transport use and car-pooling.
e) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request AT advise if there is the ability to have two left turning lanes onto Hibiscus Coast Highway rather than funnelling traffic into one lane.
22. Following feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board as well as the local community, we are investigating the possibility of allowing left turns to occur from the kerb side west bound through lane to Silverdale at the Hibiscus Coast Highway intersection.
23. The possibility of widening the left turn slip lane at the intersection was investigated during the design phase of this project. Regrettably it was found that an extra lane cannot be provided without significant road widening work which falls outside of the strategic and financial scope of this project. However, this will be investigated further based on data gathered by this trial and will be a consideration following the trial, should it be successful.
f) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request AT advise if it is possible to trial the PM peak option only as there are two right turning lanes of traffic into Whangaparaoa Road from Hibiscus Coast Highway.
24. To address the principle concerns raised by residents along the affected trial area (making right turns in and out of side streets and attempting to cross the road on foot during peak times) and to allow road users to further familiarise themselves with the system, we will commence operating dynamic lanes during the afternoon peak period only (4.00-6.00pm) for the first three months of the trial.
25. The PM peak is when we believe the system will be operating at peak efficiency and road users will see the most improvement and benefit to travel time.
26. The dynamic lanes on Whangaparaoa Road will be closely monitored for the duration of the trial and adaptive changes, such as to the phasing of signals at either intersection or the times when dynamic lanes are active, can and will be made if warranted.
27. Should no critical issues emerge in the first three months of the trial, AT will look to testing the system during the morning peak (6.30-9.00am) for a one-month period.
28. Although the impact on morning peak travel times is not expected to be as significant as in the afternoon peak, due to there being only one lane turning left towards the city at the Hibiscus Coast Highway intersection, some improvement is expected as the centre lane will provide separate access for traffic heading to neighbouring Silverdale. The benefits of this movement will likely increase as development in Silverdale and Millwater continues to grow. There is also likely to be additional benefit should any change in the left turn arrangement at this intersection be introduced.
29. If a noticeable improvement is detected, we will continue to operate dynamic lanes during the AM peak and vice versa. Nevertheless, AT reserves the right to make changes to the operating times of dynamic lanes at all times.
30. Regardless of the outcome, the data collected at this time will allow us to build a clear and documented profile of what would be necessary to make the dynamic system work during the morning peak which will inform, and may influence, further investigations into a permanent solution for Whangaparaoa Road.
g) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board note that AT has confirmed that the space is sufficient for three lanes, to allow for two PM peak lanes entering Whangaparaoa Road from Hibiscus Coast Highway in the vicinity of Panorama Court.
31. AT can confirm that the width of Whangaparaoa Road is sufficient to allow three lanes throughout its length. The road is generally 10m wide along the route, with the narrowest point being 9.6m wide, which is wide enough to accommodate three lanes. This complies with the AT Code of Practice for the width of lanes on arterial roads.
h) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request confirm that there will be a programme for driver and pedestrian education prior to the trial taking place.
32. Information regarding the operation of dynamic lanes on Whangaparaoa Road is already available at www.at.govt.nz and further communications initiatives will be undertaken to educate all road users prior to the start of the trial.
i) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request that AT provides regular updates on the trial to the local board over the first three months in the AT monthly report and after the initial three month period on a quarterly basis.
33. AT will be carrying out regular monitoring during the trial period and will provide the Local Board with the requested feedback one a monthly basis for the first three months of operation. Following that reports will be provided on a quarterly basis or as needed.
Quarterly Report Materials
34. AT’s Quarterly Report Materials for the period January – March 2017 were circulated to members under separate cover on 10 May 2017. The following attachments for the April to June 2017 quarter are made available with this report for the public record:
· Attachment A – Report from AT departments on activities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area over the past quarter
· Attachment B – Report on TravelWise Schools activities.
Browns Bay Parking Study
35. AT’s Parking Design Team Leader Alok Vashista and Parking Designer Pablo Sanchez discussed the results of a parking study carried out in the Browns Bay Town Centre with the local board on 25 May 2017.
36. The Browns Bay Town Centre Parking Review Report, which was finalised subsequent to that discussion, and the parking questionnaire referred to in that report are attached as Attachments C and D respectively.
Creation of City Rail LInk Ltd
37. Auckland’s Mayor Phil Goff, Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore, and Ministers Steven Joyce and Simon Bridges formalised a partnership on 30 June 2017 between the Government and Auckland Council, creating CRL Ltd, which will deliver the 3.45 kilometre City Rail Link, New Zealand’s largest infrastructure project.
38. When complete, the $3.4 billion City Rail Link (CRL) will create two new underground stations (Aotea and Karangahape) and double both the number and carrying capacity of trains on the Auckland network.
39. Approximately 60% of New Zealand’s population growth over the next 30 years is expected to occur in the Auckland region. The construction of the CRL will help ease pressure on Auckland roads and provide training opportunities, apprenticeships and jobs for thousands of Kiwi construction workers.
40. Up to 1,600 people will be needed to build Auckland’s City Rail Link during the project’s peak period of operation, with at least 600 general construction workers and others with more specialised skills. There will be opportunities for new entrants to the workforce and for more experienced staff.
41. CRL Ltd is a crown entity owned by the Crown and Auckland Council. The company has full governance, operational and financial responsibility for the CRL, with clear delivery targets and performance expectations.
42. KiwiRail has a formal role in ensuring the CRL's inter-operability with the wider rail network and the services, such as freight, that it provides. AT and KiwiRail are engaged by CRL Ltd to provide technical and operational support services.
Waterview tunnel opened
43. The Waterview Connection opened to traffic on 2 July 2017, five years after construction began on the $1.4b project. The tunnel links Auckland’s North-western and South-western motorways and is the final link in the Western Ring Route, one of the Government’s Roads of National Significance.
44. The 48km Western Ring Route provides greater reliability and resilience, as well as more transport options, with bus lanes, walking and cycling connections and the creation of efficient links to and from Auckland Airport. While not designed to remove peak time congestion altogether, the connection will provide a better balance of traffic flows across the road network, removing cars from local roads.
45. NZTA will monitor traffic flows on the Waterview Connection carefully over the next few months and will continue to work with AT to monitor and manage traffic flows across the transport system.
46. For more information about the Western Ring Route and the Waterview Connection visit:
47. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/the-western-ring-route/waterview-tunnel
Airport Access
48. AT is progressing a business case for route protection for mass transit from the airport to the city centre, investigating both bus and light rail transit (LRT) options for this corridor. Studies to date have concluded that the benefits of an LRT system outweigh those of heavy rail.
49. The context for this discussion are the numerous studies that have already contributed to the decision-making, including the South-Western Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit study (SMART), on completion of which the heavy rail option was discounted.
50. An information memo for members about the process is attached to this report as Attachment E.
New 10-year Cycling Strategy
51. AT has worked with NZTA on a strategy for cycling for Auckland for the 2018 – 2028 period which was presented to the AT Board on 1 August 2017 and will go before the NZTA Board on 25 August 2017.
52. The programme looks at the opportunity for cycling in Auckland - 230,000 people live within a 30-minute bike ride of the city and 54% of people say they would cycle if conditions were right. Cycling in Auckland is also perceived as being unsafe, and there are some serious safety issues for people on bikes outside of the protected cycleway network.
53. The strategy includes both building new cycling infrastructure, continuing the work already underway, together with complementary initiatives such as cycle training, events and investigation into a cycle share scheme. A map is used to show what the priority areas for development are and in what order funding would be spent.
54. The cost to deliver this programme is $635m, comprising $600m for infrastructure development and $35 million for complementary initiatives. This is not committed spend however, rather funding would be allocated through the normal planning processes of the Integrated Transport Programme, the National Land Transport Plan and the Long Term Plan, with the programme providing a guide as to how allocated funding would be spent.
55. Time has been invested in consultation within NZTA and AT, with local boards where investment is considered near the start of the process, and with external stakeholders. Bike Auckland has made an important contribution and feedback has also been received from Greater Auckland, the Automobile Association and Generation Zero.
56. An external facing Cycling Strategy document is also being prepared to further engage the general public in this work.
The Auckland Cycling Account
57. AT has released its second annual Auckland Cycling Account which provides a snapshot of cycling in Auckland over 2016, highlights for the year, case studies and interesting facts.
58. Key Points include:
· 45,000 Aucklanders began cycling in 2016;
· 16.8km of cycling infrastructure was built during 2016;
· 995,000 cycle trips were recorded in Auckland during 2016;
· 80% of people say investment in cycling is important to provide more travel choices;
· 39% of Aucklanders are positive about the state of cycling in Auckland, compared to 22% in 2015;
· there has been a 62% increase in cycle trips in the city centre since 2013, a 34% increase in trips on the Grafton Gully cycleway since 2015; and a 27 per cent increase in trips on the North Western Cycleway since 2015.
59. The Auckland Cycling Account is available at: https://at.govt.nz/media/1973770/at-cycling-account-book-2017.pdf
Consideration
Local board views and implications
60. The local board’s views will be considered during consultation on any proposed schemes.
Māori impact statement
61. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.
Implementation
62. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Activities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area |
89 |
b⇩ |
Travelwise School Activities |
99 |
c⇩ |
Browns Bay Parking Report |
103 |
d⇩ |
Browns Bay Parking Questionnaire |
129 |
e⇩ |
Airport Acess Memorandum |
133 |
Signatories
Authors |
Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager North, Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon- Manager, Elected Member Relationship, Auckland Transport |
16 August 2017 |
|
Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development Six Monthly Report to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
File No.: CP2017/15623
Purpose
1. To present the six-monthly report from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development on their activities in the local board area.
Executive summary
2. This report provides the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with highlights of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s activities in the local board area for the six months from 1 January to 30 June 2017.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development six-monthly report period 1 January to 30 June 2017.
|
Comments
3. This report (Attachment A) provides the local board with an overview of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s (ATEED) activities for discussion.
4. The Local Economic Development team at ATEED is responsible for managing the delivery of the local board’s locally-driven initiatives’ operational budget allocation. Section 2.0 of the report details key progress on these projects, as well as an update on any activity to support local tourism within the local board area.
5. Section 2.0 also reports on the new system for managing ATEED’s local board engagement.
6. Section 3.0 of the report summarises the impact of ATEED’s regional programmes and initiatives that are delivered in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
7. The report is for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board information only.
Māori impact statement
8. Māori, as stakeholders in council, are affected and have an interest in any report on local activities. However, this performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Māori.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
ATEED Six Monthly Report to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board |
143 |
Signatories
Authors |
Michael Goudie - Senior Advisor, External Relations (ATEED) Richard Court – Manager, Operational Strategy and Planning (ATEED) Samantha-Jane Miranda - Operational Strategy Advisor (ATEED) |
Authorisers |
Richard Court - Manager, Operational Strategy and Planning (ATEED) |
16 August 2017 |
|
Feedback on the proposed direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan
File No.: CP2017/11869
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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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.
That the Hibiscus and Bays 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
Background
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 17 December 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. Previous feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays Local board at its 29 June 2017 workshop in relation to these issues is summarised below:
· Cats: Board members noted that chipping cats would help officers to return cats back to their owners and for staff to recognise unowned versus pet cats.
· Widespread pest plants: The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board would like to see enforcement for weed removal retained.
Hibiscus and Bays specific issues
18. In addition to the specific regional issues, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has provided informal feedback at its 29 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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.
· Education around pests: It is important to educate the public on the new weeds infesting the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area by requesting the public contact council to remove the emerging weeds such as Chinese Knotweed and Asiatic Knotweed. It is important that the public understand the reasons why contacting council to ensure expert removal is preferable to trying to remove these weeds themselves and what the issues are for our natural environment if these weeds continue to grow. Education is a key tool to influence our community and the local board would like to see stories run in the local newspapers and magazines on the best way to recognise pest plants and how to manage the removal and/or contact details for Auckland Council.
· Tahi area: The local board are keen to work with the Tahi Cluster (including the local boards within this cluster and the contractors) to provide economic and efficient ways of dealing with pests within the Tahi area including working with all the community volunteer groups.
· Community pest control: Support the use of our community volunteer groups to assist with the weed eradication and need to ensure they are trained and provided with right equipment for this removal.
20. Previous feedback from the local board through the 03 April 2013 business meeting (Resolution No. HB/2013/69) is noted, however the proposed regional pest management plan contains objectives for the management of pests (such as eradication or exclusion) and the methods of achieving these objectives will remain in operational policies; currently the Weed Management Policy.
21. This report seeks feedback from the local board on the direction of the proposed regional pest management plan, guided by the regional and local board relevant approaches outlined in this report. Attachment C has been provided to facilitate formal feedback from the local board at its August 2017 business meeting.
Financial implications
22. 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
23. A workshop was held with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 29 June 2017 where the issues raised in Attachments A and B were discussed. Feedback provided at this workshop has been considered under the Hibiscus and Bays specific issues in Attachment B.
Māori impact statement
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Some key topics raised during hui and kōrero with mana whenua included management of 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.
27. 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.
28. 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
29. 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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Key regional issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan |
163 |
b⇩ |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan |
165 |
c⇩ |
Feedback Form |
167 |
d⇩ |
Previous engagement on the Regional Pest Management Plan |
169 |
Signatories
Authors |
Dr Nick Waipara – Biosecurity Principal Advisor, Dr Imogen Bassett – Environmental Advisory Manager, and Rachel Kelleher – Biosecurity Manager. |
Authorisers |
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services
File No.: CP2017/14109
Purpose
1. To seek approval of local board input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services.
Executive summary
2. Auckland 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.
6. 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.
7. A briefing of the review was provided at regional local board cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.
8. Local boards informally discussed input to the review in workshops in June and July 2017 and are requested to formalise their input through resolution.
9. 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.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) approve the input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services by 18 August 2017.
|
Comments
Background
10. 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 funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.” (REG/2016/22)
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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
18. Local boards have detailed knowledge of both their individual bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs.
19. Some local boards provide funding to their local bureau in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx. Such funding is at the local board’s discretion.
20. 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
21. Local boards have discussed their input to the review informally at workshops during June and July 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided as a resource and to support the discussions.
22. 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.
23. The following questions guided the workshop discussions and where applicable the local 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?
24. 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
25. 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.
26. 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
27. 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 |
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Copy of informal feedback |
175 |
Signatories
Authors |
Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit, Arts, Community a |
Authorisers |
Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/15234
Purpose
1. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillors, Cr Wayne Walker and Cr John Watson, to update them on the activities of the governing body.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) thank Councillors Walker and Watson for their update.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 16 August 2017 |
|
Land owner application for permanent access through an easement agreement on an unclassified plantation reserve at 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, from 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads.
File No.: CP2017/16003
Purpose
1. To decline the land owner application from Davis Coastal Consultants, the applicant, on behalf of Gary George the owner of 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, Whangaparaoa, 0932, for permanent access with an easement agreement through an unclassified plantation reserve at 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, from 14 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads.
2. To investigate revoking the land status for 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 and offering the land to the applicant and adjoining neighbour at 10 Riverhaven Drive, for access with a pedestrian right of way/easement for Auckland Council.
Executive summary
3. A land owner approval request has been received from the applicant for permanent access through the unclassified plantation reserve at 12 Riverhaven Drive to numbers 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive, as indicated in Attachment A.
4. The reserve is legally described as Lot 111 DP 20805 and is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as an unclassified plantation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
5. The applicant has stated that alternative access to 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive is difficult due to the steep topography.
6. An access has already been formed over the plantation reserve as indicated in historical records, which is sometimes used by the owner at 10 Riverhaven Drive, however there is no consent or formal right of way or easement for this use. The applicant requests further driveways to be formed off this existing access which would provide ready access to the upper site, and can be amended to provide access to the lower part of the combined lots at numbers 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive.
7. This report recommends that staff investigate the revocation of the plantation reserve status, and subject to all necessary approvals and processes being carried out, offering the land for sale to adjoining neighbours at 10, 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive, while retaining public access with a pedestrian right of way for Auckland Council. This process requires formal approval and adoption from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Governing Body prior to public notification and iwi engagement and obtaining Department of Conservation consent. A hearing is required for any submissions received.
8. This provides a solution for access for the applicant and allows an access walkway/connectivity easement to be established for Auckland Council. This supports the adopted Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan - Local Paths Plan, December 2016, and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board outcome of providing quality local parks, reserves and facilities for our community.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) decline to grant a vehicular right of way over 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, to the owner of 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive b) endorse the Manager Land Advisory Services, Stakeholder and Land Advisory, Community Facilities seeking approval from the Governing Body to revoke the land status for 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads and if approved to proceed with public notification, iwi engagement and any subsequent hearings in accordance with accepted Auckland Council practice and to carry out the usual disposal report(s) for obligations on Council to offer the land back to the former owners. c) endorse approaching the neighbouring land owners at 10, 14 and 16 Riverhaven Drive regarding revoking the land status for 12 Riverhaven Drive, Wade Heads, under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 and then dispose of the land at 12 Riverhaven Drive in shares to the adjoining property owners subject to Auckland Council retaining a pedestrian right of way on the new title, assuming they are in favour of this solution. |
Comments
9. The following site specific details have been obtained for the unclassified plantation reserve:
· Auckland Unitary Plan zone – informal recreation zone
· identified as on a flood plain and sea spray zone
· overland flow path in part 2000m2 to 4000m2
· no hazards identified
· no notable trees
· identified as a significant ecological area (bush is cleared on the portion where access is requested and an initial site visit suggests that the bush is mainly non indigenous consisting of gum and pampas grasses but will require an arborist report - the lower portion was inaccessible due to the slope)
· not a contaminated site or closed landfill
· no sites or places of significance identified for mana whenua
· slope instability is high.
Background and historical context
10. Originally legal road access to the properties at Riverhaven Drive was via Fairhaven Walk, Wade River. This portion of unformed legal road runs along the foreshore and is below the Mean High Water Mark (MWHM) in places so it is not possible for a road to be constructed.
11. A local purpose reserve existed inland and ran along the rear boundary to the foreshore portion of Fairhaven Walk. An agreement was entered into between a group of owners, the Fairhaven Walk Association, and Rodney District Council to enable formed legal access and to declare this as a legal road now Riverhaven Drive. Due to the topography some of these properties still do not have practical access to the new road.
12. The applicant advises the site is inaccessible with the overall slope between the road and the lower site having a horizontal distance of 70 metres, with a vertical drop in elevation of approximately 32 metres. This would result in a straight road having a slope of 1:2. For comparison the upper part of Riverhaven Drive is at the maximum permissible road slope of 1:5.
13. Portions of the Riverhaven Drive formation, including in front of 16 and parts of 10, 12 and 14, have physical barriers constructed at the kerb which prevent vehicle crossings. The unformed part of the road, on average 8-10 metres in width at this point, is too steep to enable it to be used for direct practical access.
14. The applicant suggested that establishment and maintenance of the original proposed access way/easement through the public reserve would be the responsibility of the land owners and an easement could be placed on the titles to this effect.
Strategic context
15. The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways – Local Paths Plan, which was adopted in December 2016, includes the reserves at both number 12 and 38 Riverhaven Drive as local path connections, within the overall greenway network. The noted linkages across both these Riverhaven Drive reserves are not within the priority route section, however, relate to Priority Route 11 and the securing of connections from Riverhaven Drive / Whangaparoa Road to Fairhaven Walk.
16. The Greenways Plan was developed through wide public, internal and external agency and local board consultation with the feedback received reflected in the plan. It is considered advantageous to the greenways network to consider opportunities to establish either identified priority routes or overall network routes. Based on a desk top assessment, the reserve at 12 Riverhaven Drive presents itself as the most desirable for establishing a link between Riverhaven Drive and Fairhaven Walk.
Local context
17. The local community uses the Fairhaven Walk esplanade reserve to walk to the concrete wharf at the bottom of 22 Riverhaven Drive and to access Riverhaven Drive through private property, for fishing and walking. There would be approximately 120 metres along the esplanade reserve, before reaching the bottom of 12 Riverhaven Drive. If a walkway was built through number 12 it provides an easy loop around Fairhaven Walk, Riverhaven Drive, Scott Road and Wade River Road.
Technical input
18. The reserve will require detailed site surveying, including arboriculture, geotechnical and topography investigation to determine consenting, stability and overall route viability. The local board could request this at the applicant’s expense.
Specialist recommendations
19. Auckland Council’s parks and places specialists, the senior solicitor, legal property and commercial and the senior and maintenance service delivery coordinators have been consulted and support revoking the reserve status and including a walkway easement in favour of council on the new title.
Options and analysis
Option 1 - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board request staff to investigate and if feasible, revoke the reserve status and sell the land to the adjoining neighbours and include a walkway/easement in favour of Auckland Council on the title.
20. This would require:
a) the usual disposal investigations to be carried out, including confirmation that there is no requirement under the Public Works Act to offer the land back to the previous owners
b) conditional negotiations with the adjoining owners to fix a price for the land, with reference to agreed valuation determined by a registered valuer or Panuku Development Auckland taking into account the walkway /access easement registered against the titles in favour of Auckland Council. Agreement would also need to be reached between the neighbouring owners as to the shares in which they would hold the land and how they would share maintenance obligations between themselves
c) obtaining formal local board and Governing Body adoption for the revocation of the reserve status and disposal of 12 Riverhaven Drive
d) public notification and iwi engagement and a hearing if any submissions are received;
e) approaching Department of Conservation for consent to revoke the reserve status.
21. The potential effects of this approach are:
· a solution for access to the applicant
· would regularise the current unconsented use by the owner of 10 Riverhaven Drive
· no conflict of interest between private and public use
· no liability for council for unstable land or risk of slipping or being injured while using the steep driveway access
· meets statutory requirement for selling a plantation reserve
· supports the Greenways Plan adopted in December, 2016, that included public engagement and views on future access by providing a walkway linkage
· future access for public from this part of Riverhaven Drive to the wider area
· appropriate where park land is required for future growth occurring in the surrounding area
· ecological connectivity could be maintained
· given the location of the site and its connection to other public land, Fairhaven Walk, Scott Road and Wade River Road there is likely to be public support
· engineering and construction costs, additional plantings with advice from the eco arboriculture specialist and on-going maintenance could be requested from the applicant
· this approach creates a solution to the likely long time frames for establishing a walkway linkage in this location due to costs and budgeting priorities.
Option 2 – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board decline the land owner application for access
22. The following are the potential effects of this approach:
· a fast response for the applicant
· access will be difficult for the applicant through the steep site
· allows the access way/connectivity to be used as intended and as adopted by the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan
· provides appropriate use of the reserve, which should not be used for private use (unless directly recreationally focused)
· the owner of 10 Riverhaven Drive should be required to cease using the reserve for access.
Option 3 – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approve the landowner application and grant an easement for the applicant.
23. The process to grant a right of way easement under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 involves a local board workshop, public notification and iwi engagement. This requires a hearing if any submissions are received. Auckland Council Legal Services do not believe an easement could lawfully be granted under section 48, as a private right of way easement of the sort requested does not appear to meet any of purposes set out under section 48(1) of the Reserves Act. Any easement would also need consent of the Minister of Conservation (which has currently been delegated to Auckland Council officers). It would be problematic for staff to recommend the delegated authority be exercised in these circumstances. The reserve is also currently unclassified, so the classification process would need to be undertaken before any easement could be granted.
24. A legal easement agreement would then be established between Auckland Council and the applicant. All costs would be at the applicant’s expense including the valuation of the land provided for access and commercial consideration for the easement. The council would retain ownership and rights to use the land, subject to the existence of the access rights granted by the easement.
25. The following is a summary of the potential effects of this approach:
· this provides a solution for access for the applicant
· contrary to the Greenways Plan adopted in December 2016, that included public engagement and views on future access as access would be limited due to the private road
· liability for council for unstable land or risk of public slipping or being injured while using the shared steep access
· does not provide appropriate use of the reserve, which should not be used for private use (unless directly recreationally focused)
· all costs to be met by the applicant, and a commercial consideration to be charged for the easement rights and this could also be offered the owners of 10 Riverhaven Drive
· the reserve would need to first be classified before any easement could be granted
· issues around how construction and ongoing maintenance costs are to be shared between the owners of 10, 12 and 14 Riverhaven Drive would need to be agreed in negotiating easement terms and council would have to be satisfied that it had the ability to carry out regular safety inspections
· legal advice is not to support this action as it is a precedent of council to not grant an easement for private access over public reserves and this does not appear to meet the criteria in s48(1) for granting a right of way over a reserve. There is also the issue as to whether staff could recommend that delegated Minister of Conservation consent be exercised.
26. Overall, the applicant’s proposal for an easement is considered not to be acceptable due to the health and safety risks and liability issues for council. The solution of revoking the reserve status is a viable option as access is maintained for a public walkway and private use without council liability for the road access. Staff can recommend safety barriers and engineering solutions between the differing uses.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
27. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has not reviewed this landowner application previously. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has delegated authority to approve or to decline a landowner application.
28. Historically, by virtue of their location, many plantation reserves have been subject to unconsented access and encroachment, often by adjoining property owners. The reserve walkway formed as part of the sale agreement will provide public use and enjoyment and is consistent with the identified walkway in this location as outlined in the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways - Local Paths Plan, December 2016.
29. The application supports in part the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Outcome: to provide quality local parks, reserves and facilities for our community’.
Māori impact statement
30. If the application proceeded it is council’s practice to consult with all iwi as identified as having an interest in land in a local board’s respective geographical area.
31. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 is the driver for Iwi consultation with reserve lands and reads; “This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Auckland Council is expected (and as good practice) to fulfil the obligations of section 4 on behalf of the Crown as treaty partner when dealing with either council owned or council managed reserves.
32. The applicant has not engaged with iwi for this proposal at this stage.
Implementation
33. If agreement can be reached with the adjoining property owners around the terms of sale, including price and public pedestrian right of way easement to be granted back to council, staff can proceed to carry out the usual disposal investigations for 12 Riverhaven Drive, including confirming there are no section 40 Public Works Act obligations on council to offer the land back to the former owners. The process will include a report to the Governing Body, public notification, iwi engagement and any subsequent hearings in accordance with accepted Auckland Council practice and then to approach Department of Conservation for consent to revoke the reserve status of the land.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Attachment A: Diagram of access |
185 |
Signatories
Authors |
Raewyn Sendles - Land Use Advisor |
Authorisers |
Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
File No.: CP2017/15255
Purpose
1. To compare actual activities and performance with the intended activities and level of service set out in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The information is prepared as part of the local board’s accountability to the community for the 2016/2017 financial year.
Executive summary
2. The Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017 is currently being prepared and progressed through the external audit process. In late September 2017 the audit is expected to be completed and the final report will be approved and released to the public. The annual report will include performance results for each local board.
3. The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its local board agreement for 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service, and for the comments to be included in the annual report.
4. The performance measures reported on are those that were agreed on and included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This is the second time we are reporting an annual result for this set of measures.
5. The attached report is proposed for approval by the local board. The report includes the following sections:
- Message from the chairperson
- The year in review
- How we performed
- Financial information.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) notes the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the draft local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017. b) receives the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board report to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017. c) approves the message from the chairperson, which provides the local board’s comments on local board matters in the Annual Report 2016/2017. d) gives authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson to make minor typographical changes before submitting for final publication. |
Comments
6. The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the local board agreement 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 as follows:
Section 23 monitoring and reporting
1) Each local board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area.
2) Each annual report of the Auckland Council must include, in respect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that: –
i. compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year); and
ii. specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and
iii. gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.
7. Each local board must comment on the matters included in the annual report under subsection 2 above in respect of its local board area and the council must include those comments in the annual report.
8. This report focuses on the formal reporting referred to in section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion in the annual report 2016/2017.
9. The report contains the following sections:
|
Section |
Description |
a) |
Message from the chairperson |
Legislative requirement to include commentary from the local board on matters included in the report. |
b) |
The year in review - Financial performance - Highlights and achievements - Challenges |
Snapshot of the main areas of interest for the community in the local board area. |
c) |
How we performed? |
Legislative requirement to report on performance measure results for each activity, and to provide explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved. |
d) |
Financial information |
Legislative requirement to report on financial performance results compared to the long-term plan and annual plan budgets, together with explanations about variances. |
10. The next steps for the draft annual report are:
- audit during August 2017
- report to Finance and Performance Committee on 19 September 2017
- report to the Governing Body for adoption on 28 September 2017
- release to stock exchanges and publish online on 29 September 2017
- physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October 2017.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
11. Local board comments on local board matters in the annual report will be included in the annual report as part of the message from the chairperson.
Māori impact statement
12. The annual report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed their agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 over a 12-month period. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 |
191 |
Signatories
Authors |
Michele Going - Lead Financial Advisor |
Authorisers |
David Gurney - Manager Corporate Performance & Reporting Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for Quarter Four, 1 April - 30 June 2017
File No.: CP2017/15590
Purpose
1. To provide an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter four, 1 April to 30 June 2017, against the 2016/2017 local board agreement and approved work programmes.
Executive summary
2. This report provides an integrated view of performance for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. It includes financial performance and approved work programmes.
3. The snapshot (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s approved 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B).
4. Ninety one percent (91%) of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. Nine percent (9%) of the activities from the agreed work programmes were undelivered in the 2016/2017 financial year.
5. The overall financial performance result for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the year 2016/2017 is favourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the local board to note:
· Financial operating performance is 97% of year-end revised budget
· Operating revenue is less than anticipated by budget specifically in leisure revenue
· Operating expenditure is also less than budget due in part to some Locally Driven Initiative operational projects being carried forward into 2017/2018. This accounts for 83% of the operational expenditure under-spend
· Capital expenditure has been largely delivered with a number of projects complete
· Locally Driven Initiative capital projects are also being carried forward to the next financial year. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.
6. Results from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded from this report as the results are included as a separate agenda item entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) note the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 June 2017.
|
Comments
Key highlights for quarter four
7. Of significance this quarter was the official opening of the extended and improved beach front reserve area at Murrays Bay, made possible by a land swap with the Murrays Bay Sailing Club, and the opening of new toilet facilities. The Birdman event was held to celebrate the completion of the Murrays Bay Wharf rebuild and the enhanced reserve area for public use.
8. During April there were two World Master Games events hosted in the East Coast Bays area, with sailing at Torbay and volleyball at Mairangi Bay.
9. Extensive public consultation was undertaken during May and June 2017 on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017. Consultation included an intergenerational forum in late May followed by a community forum at Orewa and a hearing style event at Browns Bay in June 2017.
Key project achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme
10. The following are some of the year-end achievements relating to key projects identified in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan and/or local board agreement:
· The upgrade of the Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre was completed
· The opening of the ‘Robin Hood’ themed destination playground at Sherwood Reserve
· Completion of the Stoney Homestead refurbishment and its opening as a community hub
· Progress with the development at Metropark East with the grass cricket blocks complete, sports field lights installed and the shared walkway/cycleway is underway
· Renewal of the Murrays Bay Wharf, new toilet facilities including the enhanced reserve area
· The upgrade of toilets at Waiake Beach including the artwork created by the Long Bay College students
· The delivery of environmental initiatives in collaboration with volunteers groups and schools in the local board area
· Supporting community groups to run local events and providing local board grant funding for a wide range of community activities.
Achievement of the 2016/2017 work programme
11. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has an approved 2016/2017 work programme for the following operating departments:
· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 15 June 2016
· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 15 June 2016
· Libraries and Information, approved on 15 June 2016
· Community Facility Renewals and Community Leases, approved on 15 June 2016
· Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 20 July 2016
· Local Economic Development, approved on 20 July 2016
12. The snapshot (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their approved work programme delivery (Attachment B).
13. In previous quarterly performance reports, the traffic light Red Amber Green (RAG) reflected progress within the performance report: Red = issues, Amber = warning, Green = on track. As the quarter four report reflects delivery at the end of the financial year the traffic lights now indicate Red = incomplete, Green = delivered as expected.
14. Ninety one percent (91%) of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered.
15. Departments delivered the 2016/2017 work programmes as follows:
· Arts, Community and Events work programme 95% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
15 |
In progress * |
5 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
1 |
Cancelled |
0 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
There are some points to note:
Project on hold/deferred
o Project ID #3596 is to look at the operational model for Orewa Community Centre with a view to exploring alternative options for running the centre e.g. community-led. The project has been deferred due to lack of resourcing and will be progressed in 2017/2018 financial year.
· Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 89% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
8 |
In progress * |
15 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
2 |
Cancelled |
1 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
There are some points to note:
Projects on hold/deferred
o Sherwood Reserve Toilet ID #2788 was delayed due to consultation. Construction is now planned for summer 2017/2018
o Long Bay Reserve 3 playground ID #3375 is progressing and is due for completion in November 2017.
Project cancelled
o Kingsway School Sport Infrastructure Development (SID) ID #3379 -development of artificial turf and lighting on school grounds is now cancelled and funding has been reallocated to Metropark East developments.
· Libraries and Information work programme 100% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
11 |
In progress * |
0 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
0 |
Cancelled |
0 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
· Community Facility Renewals work programme 93% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
34 |
In progress * |
35 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
4 |
Cancelled |
1 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
There are some points to note:
Projects on hold/deferred
o Amorino Park Walkway and Utility Renewals ID #3207 has been delayed due to consultation on options and consenting. Construction is now planned for October – February 2018
o Stanmore Bay Park 3 sandfield renewal ID #3216 has been deferred and is now expected to be delivered in 2018
o Tindalls Bay coastal structure renewals ID #3202 investigation and design to be undertaken this year followed by build next year
o Victor Eaves Park 1A and 1B sandfield renewal ID #3217 – project is on hold and is not included in 2017/2018 programme. Awaiting confirmation of the forward programme to clarify when it is to be scheduled
o Former Nippon Judo Club sewage and stormwater system ID #4013 project is on hold until further notice due to ‘failed’ status of the primary building. No lease is in place.
Projects cancelled
o Kingsway School SID ID #3999 artificial turf has now been postponed and may be revisited in 12 months
o Hibiscus and Bays sign renewals ID #3212 has been merged with ID #2793, signage improved projects, which now becomes the substantive project.
· Community Leases work programme 80% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
9 |
In progress * |
7 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
3 |
Cancelled |
1 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
There are some points to note:
Projects on hold/deferred
o East Coast Bays Rugby League ID #1638 new lease at Freyberg Park is on hold pending assessment of the recently completed comprehensive building report, by the investigation and design team
o Hibiscus Coast Radio Society ID #1627 lease is currently deferred as the group has requested an extension of time whilst they file a new constitution with the Companies Office
o Taiaotea Air Scouts ID #1637 lease is currently on hold pending negotiations with the Scout Association of New Zealand regarding region-wide multi-premise leases.
Project cancelled
o Browns Bay Marine Trust ID #1639 has been cancelled as the proposal to lease the adjoining carpark has been abandoned.
· Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 100% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
5 |
In progress * |
0 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
0 |
Cancelled |
0 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
· Local Economic Development work programme 33% delivered
|
Activity Status |
Number of Activities |
Green |
Completed |
1 |
In progress * |
0 |
|
Red |
On Hold, Deferred |
1 |
Cancelled |
0 |
|
Not delivered |
0 |
* identified to be delivered across multiple years
There are some points to note:
Project on hold/deferred
o World Master Games Leverage ID #2716 - Only one business association took up the opportunity to leverage local activity. The remainder of the budget was reallocated to community facilities operations for one-off track maintenance
o Implementation of town centre plan actions relating to visitor economy and economic activity ID #2127 – Work commissioned will be completed in August.
16. As part of the local board funding policy, local boards can resolve to defer projects that are funded by their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating fund where there is an agreed scope and cost and where the project has not been delivered.
17. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has identified the following 2016/2017 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to the 2017/2018 financial year. The deferral of these projects was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017:
· Actions from centre plans 151,000
· Capacity building programme 45,000
· Greenways plans 84,000
· LDI Parks Volunteers 25,000
· Metropark changing room 20,000
· Reserve management plans 30,000
· Sherwood toilet planning 50,000
Financial performance
18. Operating expenditure for the year saw a number of projects delivered including grants to support community arts, community events, and various community groups. Library services have been financially supported along with well patronised leisure facilities and recreational areas including maintenance of parks and open spaces. There has also been forward planning for facilities at Metropark and Sherwood reserve. Projects to be carried forward include town centre revitalization projects and progressing reserve management and greenways plans.
19. Revenue is less than budget due to an accounting correction in Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre to account for a prior GST period adjustment and due to early childhood centre takings being less than anticipated.
20. Capital spend of $9.6m is $335k less than budget as the bulk of the LDI capital projects have been deferred to 2017/2018 ($544k). A number of projects were completed in 2016/2017 including the renewal of the Hibiscus Bays Leisure Centre, Stoney Homestead, Murrays Bay Wharf and toilet facilities as well as substantial development at Metropark.
Key performance indicators
21. Results from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter. However, the results are included as a separate agenda item entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
22. This report informs the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board of the performance against approved local work programmes for the year ending 30 June 2017.
Māori impact statement
23. Key initiatives in the local board plan that have an influence on achieving outcomes for Māori include:
a) support for the development of Te Herenga Waka o Orewa Marae at Silverdale
b) support for the youth connections programme in our area – a funding agreement was signed for the 2016/2017 year with Coast Youth Community Trust (CYCT) and grant funding was provided for the Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre
c) a range of environmental initiatives aimed at enhancing and protecting our rivers, streams and special areas that have high ecological value. Work has continued to focus on the Love our Bays, Weiti River restoration, and North-West Wildlink programmes.
24. The local board’s three art partners, Estuary Arts Centre, Centrestage Theatre and Mairangi Arts Centre all celebrated Matariki through various exhibitions and events including acting and mime to connect students with Māori cultural themes.
Implementation
25. The Lead Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017.
26. Local Board Services have referred undelivered projects from the agreed 2016/2017 work programme to the relevant departments for investigation. Departments have been asked to identify their ability to deliver the activity in the 2017/2018 financial year.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Work programme snapshot |
209 |
b⇩ |
Work Programme Update |
211 |
c⇩ |
Financial Performance Report |
237 |
Signatories
Authors |
Michelle Sanderson – Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/16099
Purpose
1. To seek local board feedback on the draft positions of the Governance Framework Review’s Political Working Party.
Executive summary
2. The governance framework review was initiated to assess how well the Auckland governance model (governing body/local boards) is meeting the aims of the 2010 reforms. The review was reported in late 2016 and a political working party made up of local board and governing body members was established to consider the review’s findings and recommendations.
3. The working party has considered the report’s recommendations in three broad workstreams:
· policy and decision-making roles
· local boards funding and finance
· governance and representation.
4. This report sets out the interim positions of the political working party on those three workstreams and seeks local board feedback on those positions. The working party will report back to the governing body on 28 September 2017 with recommendations for decisions, including local boards’ views.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) provide feedback on the following draft positions and recommendations of the Political Working Party: Regional policy and decision-making i. Agree that council should implement new mechanisms that ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework that sets out, at a minimum: a. A process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh b. Earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the Governing Body in regional decision-making processes c. Requirements for analysis of local impacts and local interest of regional decisions and options, and reporting of this to local boards and the Governing Body d.. Specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions e. Processes and methods for tailoring local board engagement in line with the local impact and local interest of regional decisions e.g. high categorisation requiring more specific local engagement and analysis, low categorisation requiring more cluster joint local board workshop sessions and less in depth analysis f. Specified methods for engagement and communication with local boards at all stages of the decision-making process. ii. Direct that local boards will be consulted on the details of these mechanisms prior to implementation iii. Note that the Quality Advice programme is continuing to be implemented in order to improve the quality of advice to elected members for decision-making, in line with the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review iv. Agree not to implement any formal policies or procedures that control when and how local boards may procure external or contestable advice, but note that, in principle, the Auckland Council organisation should be the first provider of advice to local boards v. Agree not to implement any policy or procedure that would limit local boards’ ability to advocate to the Governing Body on regional issues Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right) vi. Note that an explicit call-in right is not possible under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 vii. Agree not to implement any mechanism that would have the effect of ‘calling in’ or allocating decision-making to the Governing Body for otherwise local activities or decisions that have regional implications. viii. Direct officers that, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area e.g. a sub-regional impact or an impact on regional networks, advice on those potential impacts is to be provided to the local board as a matter of course (for example through a regional impact statement) Allocations and delegations ix. Agree that the Governing Body delegates, subject to the necessary statutory tests being met, the following Reserves Act 1977 decision-making functions for local reserves to local boards: a. declaration b. classification c. reclassification d. application for revocation of reserve status (limited to when there is a desire by a local board to manage open space under the LGA) x. Note that officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land was exchanges of reserve land should remain with the Governing Body, with the relevant local board consulted on these decisions xi. Note that the political working party did not reach consensus on exchange of reserve land issue, and will consider the feedback of local boards before making a recommendation xii. Agree that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers remain delegated to staff, but where there is likely to be significant public interest, an independent commissioner should be engaged. The role of Auckland Transport and local boards xiii. Note the critical interface between the local place-shaping role of local boards and Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction over the road corridor and transport networks xiv. Note that the Governance Manual for Substantive Council Controlled Organisations requires Auckland Transport, amongst other things, to: a. develop, with local boards, a shared understanding of local board views and Council Controlled Organisation priorities to inform the following year’s business planning, including through an annual interactive workshop ‘where local boards communicate their local board priorities and the Council Controlled Organisations’ communicate how their current year work programme will contribute to local board priorities’. b. develop by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement plan, which includes a schedule ‘clearly indicating for each board, the projects and activities that Auckland Transport expects to report on, and the projects and activities that it expects to consult on, for the following year. This should be updated annually or more frequently if required.’ c. report against the Auckland Transport local board engagement plan in their quarterly performance reports to the Council Controlled Organisation Governance and Monitoring Committee xv. Direct Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive Council Controlled Organisations xvi. Direct Auckland Council officers to monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance with the requirements for local board engagement, as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive Council Controlled Organisations, and to report this monitoring to the Governing Body at least annually. xvii. Note that the Mayor’s 2017 letter of expectation to Auckland Transport stipulated that council expects there to be: a. better and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local boards; b. active consideration by Auckland Transport of which of its decision-making powers it could delegate to local boards (within the constraints created by the regulatory environment, safety considerations, the needs of regional networks and the role played by the New Zealand Transport Agency in decision-making). xviii. Note that the following activity statement has been included in Auckland Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent: ‘Participation in the governance review which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant Council family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local boards to give effect to their governance role, particularly around local place-shaping.’ xix. Note that the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential delegation of a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party recommends that additional work be undertaken to identify delegation opportunities xx. Direct Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to: a. Ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making b. Improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and Auckland Transport’s renewals programmes c. Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance d. Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events e. Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes xxi. Direct Auckland Transport to report to the Governing Body annually on how it is meeting the directions given under recommendation a) xx. xxii. Note that the Quality Advice programme has been working with Auckland Transport to improve the quality of advice to local boards and will shortly begin regular six monthly surveys of local board members’ satisfaction with Auckland Transport advice, engagement and reporting to local boards. xxiii. Note that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is valued by local boards but that the level of funding means that some local boards are not able to progress meaningful projects, and that improved local transport outcomes may be achieved if the size of the fund was significantly increased. xxiv. Direct officers to report to the relevant council committee, through the Long-term Plan process, on options for significantly increasing the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the method of allocation of the fund. xxv. Direct Auckland Transport to implement a more systematic work programme approach to assist local boards to identify potential projects and make decisions. xxvi. Direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with Governing Body members (ward councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward areas. Waiheke Local Board pilot xxvii. Agree that the Governing Body should endorse the Waiheke Local Board pilot project as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot project plan. xxviii. Note that the Waiheke Local Board will maintain oversight of local implementation of the pilot. Local boards funding and finance xxix. Agree that the Enhanced Status Quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework. xxx. Agree that the additional work to support the Enhanced Status Quo model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards. xxxi. Agree that further work on the implications of the local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making, etc. The optimum number of local boards xxxii.Agree that council should undertake no further work on changing the number of local boards until at least after the Governance Framework Review has been completed and implemented, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known. Methods of electing governing body members xxxiii.Agree that a change to the current system of electing Governing Body members from existing wards is not warranted purely to address alignment between governing body members and local boards xxxiv.Note that the statutory review of representation arrangements for Auckland Council must be completed by September 2018 xxxv.Note that the Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 2, which proposes a simplified process for local government-led reorganisation processes, is currently before Parliament. xxxvi.Agree that council should continue to advocate to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of Governing Body members in line with population changes, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers and boundaries of local boards b) provide feedback on whether decision-making for exchanges of reserve land should sit with the Governing Body or local boards c) provide feedback on its preferred naming conventions for Governing Body members and local board members d) provide feedback on options for the continuation of a joint local board/Governing Body political working party focusing on matters of governance impacting on both governance parts of council.
|
Comments
Background
5. In early 2016, Auckland Council instigated a review of the Council’s governance framework as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, focussing on the complementary governance relationship between local boards and a governing body. The review did not consider Auckland Council’s council controlled organisations (CCO) governance framework or the role of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).
6. The primary purpose of the review was to assess how the Auckland governance model is meeting the aim of the Auckland governance reforms by delivering strong regional decision-making, complemented by decisions that meet diverse local needs and interests. After nearly six years since Auckland Council was established, it was an appropriate point to look at this.
7. The intention was to complete the review prior to the 2016 local government election and to provide advice to the incoming council about any recommended changes. The review was carried out by an independent consultant.
8. The review focused on improvements to the governance framework, not fundamental reform. It was based on extensive interviews with elected members, staff, CCOs and external stakeholders, as well as review and research of foundation documents and other material.
9. A report summarising the findings of the review was issued in draft form to elected members in late August 2016 and discussed with elected members at workshops. The feedback received on the draft from elected members was largely supportive of the findings. The report was finalised in November 2016, and incorporated some minor changes based on the feedback of the elected members.
10. In December 2016 the governing body established a political working party (PWP) of Governing Body members and local board members to consider the governance framework review (GFR) report and oversee the development of a work programme to explore the implications of its findings then make final recommendations to the Governing Body. The political working party has been considering issues and options via a series of working papers and presentations during the first half of 2017. It will report to the Governing Body in September 2017.
Key findings of the Governance Framework Review
11. The review concluded that there were a number of positive aspects of the governance model from both a regional and local perspective. This includes the ability for the Auckland region to ‘speak with one voice’ to important stakeholders, such as central government, regarding regional strategic planning and infrastructure development, and enabling local decision-making that provides a local community focus in a way that did not exist under the previous arrangements. However, it also identified a number of areas for improvement, which fall under four key themes:
· Organisational structures and culture have not adapted to the complexity of the model:
The review found that the organisation has had challenges in responding to the unique and complex governance arrangements in Auckland, and that this has impacted on the quality of advice and support for elected members.
· Complementary decision-making, but key aspects of overlap:
The review touched on a number of decision-making functions where there is overlap between the Governing Body and local boards, or a lack of clarity about respective roles of the two governance arms.
· Lack of alignment of accountabilities with responsibilities:
The review found that the system of decision-making creates incentives for Governing Body members to act locally despite regional benefits and that local boards are incentivised to advocate for local service improvements, without having to make trade-offs required to achieve these.
· Local boards are not sufficiently empowered:
The review identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It also noted particular local frustrations in relation to transport decision-making.
Approach of the political working party and structure of this report
12. The PWP has been considering the thirty six recommendations of the GFR. They are grouped in to the following workstreams:
· policy and decision-making roles
· local boards funding and finance
· governance and representation
13. These first three workstreams are nearing completion. A fourth workstream, organisational support, is in its early stages and will consider improvements to the way the organisation supports the Auckland governance model, including any changes that arise from this review.
14. This report briefly sets out the issues presented to the political working party in the first three workstreams, the recommendations, and the draft position the political working party (PWP) has reached. Local board feedback on these directions is sought. A more in-depth discussion of the analysis, rationale and options development for each issue is available in relevant discussion documents appended to this report.
15. A high level summary of all GFR report recommendations and how they were progressed (or not) is attached as Attachment A. Several recommendations were not progressed for various reasons and these are noted in the table.
16. In considering the GFR report recommendations, options were developed and assessed against the following criteria endorsed by the political working party and approved by the governing body:
· consistency with the statutory purpose of local government
· provision for decision making at the appropriate level, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and consistency with the subsidiarity principle
· contribution to improving role clarity between the two arms of governance, both internally and for the public
· provision for increased empowerment of local boards, especially in their place shaping role
· ensuring appropriate accountability and incentives for political decisions
· contribution to improved community engagement with, and better services for Aucklanders
· administrative feasibility, including efficiency and practicality of implementation.
Workstream 1: Policy and decision-making roles
17. This workstream covers the following topics:
· Regional policy and decision-making processes
· Tension between local and regional priorities (development of a ‘call-in’ right)
· Allocations and delegations
· The role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping
· A pilot for devolving greater powers to Waiheke Local Board.
Regional policy and decision-making processes
18. The GFR found that:
· There is no agreed strategic framework for regional policy development that adequately addresses governing body and local board statutory roles[1]
· The timing of regional decision-making is not well-planned across the organisation. Local boards in particular do not have good visibility of the timing of regional decisions
· Considerable time and resource commitments are required to seek local board input on regional decisions
· Local boards do not receive quality advice to inform their input, and advice to the governing body and local boards often lacks analysis of local impacts.
19. To address these issues, the GFR recommended that council should:
· Bring both arms of governance together early in the policy development process to clarify respective roles
· Increase the use of joint briefings and workshops where relevant
· Develop a methodology that clearly identifies local boards’ role in regional decisions
· Develop tools to enable local board input earlier into regional policy development
· Develop a clear policy on the commissioning of contestable advice, including a conflict resolution process
· Continue to embed the programme for improving the quality of policy advice
· Consider limiting the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues (particularly investment), once due consideration has been given.
20. Two options were assessed for implementing better policy development processes that would ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions:
· Option 1 that involves implementing a framework with mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, and specifies methodologies and ways of working to address these procedural deficiencies identified by GFR
· Option 2 that involves the same framework plus politically adopted principles, in order to provide greater political direction and set public and political expectations.
21. Both options were considered to lead to better policy development, more empowerment of local boards, and to better fulfil statutory obligations. Option 2 was recommended on the grounds that it was more likely to result in greater political accountability. Option 1 was favoured by the PWP.
22. The following recommendations were also made to the PWP:
· The Quality Advice programme should continue as an organisational priority
· Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, as neither are considered to be needed or proportional to the scale of the problem
· Council should not implement a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues, as it would not be in line with local boards’ statutory role to advocate on behalf of their communities.
23. The PWP’s position is that:
· A framework that implements mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions would be useful, and local boards will need to be consulted on this prior to its implementation;
· Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, nor a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues. It was considered that such policies or procedures are unnecessary and would be out of proportion to the scale of any problems.
24. In line with this position, recommendations i-v have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on these.
25. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Regional decision-making and policy processes’ (Attachment B).
Next steps
26. A framework setting out mechanisms to ensure effective local board input into regional decisions will be developed in line with the high level direction in the discussion document and the recommendations above. It will be workshopped with local boards in the implementation phase of GFR.
27. How organisational advice is provided, and by who, is a key question that needs to be considered; resource constraint issues, specifically around the ability of the organisation to service local board requests for advice on regional issues or to develop local policy, were a common theme encountered during this workstream. This is particularly important given that implementation of this framework may require more in depth and involved work to provide advice to local boards. This will be considered through the organisational support workstream.
Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)
28. The GFR concluded that the current governance model ‘provides limited incentives for local boards to consider local assets in a regional context, or contemplate divestment or re-prioritisation of assets or facilities in their local board areas. This leads to situations where conflict between local decision-making and regional decision-making arises.’
29. The report cited the hypothetical example of a local sports field which has been identified as having capacity to be developed and contribute to the regional strategy to grow regional capacity in the sports field network, but the local board does not support this development because of the possible impacts on local residents of increased noise, traffic and light. The local board has the ability to decide against the development on the basis of those concerns, with the regional impact of that decision being a resultant shortfall in sports field capacity.
30. To address this issue, the GFR recommended that council should develop a process which would allow the governing body to ‘call-in’ decisions about local assets where there is an important regional priority.
31. Analysis showed that these situations occur very rarely, but when they do they usually have potentially significant or serious implications.
32. Legal analysis showed that an explicit ‘call-in’ right is not possible under LGACA or the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) but could be achieved through other mechanisms such as amendments to the allocation table. A range of options to address the problem were developed:
· Option 1: Enhanced status quo (with a focus on council staff ensuring that advice to local boards covers possible regional implications of a decision where they exist)
· Option 2: Establishing a process to bring both arms of governance together to attempt to reach a solution that appropriately provides for regional and local priorities
· Option 3: Amending the allocation of decision-making to allocate to the governing body decision-making over an asset that is currently local in a situation where there is a regional or sub-regional need or impact
· Option 4: Amending the allocation of decision-making as per Option 3, and also delegating the decision to a joint committee of Governing Body and local board members.
33. Option 3 was recommended to the PWP, noting that specific criteria would need to be developed to ensure that it would apply only in certain situations.
34. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the discussion document ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 1: Local decisions that may have regional impact (Attachment C).
35. The PWP’s draft position is that no call-in right, nor any mechanism that would have a similar effect by removing local decision-making, should be implemented; local decision-making that has been allocated to local boards should remain un-fettered on the basis that local boards can make decisions in the context of regional implications if appropriate advice is provided. To that end, a mechanism should be implemented to ensure that local boards are clearly advised of any potential regional or sub-regional implications of a decision that they are asked to make.
36. Recommendations a) vi – viii summarise these positions. Local board feedback on these is sought.
Next steps
37. If this direction is adopted, a regional impact statement will be included in reports to local boards where the decision required has the potential to have an impact beyond the immediate local board area.
Allocations and delegations
38. The GFR found that most elected members ‘felt that the split of decision-making allocation was reasonably well understood and sensible’, but there were several areas where the allocation (and/or delegations) was challenged. The GFR recommended that council review the delegated responsibilities to local boards for swimming pool fencing exemptions, setting time and season rules for dog access, the role of local boards in resource consent applications, and in various Reserves Act 1977 decisions.
39. Three of the issues identified in the GFR report either have already been addressed or will shortly be addressed:
· Delegations for granting swimming pool fencing exemptions have been superseded by legislative change that aligns the granting of these exemptions with other safety and building regulation powers in the Building Act 2004, which are delegated to staff;
· Delegations on setting time and season rules for dog access will be reviewed through the review of the Dog Management Bylaw, initiated by the Governing Body in March 2017. An issues and options paper is expected in November 2017 and the review will be completed before 2019;
· The role of local boards in resource consent applications was considered by a political working party in 2016. It made recommendations for refining triggers for providing information about resource consent applications to local boards and adopting a standard practice for local boards to provide and speak to local views and preferences in hearings. These recommendations were adopted by the Hearings Committee in September 2016.
40. Work therefore focused on issues regarding the role of local boards in decision-making under the Reserves Act 1977.
41. Currently, local boards are allocated non-regulatory decision-making for ‘the use of and activities within local parks’, and ‘reserve management plans for local parks’. However, the council’s Reserves Act regulatory decisions are the responsibility of the governing body. The GFR report concluded that ‘where a local park has reserve status under the Reserves Act, it can impact or limit the decision-making authority of local boards in relation to that park’. The GFR recommended that there ‘is a case for local boards having consistent decision-making rights across all local parks’, regardless of which legislative regime they are managed under.
42. Various options were developed for the following Reserves Act powers:
· declaring land to be a reserve, which brings it into the regime set out by the Reserves Act
· classifying or reclassifying a reserve, which has an impact on how the reserve can be used
· requesting the revocation of reserve status from the Minister of Conservation
· exchanging, acquiring and disposing of reserve land.
43. These options were generally:
· status quo (decision-making continues to lie with the governing body)
· delegate decision-making for local reserves to local boards
· delegate decision-making for local reserves to local boards, subject to development of a regional policy to provide some consistency across the region.
44. The role of local boards with regard to the Minister of Conversation’s delegated supervisory powers, which are a process check that requires council to ensure that Reserves Act processes have been followed correctly, was also considered.
45. The positions recommended to the PWP were as follows:
· The council’s substantive decision-making powers to classify and reclassify reserves should be delegated to local boards, on the basis that it would provide for local decision-making and accountability. There would likely be negligible effects on regional networks or issues with regional consistency.
· The decision-making power to declare a reserve and to request revocation of reserve status should be delegated to local boards, subject to regional policy or guidelines to provide some consistency about the land status of open space. This would balance local decision-making and accountability with regional consistency and network impacts.
· The Minister of Conservation’s delegated ‘supervisory’ powers should remain delegated to staff, but where a decision is likely to be contentious or there may be multiple objections, staff should consider employing an independent commissioner to carry out this function. This was on the basis that the supervisory decision is a technical check that the correct process has been followed, and it should be exercised by a different decision-maker than the maker of the substantive decision.
46. In deciding whether to delegate these decisions, the governing body will need to consider the requirement set out in Clause 36C(3) of Part 1A of Schedule 7 of the LGA to “weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district”. This test will need to be carried out individually for each specific power that is proposed to be delegated.
47. The PWP also considered the roles of local boards in reserve exchanges. Two options were developed:
· Status quo: decision-making on reserve exchanges remains with the governing body, in line with decision-making for acquisition and disposal of non-reserve property
· Decision-making is delegated to local boards.
48. It was recommended that the status quo remains, as this would retain a consistent approach to the acquisition and disposal of all assets and avoids introducing further complexity, time and cost to RMA plan change and consent decisions (which are currently governing body decisions).
49. The PWP agreed that decisions on declaration, classification, reclassification and application to revoke reserve status for local reserves should be delegated to local boards. It also agreed that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers should remain delegated to staff, but that an independent commissioner should be engaged to exercise this function where the decision sought is likely to be of significant public interest. This would provide an additional layer of independent assurance that the decision-making process has been appropriate.
50. The PWP discussed the decision-making for exchanges of reserve land and did not reach a consensus position on which option should be progressed. It agreed to consider the feedback of local boards on this issue before making a recommendation.
51. The PWP’s positions have been summarised in recommendations ix - xi. Local board feedback is sought on these.
52. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the discussion documents ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 2: Reserves Act decision-making roles (Attachment C) and ‘Reserve Act land exchanges’ (Attachment D).
Next steps
53. The governing body will be presented with the necessary recommendations and legal tests to enable it to make delegations at its September meeting if this position is confirmed.
The role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping
54. The GFR report found there is frustration among some local board members with respect to transport decision-making and the local board role of place-shaping within and beside the road corridor. It noted common concerns among local board members that:
· there is a lack of timely, high-quality information about local transport activity
· the community holds local board members accountable for local transport decisions, but they have very little influence over them
· Auckland Transport could be delegating some transport responsibilities to boards, particularly in relation to local transport and place-making in town centres.
55. There are mixed views amongst board members on the quality and purpose of consultation: while some local board members feel there is genuine consultation and engagement from Auckland Transport, others feel that it can be late or lack authenticity. There also appear to be different expectations of respective roles in consulting the public, and concerns about a lack of timely, high-quality information, and the quality of advice on the local board Transport Capital Fund.
56. To address these issues, various options were developed for decision-making roles, funding for local transport initiatives, and engagement between Auckland Transport and local boards.
Decision-making roles
57. A range of decision-making functions were assessed for potential delegation to local boards. This included, for example, decision-making over major and minor capital investment, non-road parts of the road corridor for a variety of uses, event permitting and traffic management planning, signage and banners, regulatory controls over parking, traffic and transit lanes, traffic calming, physical infrastructure (including town centre infrastructure as well as kerb and channelling or swales for stormwater), and community education programmes.
58. Delegation of decision-making functions to local boards generally did not perform well on evaluation criteria. Analysis showed that while local boards do and should have a role in place-making, of which the road corridor and town centres are a significant part, it is practically difficult to split up formal decision-making for parts of the transport network.
59. In addition, Auckland Transport remains liable for the impacts of decisions even if they are delegated. Therefore, the functions that could be delegated tend to be quite low-level and operational in nature; the administrative and transactional costs of numerous operational decisions being made by local boards would be high.
60. For these reasons, advice to the PWP was that the place-making role of local boards would be better given effect to through other options assessed:
· earlier and more consistent engagement by Auckland Transport which acknowledges the local governance and place-shaping roles of local boards, and is in line with the expectations set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.
· an increase in the local board Transport Capital Fund, which would likely result in greater delivery of local transport projects and local transport outcomes.
· a direction for Auckland Transport to undertake various other actions that will empower local boards’ place shaping in the transport corridor.
Funding
61. The options for changes to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund were:
· Option 1: Status quo – the fund remains at approximately $11 million with the current method of allocation.
· Option 2: A recommendation to increase the size of the fund from the current inflation-adjusted value of $11 million to $20 million, as well as improvements to provide local boards with better advice and a more systematic work programme approach to managing projects. Process improvements and better advice to local boards may improve outcomes from the fund.
· Option 3: A full review of the purpose and operation of the fund. When the fund was first established in 2012, a review was committed to during the development of the 2015-25 LTP but this never took place. No subsequent policy analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the fund is currently operating optimally.
62. The PWP took the position that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund should be increased significantly, and that an appropriate final quantum for the fund should be determined through the long-term plan process alongside other budget priorities. The method of allocating this fund across local boards should also be considered through the long-term plan process.
It also considered that Auckland Transport should provide local boards with a more systematic work programme approach to identifying options for projects and local transport outcomes through the fund.
Auckland Transport – local board consultation and engagement
63. Various options for improvements to Auckland Transport – local board consultation and engagement were explored, including improvements to local board engagement plans and more consistent reporting and monitoring of local board engagement.
64. Analysis showed that improving Auckland Transport-local board engagement, both at a strategic level and on a project by project basis, would be the best and most appropriate way to empower local boards that takes into account local boards’ local governance role and Auckland Transport’s statutory responsibilities.
65. This would likely be best achieved if the existing requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs are consistently met and monitored. These requirements specify expectations for, amongst other things, local board engagement plans incorporating schedules of board-specific priorities and projects, annual workshops between Auckland Transport and local boards for direction-setting, and regular reporting against local board engagement.
66. Various functions of Auckland Transport were assessed for potential local board empowerment. It was proposed that Auckland Transport:
· Ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making
· Improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes
· Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance
· Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events
· Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes.
67. It was also proposed that these directions be actively monitored and reported annually to the governing body.
68. The PWP supported these positions on improving the relationship by requiring Auckland Transport to be more consistent on meeting its obligations, and through more consistent monitoring of how it is doing so. It also supported directing Auckland Transport to empower local boards further as described above.
69. The PWP also considered that potential delegations to local boards should not be ruled out, and should be investigated further. It also noted that not all ward councillors are regularly engaged or informed of transport projects and issues within their ward areas, and that this should be done as a matter of course.
70. Recommendations xii – xxv reflect these positions. Local board feedback is sought on these.
71. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working papers ‘Local boards and Auckland Transport’ (Attachment E) and ‘Confirmation of draft transport recommendations’ (Attachment F).
Waiheke Local Board pilot
72. The GFR identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It considered whether it would be feasible for some local boards to have greater decision-making powers depending on the extent of the regional impact of specific local decisions. It suggested that this could be piloted on Waiheke Island given:
· the more clearly defined community of interest on the island (relative to most other local board areas);
· the separation of the island from wider Auckland services such as roading, stormwater or public transport;
· the desires of the local board for greater decision-making autonomy, and a feeling that the regionalisation of services across Auckland has failed to reflect the unique nature of the island.
73. The Waiheke Local Board has consistently sought greater autonomy, arguing that this would deliver better outcomes for the community and better reflect the principles of subsidiarity and the policy intent of the Auckland amalgamation.
74. A range of functions and decisions that the GFR suggested could be devolved to local boards are currently under the purview of the governing body or Auckland Transport. These include area planning, community development and safety, developing local visitor infrastructure, management of the stormwater network, some transport decision-making and catchment management.
75. Other matters the GFR proposed for devolution are in fact already allocated to local boards or provided for under statute, but boards have not had access to the resources to support them – such as local area planning or proposing bylaws – or they have not been assessed as a priority in an environment where large regional projects have tended to dominate (such as the Unitary Plan).
76. In response, a proposed three year pilot project for Waiheke has been developed in conjunction with the local board. The activities proposed are broader than the technical allocation or delegation of decision-making, and include operational issues, policy and planning, funding, compliance and enforcement and relationships with CCOs. The pilot will include:
· A programme of locally-initiated policy, planning and bylaw work that includes responses to visitor growth demands, a strategic plan for Matiatia, and development of a proposal for a community swimming pool, will be undertaken.
· Addressing a number of operational issues that frustrate the local board. For example there are a number of longstanding compliance and encroachment issues on the island that have not been resolved and have become almost intractable, resulting in ongoing negative environmental and social impacts. This may be addressed through better locally-based operational leadership from council.
· Developing some key local transport strategic approaches, such as a 10 year transport plan and Waiheke and Hauraki Gulf Islands design guidelines.
77. The pilot has been developed with intervention logic and an evaluation methodology built-in from the beginning. This will enable a sound evaluation of the pilot to be undertaken, particularly to assess success and the applicability of the findings to the rest of Auckland.
78. The Waiheke Local Board will oversee governance of the pilot project. It is proposed that the pilot be implemented from 1 October 2017.
79. The PWP endorsed the pilot project and recommends that it be endorsed by the governing body. Recommendations a) xxvi – xxvii reflect this position. Local board feedback is sought on these.
80. Further details on the analysis, rationale and key projects is available in the working papers ‘Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ (Attachment G) and the project outline (Attachment H).
Next steps
81. An implementation plan and an evaluation plan will be developed and reported to the Waiheke Local Board for its consideration prior to the implementation date (currently proposed to be 1 October 2017).
Workstream 2: Local boards funding and finance
82. The GFR identified the following key issues that have been considered within the context of the Funding and Finance workstream:
· Local boards do not have to balance the trade-offs of financial decisions in the same way as the governing body needs to e.g. local boards can advocate for both additional investment in their own area and lower rates.
· Inflexibility of the current funding policies to empower local board decision making. In particular local boards feel they have little or no control over the 90 per cent of their budget which is for “Asset Based Services” (ABS).
· Inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of when local boards or groups of local boards can undertake procurement of major contracts.
83. The workstream looked at a range of alternative models for financial decision making around local activities:
· Status Quo (predominantly Governing Body and some local board decision making)
· Entirely Local (unconstrained local board decision making)
· Local within parameters (local board decision making but within parameters set by the Governing Body)
· Entirely Regional (all Governing Body with local boards as advocates)
· Joint Governing Body/local board (joint committees)
· Multi Board (joint decision making of two or more local boards).
84. The early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Attachment I describes these options in more detail.
85. After initial discussion with the PWP the options were narrowed down to two, for further exploration. The attached papers (Attachment J and Attachment K) describe the approach to the two models in some detail. However, in summary:
Option 1: Enhanced status quo
This option is based on the Governing Body continuing to set the overall budget availability and allocating the budget between local boards (the allocation is currently based on legacy service levels). The budgets will be funded from general rates and decisions made by the governing body on the level of rates, efficiency savings and levels of service would be reflected through, as necessary, to the local board budgets. Within these parameters some additional flexibility for local decision making is proposed.
Option 2: Local decision making within parameters
In this option additional decision making is enabled for local boards through all or some of the costs of local activities and services being funded through a local rate. This enables the local board to have much increased flexibility in determining levels of service in different activities and to directly engage with their community on the costs and benefits of providing those services. The key issues identified with this option are the impact of redistributing the costs of local services on different communities and the additional costs of supporting local decision making.
86. A number of key themes emerge from evaluating the two models of decision making and these form the main issues for consideration when determining the way forward:
i) Legal context – The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out expectations for the two arms of governance. There is a clear expectation that local boards will reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities “in respect of the level and nature of local activities to be provided by Auckland Council…” To do this local boards need the ability to make decisions about service levels and appropriate funding.
ii) Capital expenditure – Both models of decision making have assumed that decisions on major capital expenditure will be reserved to the governing body. Control of debt and the council’s credit rating are key regional issues. There is also recognition that the Governing Body is best placed to make decisions on investment in new assets that are essentially part of a community infrastructure network.
iii) Organisational efficiency vs local decision making – Greater decision making by local boards will require a greater level of staff support and will require the organisation to gear its governance advice in a different way. This will have an impact on the resources of the organisation.
iv) Regional standards vs local preferences – There are different views on whether it is better to have one standard of service across the whole Auckland region for local activities, or whether each local board should be able to prioritise and customise those services according to the needs and preferences of their community.
v) Legacy funding base – The current funding of local boards for ABS is largely based on the historical funding model from the legacy councils. As each board has inherited different numbers of assets, different levels of service and different method of delivery, the existing funding base in very uneven. This creates a number of difficulties for the Enhanced Status Quo model.
vi) Local assets as a network – Giving local boards more decision making over the level of renewal and/or services delivered from local assets will, in many cases, impact on communities outside of the local area. To address this issue the proposal includes requirement for local boards to consult outside of their own area in certain situations.
vii) Funding –
The key factors with the general rates based approach are:
· Overall funding and therefore to a large extent, levels of service, for local activities are determined by the governing body
· It is difficult to address the historical funding inequities
· All ratepayers pay the same (based on property value)
The key factors with a local rate are:
· The rate will reflect the level of service delivered in that area
· The local board can set their own budgets to reflect local community priorities
· The redistribution of rates may impact more in communities least able to afford it.
viii) Data and policy gaps – Regardless of which approach is decided upon for the future, the project has highlighted the need to improve the quality of information and policy support to local boards.
87. In summary the two proposed models of financial decision making have the following characteristics:
Enhanced status quo –
· Limited additional financial decision making – may not give full effect to legislative intent of local boards with local decision making and accountability
· Maintains the efficiencies of more centralised organisational support and procurement at scale
· Governing body determines budgets and therefore levels of service - tends towards regional standards
· Unlikely to address legacy inequities of funding in the short term
· General rate funded therefore no redistribution effect, but also does not address perceived inequity of boards funding higher levels of service in other areas
Local decision making within parameters –
· Gives more decision making and accountability to local boards – may be more in line with legislative intent
· Will be less efficient as additional resources will be required to support local decision making
· Levels of service will tend to be more varied across the region
· Enables local boards to address funding inequities
· Redistribution of rates will impact on some communities who can least afford it.
88. While there are two clear choices of decision making model, there does not have to be a final decision at this point. The “Local decision making within parameters” option requires a change to the Local Board Funding Policy which in turn needs public consultation. There also needs to be more preparatory work before any implementation of a change, and in fact, some of that work would be necessary to implement the “Enhanced status quo” model. Five alternative recommendations were put forward to the PWP:
· Status quo – no change
· Enhanced status quo – progress further work prior to implementation on organisational impacts, framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding issues, improving financial data etc.
· Local decision making within parameters – consult on the change with the LTP 2018-28 and progress pre-implementation work (as above plus work on detailed parameters and rating models). The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.
· Consult on both options with the LTP 2018-28 and then decide. In the meantime progress at least the work for enhanced status quo. The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.
· Agree in principle to local decision making but subject to further work (as outlined above). Should there then be a wish to proceed to consult with the 2019/20 Annual Plan.
89. The PWP reached agreement on a variation of these alternative recommendations i.e.:
· That the Enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.
· That the additional work to support this model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.
· That further work on the implications of the Local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making etc.
90. These positions are summarised in recommendations a) xxviii – xxx. Local board feedback is sought on these.
Workstream 3: Governance and representation
91. This workstream covers:
· The optimum number of local boards
· Methods of electing governing body members
· Naming conventions for elected members
The optimum number of local boards
92. The GFR found that having twenty-one local boards contributed to a complex governance structure and logistical inefficiencies; servicing 21 local boards is costly and creates a large administrative burden. It recommended that the council form a view on the optimum number of local boards, noting that ‘getting the right number of local boards is about striking a balance between getting genuine local engagement, while maintaining a decision-making structure that is able to be effectively serviced’.
93. Changing the number of local boards requires a re-organisation proposal, a statutory process that is currently a lengthy and likely costly exercise. Determining the optimum number of local boards, to inform such a proposal, is in itself a significant undertaking.
94. There are several other processes ongoing that make a re-organisation proposal now not optimal, regardless of the merits of changing the number of boards:
· Legislative changes to simplify the re-organisation process are being considered by Parliament, but the timeframe for their enactment is not known.
· The Local Government Commission is considering re-organisation proposals for North Rodney and Waiheke Island, which could result in change to Auckland’s governance structure (for example through the creation of another local board). The Local Government Commission is set to announce its preferred option by the end of the 2017 calendar year.
· Auckland Council must complete a formal representation review by September 2018.
· The Governance Framework Review is intended to provide greater local board empowerment and to address some of the shortcomings that may be a key driver for reducing the number of local boards.
95. Within this context, three potential high level scenarios for change were developed and presented to the PWP:
· a reduction to fourteen local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;
· a reduction to nine local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;
· an increase in the number of local boards.
96. These scenarios were designed to give the PWP an idea of what issues would need to be considered and the level of further work that would need to be undertaken if council is to consider changing the number of local boards. They were not presented as specific options for change.
97. Two options for how to proceed were presented to the PWP:
· Option 1 (recommended): no further work to be undertaken until after other GFR changes to empower local boards have been implemented and evaluated, and the other processes noted above (enactment of legislation simplifying re-organisation proposal processes, completion of the North Rodney and Waiheke Island re-organisation proposals, implementation of the Governance Framework Review, and representation review) have concluded.
· Option 2: continue this work and refine high level scenarios into specific options for changing the number of local boards. This would require significantly more detailed work to identify communities of interest, proposed boundaries and numbers of elected members.
98. Option 1 was recommended on the basis that the outcomes of those other current processes had the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any work that would be undertaken now. They may also empower local boards and remove a key driver for reducing the number of local boards identified by the GFR report.
99. The PWP agreed with Option 1, expressing a clear view that no further work on changing the number of local boards should be undertaken until at least after the GFR has been completed and implemented, and the outcome of re-organisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known. The rationale for this is that the 2010 reforms are still ‘bedding in’, with the GFR likely contributing to better delivery of the intentions of the reforms; it was thus considered too early for council to consider initiating any change to the number of local boards.
100. In line with this position, recommendation a) xxxi has been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and recommendation.
101. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Number of local boards’ (Attachment L).
Next steps
102. If this recommendation is accepted by the governing body, staff will not do any further work on this issue until directed otherwise.
Methods of electing governing body members
103. The GFR identified that there is an in-built tension between Governing Body members’ regional strategic responsibilities and their local electoral accountabilities to their ward constituents who elect them. There may be times when it is a challenge for governing body members to vote against local interests in the interests of the region.
104. Governing Body members are also inevitably approached about local issues, including constituent queries or complaints that relate to local board activities. This can lead to them being drawn into issues that are local board responsibilities. It may also make it harder for the public to understand the respective roles of their ward Gverning Body members and local board members.
105. The GFR report recommended that council consider amending the number and size of wards, such as moving to a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and / or reducing the number of wards from which councillors are elected, to address the misalignment of accountabilities and responsibilities.
106. Four options were developed and presented to the PWP:
· Option 1: status quo. Governing Body members continue to be elected from the current ward structure.
· Option 2: all Governing Body members would be elected at-large across the Auckland region.
· Option 3: Governing Body members would be elected from a mixture of at-large (10 members) and ward-based (10 members) representation.
· Option 4: Governing Body members would be elected from a ward-based system, but the number of wards would be reduced (and hence the size of wards increased).
107. Some other Governing Body representational issues were also considered. These included developing protocols or role statements around Governing Body members’ and local board members’ roles to clarify responsibilities, the possibility of introducing a Māori ward for the Governing Body, and changing the voting system to Single Transferable Vote.
108. The PWP’s draft position is that the issues raised in the GFR are not in themselves sufficient reason to change electoral arrangements for Governing Body members. Moving to an at large or combination of larger ward-based and at large wards would, in its view, make representing Aucklanders at a regional level significantly more difficult. The PWP has also noted that a full statutory review of representation arrangements will be carried out in 2018. The Governing Body will also consider electoral methods, such as changing to STV, at its August meeting this year.
109. It also noted that council has a current advocacy position for legislative change that would allow the number of Governing Body members to change in line with population growth, and that the process for changing the numbers and boundaries of local boards should also be made easier than the current statutory process.
110. In line with this position, recommendations a) xxxii - xxxiv have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and the recommendations.
111. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Representation options’ (Attachment M).
Next steps
112. There are no specific next steps for implementation if this recommendation is accepted. The council will continue to advocate for the changes outlined above where appropriate, and staff will begin the statutory review of representation arrangements later this year.
Naming conventions for elected members
113. The GFR found that one of the contributing factors to role overlap and role confusion between Governing Body members and local board members is Auckland Council’s naming conventions, where Governing Body members are generally referred to as ‘councillors’ and members of local boards are referred to as ‘local board members’. It recommended that council consider these naming conventions and, either confirm and reinforce the naming conventions, or change them for consistency, preferring that all elected members be accorded the title of either ‘councillor’ or ‘member’ (either local or regional). This would reinforce and clarify the complementary and specific nature of the roles, making it easier for staff and the public to understand.
114. The titles currently in use are conventions; they are not formal legal titles that are bestowed or required to be used under any statute, nor are they legally protected in a way that restricts their use. This is also true for other potential titles that were identified (see below). If council did change the naming conventions to call local board members ‘councillors’ then the application of some provisions in Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2010 which refer to both councillors and local board members together may become confusing and problematic. Legislative amendment may become necessary to resolve this.
115. If a decision is to be made on naming conventions then this would be made by the governing body. No decision-making responsibility for naming conventions has been allocated to local boards under the allocation table. Such a decision would fall under the catch-all ‘All other non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council’ that is allocated to the governing body. In making such a decision the Governing Body would be required to consider the views of local boards.
116. Three options were assessed and presented to the PWP:
· Option 1: Status quo. A member of the Governing Body is generally referred to as ‘councillor’ and a member of a local board as ‘local board member’.
· Option 2: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘councillor’ (e.g. ‘Governing Body Councillor’, ‘Local Councillor’)
· Option 3: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘member’ (e.g. ‘Governing Body Member’, ‘Local Board Member’)
117. Any decision to confirm the current conventions or to change to a new convention would need to be applied consistently across the Auckland region, and would affect all council publications and materials.
118. The PWP did not adopt a position on whether the naming conventions should be retained or changed, preferring to hear the views of local boards and Governing Body members before adopting a recommendation. It did however agree with the need for regional consistency. A key aspect of the use of the title ‘councillor’ is its meaning to members of the community.
119. In line with the PWP’s position to hear views prior to making a recommendation, local board feedback is sought on preferred naming conventions for elected members (summarised as recommendation (b)).
120. More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Naming conventions’ (Attachment N).
Next steps
121. If conventions are changed, staff throughout the organisation will need to be informed of the updated conventions; Auckland Council’s style guide uses the current naming conventions so would need to be updated, as would other formal council publications (such as reports and documents for consultation). Business cards, name plates and other collateral can be updated to include the new conventions when new materials are required (in line with normal business practice) to ensure that costs associated with any change are minimal.
Ongoing oversight of Governance Framework Review implementation
122. Consideration needs to be given to future oversight of the governance framework review past September 2017, particularly implementation of any decisions.
123. The Terms of Reference of the PWP state that one of its purposes is to ‘provide oversight and direction for the governance framework review implementation project’. They also state that the working party ‘may act as a sounding board for changes the organisation is considering to the way that elected members are supported in their governance role. However, decisions on the way the organisation configures itself are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.’
124. The working party has discussed the desirability and usefulness of continuing the working party, or establishing a similar group, with broader terms of reference, comprising both governing body and local board members.
125. The broad role of such a group could be to consider governance issues that impact on both local boards and the Governing Body, for example the upcoming representation review, the oversight of the implementation of the governance framework review and any ongoing policy work arising from the review etc.
126. Current local board members of the PWP have signalled that they would need a fresh mandate to continue being on such a group. The size of the working party, membership, leadership, Terms of Reference, frequency of meetings and secretariat support would all need to be confirmed.
127. At this point we are seeking feedback from the local boards on the following possible recommendations for the governing body in September:
· Option 1: recommend that the Governing Body thanks the political working party for its work on the governance framework review and notes that any further decision making arising from the implementation of the review will be considered by the Governing Body; or
· Option 2: recommend that the governing body thanks the political working party for its work and agrees that an ongoing political working party, comprising Governing Body and local board members, would provide a valuable vehicle for considering matters that impact on both governance arms and making recommendations to the governing body on these matters.
128. This request for feedback is summarised in recommendation (c).
Next steps
129. If this recommendation to extend the PWP is confirmed, staff will redraft the terms of reference of the PWP to reflect these directions, and report them to the Governing Body for adoption.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
130. This report seeks local board views on issues and options that may have wide-ranging implications for local boards. These views will be provided to the Governing Body for its consideration in decision-making.
131. Significant consultation has been undertaken with local boards throughout the Governance Framework Review and the response to the GFR report. This included a series of workshops with each local board, as well as various cluster meetings, to discuss key issues in this report.
Māori impact statement
132. The Governance Framework Review did not specifically consider the governance or representation of Maori in Auckland. The relationship between the two governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) was also out of scope.
133. The IMSB and Te Waka Angamua were consulted through this process. In response to the final GFR report the IMSB secretariat provided a memorandum setting out its views on a number of the report’s recommendations. These views largely focused on ensuring that Auckland Council meets its existing statutory requirements for:
· enabling Maori to participate in decision-making in Auckland local government are met;
· engaging and consulting Maori and considering the needs and views of Maori communities when making decisions;
· recognising the need for greater involvement of Maori in local government employment.
134. These statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted. No specific actions are recommended.
135. The secretariat also identified that there is:
· a lack of definition of the relationship between the Governing Body, local boards and the IMSB
· the lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting issues for Maori
· the lack of awareness of the Governing Body and local boards of their obligation to consult the IMSB on matters affecting mana whenua and mataawaka, the need to take into account the IMSB’s advice on ensuring that input of mana whenua groups and mataawaka is reflected in council strategies, policies, plans and other matters.
136. As stated above, the council-IMSB relationship was out of scope of the GFR report, so these issues are not being addressed through this work.
137. No specific Maori impacts have been identified.
Implementation
138. Implementation of changes will begin after the governing body has made final decisions in September. An implementation plan will be developed.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Summary of Recommendations (Under Separate Cover) |
|
b⇨ |
Regional decision-making and policy processes (Under Separate Cover) |
|
c⇨ |
Allocations and delegations (Under Separate Cover) |
|
d⇨ |
Reserves Act land exchanges (Under Separate Cover) |
|
e⇨ |
Local boards and Auckland Transport (Under Separate Cover) |
|
f⇨ |
Confirmation of draft transport recommendations (Under Separate Cover) |
|
g⇨ |
Waiheke pilot project cover paper (Under Separate Cover) |
|
h⇨ |
Waiheke pilot project outline (Under Separate Cover) |
|
i⇨ |
Funding and finance workstream paper (Under Separate Cover) |
|
j⇨ |
Funding and finance workstream cover paper July (Under Separate Cover) |
|
k⇨ |
Funding finance description of 2 models (including two spreadsheet attachments) (Under Separate Cover) |
|
l⇨ |
Number of local boards (Under Separate Cover) |
|
m⇨ |
Representation options (Under Separate Cover) |
|
n⇨ |
Naming conventions (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Linda Taylor – Executive Office, Auckland Council Governance |
Authorisers |
Stephen Town - Chief Executive Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 16 August 2017 |
|
Feedback on Takaroa Investing in Play Discussion Document
File No.: CP2017/14010
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, 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
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 publically 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.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Provide feedback on the questions presented in the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document by 21 August 2017.
|
Comments
Background
1. Auckland Council invests in play because it has the potential to provide a range of health, social, community and economic benefits to Aucklanders.
2. 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.
3. Key challenges are to respond to a growing population, financial constraints and increasing demands for play over the next 20 years.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. This report provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document.
13. Local boards are invited to submit formal feedback on the issues raised in the document by 21 August 2017.
14. 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.
15. 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 |
a) Consultation with the public |
b) 29 May to 10 July 2017 |
c) Consultation with local boards and advisory panels |
d) 19 June to 21 August 2017 |
e) Analysis of feedback and submissions f) |
g) August to October 2017 |
h) Report to the Environment and Community Committee on the results of the public consultation |
i) November 2017 |
j) Develop and refine a draft investment plan, in consultation with local boards |
k) Early 2018 |
l) Public consultation on the draft investment plan |
m) Mid 2018 |
Consideration
Local board views and implications
16. Local board members provided informal feedback on the discussion document at regional cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. This report now provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document.
Māori impact statement
20. Māori are identified as a key target group for the investment plan, due to their young population profile.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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
24. There are no implementation issues arising from the recommendations of this report.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Takaro Investing in Play Discussion Document |
273 |
Signatories
Authors |
Jacqueline Faamatuainu - Policy Analyst |
Authorisers |
Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services |
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 16 August 2017 |
|
Submissions and Feedback on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Board Plan 2017
File No.: CP2017/15589
Purpose
1. To provide a high level overview of data gathered through public consultation on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017, along with all submissions and feedback received.
Executive summary
2. The consultation period for draft local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.
3. In total, 756 submissions were received on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post. In addition, 59 people provided feedback at engagement events and 13 pieces of feedback were gathered through Facebook.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Receive submissions and feedback on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017.
|
Comments
4. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017. Under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.
5. A high level overview of consultation data, titled ‘Draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report’, along with all submissions and feedback received is attached. The report includes an overview of consultation findings such as responses to questions asked, common themes and demographic information on submitters.
6. Staff are currently analysing the consultation data before formulating any recommendations to the local board on the final content of their local board plan.
7. Attached to the report is an analysis of consultation feedback, event feedback and social media feedback. The remainder of the written submissions received can be viewed at the following link:
Consideration
Local board views and implications
8. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will consider all submissions and feedback to the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 prior to adopting the final local board plan in October 2017.
Māori impact statement
9. Māori outcomes have been considered in the development of the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017. The local board has engaged with Mana Whenua on matters of significance and mutual interest and will continue to look for opportunities to work with them on matters and projects of joint interest.
10. An engagement hui with mana whenua authorities was held at the Albany Stadium on 6 March 2017.
Implementation
11. The local board will adopt the final Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 at their October 2017 business meeting.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report |
295 |
b⇩ |
Event Feedback |
307 |
c⇩ |
Social Media Feedback |
323 |
Signatories
Authors |
Michelle Sanderson- Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Local board involvement in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028
File No.: CP2017/14013
Purpose
1. To request each local board to nominate a local board member and alternate member to attend workshops to determine regional strategic priorities for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.
Executive summary
2. The Long-term Plan 2018-2028, our 10-year budget for Auckland, will set the direction for investing in our city over the next decade. The Mayor has invited a local board member and alternate from each local board to attend initial regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.
3. Over the next year of the Long-term Plan 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.
That the Hibiscus and Bays 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) will determine 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 2018-2028 LTP, 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 (and an alternate) 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 development 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 2018-2028 LTP. 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 2018-2028 LTP.
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 2018-2028 LTP 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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 |
329 |
Signatories
Authors |
Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Approval for new road names for the Long Bay Subdivision at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay - SUB60033219
File No.: CP2017/16019
Purpose
1. To seek approval from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for road names for the new public roads being constructed to serve Stages 12 and 14Ai of the subdivision being undertaken by Todd Property at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay.
Executive summary
2. Todd Property has submitted the road names Streamview Way, Tikati Rise, Ruku Street, Longshore Drive, Nerite Place, Keel Street, Tawatawa Street, Tupa Street, Kina Place, Kumukumu Road, Fender Place, Headsail Drive, Luff Place and Karehu Place for local board approval.
3. Todd Property has consulted with all local iwi groups receiving a response from Ngati Manuhiri who have suggested Kukupara Street, Tupa Street, Hauwai Street and Karehu Street as alternative names.
4. Todd Property has included Tupa Street and Karehu Place to their list of preferred names.
5. Todd Property is seeking approval for more names than are needed for these stages of the subdivision for use in subsequent stages of the development.
6. The names have been assessed against the council’s road naming guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.
7. The names have also been assessed under New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and aside from Kukupara Street which is similar to Kukupa Road in west Auckland and Hauwai Street which is close in spelling and pronunciation to the name of a mobile telecommunications company they all meet the criteria.
8. The road types chosen i.e Road, Street, Place, Way, Rise, or Drive are appropriate for the proposed roads.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) approve the following names for the new public roads constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by, Todd Property, (the Applicant), at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974; i) Streamview Way, ii) Tikati Rise, iii) Ruku Street, iv) Longshore Drive, v) Nerite Place, vi) Keel Street, vii) Tawatawa Street, viii) Tupa Street, ix) Kina Place, x) Kumukumu Road, xi) Fender Place, xii) Headsail Drive xiii) Luff Place xiv) Karehu Place
|
Comments
9. Todd Property (the applicant) has submitted the following names in their order of preference for the private road constructed.in the subdivision.
Applicants Preferred Names Streamview Way, Tikati Rise Ruku Street Longshore Drive Nerite Place Keel Street, Tawatawa Street Tupa Street Kina Place Kumukumu Road Fender Place, Headsail Drive Luff Place Karehu Place Alternative Names put forward by Iwi Kukupara Street Tupa Street Hauwai Street Karehu Street
|
Geographical ref to road being alongside Vaughans Stream. Maori / marine ref to gemfish or southern kingfish. Maori / marine ref to dive or diving. Marine ref to shoreline. Marine ref to small sea snails. Nautical ref to boat keel. Maori / marine ref to blue mackeral. Maori / marine ref to scallop. Maori / marine ref to sea egg or urchin. Maori / marine ref to gurnard. Nautical ref to boat fender. Nautical ref to sail type. Nautical ref to forward edge of sail. Maori / marine ref to mud flat snail.
Maori / marine ref to small black mussel. Maori / marine ref to scallop. Maori / marine ref to paua or abalone. Maori / marine ref to mud flat snail.
|
10. The council road naming guidelines require that road names reflect either:
· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area or;
· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature or
· an existing name theme or introduce 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. As with previous stages of the subdivision the applicant has chosen a suite of names that reflect the either the geographical location, the marine environment or local fauna and has also chosen to include Māori names that reflect that context.
13. The names have been assessed against the council’s road naming guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.
14. The names have also been assessed under New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and aside from Kukupara Street which is similar to Kukupa Road in west Auckland and Hauwai Street which is close in spelling and pronunciation to the name of a mobile telecommunications company they all meet the criteria.
15. The road types chosen i.e Road, Street, Place, Way, Rise, or Drive are appropriate for the roads.
16. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to the Local Boards.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
17. The decision sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.
18. The decision sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.
Māori impact statement
19. The applicant has consulted with all local iwi groups receiving a response from Ngati Manuhiri who have suggested Kurupara Street, Tupa Street, Hauwai Street and Karehu Street as alternative names.
20. The applicant has included Tupa Street and Karehu Place in their list of names.
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 council’s administrative charging policies.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Location Map |
335 |
Signatories
Authors |
John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
Governance Forward Work Calendar
File No.: CP2017/15266
Purpose
1. To present the local board with a governance forward work calendar.
Executive summary
2. This report contains the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the local board at business meetings and workshops over the next 12 months.
3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice is required
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Governance Forward Work Calendar |
339 |
Signatories
Authors |
Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
16 August 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/15265
Executive Summary
1. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board held workshop meetings on 29 June 2017, 6 July 2017 and a joint workshop with Rodney Local Board on 6 July 2017.
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) Endorse the record of the workshop meetings held on 29 June 2017 and 6 July 2017 and a joint workshop with Rodney Local Board on 6 July 2017. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Workshop Record 29 June 2017 |
343 |
b⇩ |
Workshop Record 6 July 2017 |
345 |
c⇩ |
Workshop Record of Joint Meeting |
347 |
Signatories
Authors |
Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager |
[1] The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out the following respective statutory roles for regional policy and decision-making:
· Each local board is responsible for ‘identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council’ [s.16(1)(c)]
· The governing body must ‘consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area’ [s.15(2)(c)] when carrying out its decision-making responsibilities, including regional policy-making.