Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 August 2017

Hilders Park play boat- public safety risk

File No.: CP2017/14021

Purpose

1. To inform the Kaipātiki Local Board that the play boat at Hilders Park is a public safety risk, with the boat to be removed immediately from the foreshore.

2. To seek approval to investigate renewal options that provide similar service outcomes to that of the existing play boat at Hilders Park.

Executive summary

3. The Hilders Park play boat, more commonly known by the community as “Frank Larking’s Boat” has deteriorated to the end of its asset life.

4. The play boat provides a number of service outcomes to the local community, including:

· Play value: The boat is a popular play item for local children;

· Historic value: the boat was donated by a local community member Frank Larking who was the “caretaker” of Hilders Park and Larking’s Landing. It has been a popular local icon for many years and many community members have fond memories of playing on the boat; and

· Water play: the boat is located within the tidal zone, providing a unique play experience in the aquatic environment

5. In April 2017, the local board requested that staff further investigate options for retaining the existing boat in its current location.

6. Reports undertaken by Future Landscapes Ltd (Attachment A) and Davis Coastal Consultants (Attachment B) identify that the boat in its current condition and location is a public safety risk due to the hazards identified, in particular the potential for a child to drown.

7. To protect people from harm, the council, including the local board as decision makers, has a duty of care for any assets provided to the public. In the event that responsibility for the boat was transferred to another party, the liability would remain with council due to its current location on public land.

8. As a result, the boat must be immediately removed from the foreshore, to be stored until a suitable long term location has been identified and agreed upon by the Kaipātiki Local Board. All attempts will be made to remove the boat without damaging it, although it is a possible consequence of moving the vessel.

9. Repairing the existing boat and returning it to the Hilders Park tidal foreshore is not an option. This is due to the potential drowning hazard in its current location within the tidal zone, rather than the condition of the boat.

10. The feasibility of providing similar service outcomes to the above can be investigated further, in collaboration with council’s Parks Sport and Recreation department and the local community. This can potentially include repurposing the existing boat.

11. Following a thorough investigation, council staff can report a recommended option or options to the board.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) notes the play boat on the foreshore at Hilders Park is a public safety risk due to the drowning hazards identified in the reports by Future Landscapes Ltd (included as Attachment A to the agenda report) and Davis Coastal Consultants (included as Attachment B to the agenda report).

b) approves the removal of the boat from the Hilders Park foreshore, and storage of the boat at a safe location until the future of the boat is agreed upon by the board

c) approves investigations into the feasibility of renewal options, to provide similar and safe service outcomes to that of the existing play boat at Hilders Park, with the results to be reported back to the board for a decision.

Comments

Background

12. The Hilders Park Play Boat, more commonly known by the community as “Frank Larking’s Boat” has deteriorated to the point where it is at the end of its asset life. As a result, the Kaipātiki Local Board approved its renewal through its 2016/17 financial year renewals programme under resolution number KT/2016/96.

13. Following an update on the renewal project to the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting on 19 April 2017, the board resolved (resolution number KT/2017/49) to:

b) request Community Facilities staff investigate options for retaining the current boat at Hilders Park (Larking’s Landing), including the following factors:

i) location – including remaining in the water or being relocated on to the adjacent reserve;

ii) ownership and management – including owned and maintained by council; owned and maintained by the community; or a combination of the previous two scenarios;

iii) cost – both capital expenditure and operational expenditure for any of the options considered;

iv) timeframe.

c) note that the Hilders Park (Larking’s Landing) boat renewal project will be on hold until the options assessment is completed and reported back to the board, noting:

i) the current boat must continue to meet health and safety requirements during the options assessment process, and, if it fails to do so, may be required to be closed off for periods of time to undertake temporary repairs, or closed off indefinitely.

14. Since the above resolutions were passed, further investigations have been completed to better clarify the health and safety obligations of Auckland Council in regards to maintaining the existing boat in its current location.

Health and safety investigations

15. To protect people from harm, council has a duty of care for any assets provided to the public. To do this, the council must consider all relevant matters. Those matters include, but are not limited to:

· the degree of harm the hazard or the risk might cause;

· how much is known about the hazard or risk;

· how likely injury or death may be caused by the hazard or risk; and

· options available and suitable to first eliminate the risk or if this is not possible, to minimise or isolate the risk.

16. Further investigations into the immediate health and safety obligations of Auckland Council have been undertaken by Future Landscapes Ltd (Attachment A) and Davis Coastal Consultants (Attachment B) with regards to the existing boat at Hilders Park. A summary of each report is below, noting that Davis Coastal assessed the boat as its use as a recreational pontoon.

Future Landscapes Ltd (Attachment A)

· The boat is a popular play item for local children.

· The Occupiers Liability Act poses a duty of care to Auckland Council.

· The boat is easily accessible from a ladder enabling children to climb into the structure.

· The boat is partially submerged below the water at full tide, and accessible at low tide.

· The boat structure is in poor condition and has a number of defects. The timber planks have cracks which have been poorly repaired. The railing of the ladder is badly corroded. The surface of the timber is often wet and slippery. There are timber seats within the boat that provide potential entrapments beneath them. The base of the boat is covered in sharp oysters.

· Water collects in the base of the boat which is slow to drain at low tide when the bung is removed.

· There are loose ropes around the structure which can become entangled.

· The boat is not a suitable play structure given the issues with the structure and that children have the ability to climb into the boat and play at low tide.

· There is also the chance that the tide could rise, thus trapping a child inside the boat.

Davis Coastal Consultants (Attachment B)

· Any recreational equipment should be safe for use. Particular hazards identified with swimming pontoons and methods of managing these are listed below in Table 7.1.1

· Additional hazards posed by the boat that are not associated with the other swimming pontoons would be the potential drowning hazard of water pooling in the boat and the potential drowning hazard of a sinking boat.

· The risk of unsupervised minors and persons who are unable to swim drowning at a beach environment is a necessary and accepted hazard. However, additional risks associated with the boat holding water need consideration. This is particularly relevant at low tide when the boat is grounded and readily accessible to young children.

· Having standing water, of say 100-400mm, in a children’s play facility, while not comparable to the residential pool requirements of the Building Act 2004, still introduces a safety risk to that play facility. The risk is worsened because the facility is intended specifically for small children and that, at 1m to1.5m high, the sides prevent observation of the children except if standing immediately next to the craft.

· The report considers the presence of a public recreation facility, for which the council is responsible, that is intended for young children, retains a depth of water in the hull, and/or has a high risk of sinking while in use, is a potential health and safety risk to users. Further, the report considers that the council has an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to manage those risks.

17. In addition to the above report summaries, the condition of the boat had deteriorated further since the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting on 19 April 2017. A significant crack in the boats structure has meant the boat no longer floats and is continually filling up with water.

18. According to Water Safety New Zealand it only takes sixty seconds and around five centimetres of water for a child to drown (www.watersafety.org.nz). Therefore, there is an unacceptable risk of a child drowning if playing on the boat unsupervised.

19. The Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) handbook for Water Safe Water Depth Diving Standards considers a nominal water depth of 1.3m at low tide to be a safe minimum depth for diving from pontoons. The current location of the boat does not satisfy this depth at all times.

20. In summary, the boat in its current form and location is a public safety risk due to the hazards identified and should be immediately removed from the beach.

Boat removal

21. Staff consider it essential that the boat be removed from Hilders Park foreshore at the earliest opportunity to remove the safety risk.

22. The boat will be safely stored until a suitable long term location has been identified and agreed upon by the Kaipātiki Local Board.

23. The cost of removal and storage of the boat is estimated at $8,000 -$10,000 and will be funded via the Parks Sport and Recreation department operational budget.

24. Due to the size, weight and deteriorated condition of the boat, removing it from the foreshore will be a difficult undertaking. All attempts will be made to remove the boat without damaging it, although it is a possible consequence of moving the vessel.

Feasibility of alternative service outcomes

25. Repairing the existing boat and returning it to the intertidal zone at Hilders Park is not considered to be a viable option due to the potential drowning hazard still being a risk, regardless of the condition of the boat. This is because children will still be able to climb into the boat and play at low tide but then be surrounded by water at high tide.

26. Repairing and modifying the existing boat and returning it to a permanently floating location (floating even at low tide) in the coastal marine area alongside Hilders Park is also not considered to be a viable option because of:

· safety hazards associated with the boat such as entrapments and marine growth;

· the inability to undertake routine maintenance on the boat given its size, weight and location, which will lead to the development of further hazards over time;

· the distance into the harbour that the boat would need to be moored in order to satisfy the 1.3m water depth at all times regulations; and

· a coastal permit or mooring permit is very unlikely to be granted given the previous three points.

27. The feasibility of providing similar service outcomes to the above can be investigated further, in collaboration with council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation department.

28. The current boat provides a number of service outcomes to the local community, including:

· Play value: The boat is a popular play item for local children;

· Water play: the boat is located within the tidal zone, providing a unique play experience in the aquatic environment.

29. The feasibility of providing similar service outcomes to the above can be investigated further, in collaboration with councils Parks Sport and Recreation department. This can include potentially repurposing the existing boat and can be undertaken in collaboration with the community.

30. Following further investigation into the feasibility of alternative renewal options, community facilities staff will report back to the local board with a recommended option or options.

31. Funding for the feasibility of alternative renewal options investigation will be covered through the renewal project budget.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

32. A workshop was held with the Kaipātiki Local Board on 12 July 2017 to discuss the outcomes of the consultant reports (Attachments A and B).

33. If the board decides not to support the immediate removal of the play boat from Hilders Park Foreshore, the board could be liable should any incidents happen in relation to the boat.

Māori impact statement

34. The risks to the Māori community are the same as any risks identified for the general public in Attachments A and B.

35. Identifying a suitable alternative option can include consultation with iwi given the coastal environment and mana whenua connections to the area.

Implementation

36. Removal and storage of the play boat will occur in the week immediately following this report, weather and tide dependent.

37. Community Facilities Investigation and Design team can work collaboratively with the Parks, Sport and Recreation Department to undertake initial investigations for renewal options of the play boat.

38. Collaboration and consultation with the community and iwi will be important in considering the feasibility of any option.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Future Landscapes Ltd Report	15
b ⇩	Davis Coastal Report	19

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn White - Renewals Coordinator

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 August 2017

Governance Framework Review recommendations

File No.: CP2017/16276

Purpose

1. This report seeks local board feedback on the draft positions of the Governance Framework Review’s Political Working Party.

Executive summary

2. The Governance Framework Review (GFR) 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 (PWP) 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; and

· 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.

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki 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 process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh;

· Earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional decision-making processes;

· 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;

· Specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions;

· 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; and

· 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.

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:

· Declaration;

· Classification;

· Reclassification; and

· application for revocation of reserve status (limited to when there is a desire by a local board to manage open space under the Local Government Act)

x. Note that officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land was that it should remain with the governing body, with the relevant local board consulted on these decisions.

xi. Note that the working party did not reach consensus on this 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:

· 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 organisation s communicate how their current year work programme will contribute to local board priorities’;

· develop by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement plan, which includes a schedule ‘clearly indicat[ing] for each board, the projects and/or activities that it 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.’; and

· report against their 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:

· better and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local boards; and

· 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 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:

· 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; and

· 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 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 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 governing body 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 arms.

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, focusing on the complementary governance relationship between local boards and a governing body. The review did not consider Auckland Council’s Council Controlled Organisation (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, council-controlled organisations (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 of governing body members and local board members to consider the 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.

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 working party 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; and

· 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 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; and

· 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; and

· 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; and

· 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; and

· 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 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 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; and

· 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; and

· 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 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 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; and

· 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; and

· 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; or

· 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; and

· 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 channeling 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; and

· 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 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); and

· Multi Board (joint decision making of two or more local boards).

84. The early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Appendix 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 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; and

· 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation proposal now not optimal, regardless of the merits of changing the number of boards:

· Legislative changes to simplify the reorganisation process are being considered by Parliament, but the timeframe for their enactment is not known.

· The Local Government Commission is considering reorganisation 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 reorganisation proposal processes, completion of the North Rodney and Waiheke Island reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 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 governing 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 (STV).

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 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 LGACA 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; and

· 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; and

· 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary table of GFR report recommendations	99
b ⇩	Regional decision-making and policy processes	109
c ⇩	Allocations and delegations	123
d ⇩	Reserves Act land exchanges	153
e ⇩	Local boards and Auckland Transport	159
f ⇩	Confirmation of draft transport recommendations	187
g ⇩	Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ cover paper	191
h ⇩	Waiheke pilot project outline	195
i ⇩	Funding and finance workstream’ paper 1	215
j ⇩	Funding and finance cover paper July	233
k ⇩	Funding finance description of 2 models (including two spreadsheet attachments)	241
l ⇩	Number of local boards	257
m ⇩	Representation options	279
n ⇩	Naming conventions	299

Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Manager Mayoral Programmes

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 August 2017

Proposal for a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan

File No.: CP2017/10892

Purpose

1. To endorse the commencement of a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan (the Plan), approve a funding contribution for the plan and to nominate two board members to participate in a working party to guide development of the Plan.

Executive summary

2. A local plan to support Sunnynook’s future growth has been anticipated by the local community for a number of years. Developing a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan (the Plan) is consistent with the Auckland Plan’s growth strategy and will support growth enabled by rezoning in and around Sunnynook centre under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. The Plan will include opportunities and actions to enhance Sunnynook town centre and its surrounding residential areas and manage the impacts of growth. Agreed actions may be carried out as funds permit in the future by the affected local boards, the council group, or local business and community groups.

4. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has budget available to commence a plan in July of this year. As the study area is proposed to include Totara Vale, a funding contribution is also being sought from the Kaipātiki Local Board.

5. The proposed approach is to work closely with both local boards, key community and iwi representatives to develop opportunities, outcomes and actions for a draft plan. Wider community engagement will be carried out in September of this year and April 2018. Adoption of a final plan by both local boards is anticipated to be in July 2018. Adoption of a final plan is anticipated to be in July 2018.

6. A working party comprising representatives from the Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipātiki Local Boards and the Sunnynook Community Association is recommended to guide development of the Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) endorse commencement of a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan;

b) approve the contribution of $15,000 from its locally driven initiative budget towards the commencement of a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan;

c) approve the nomination of two local board representatives to participate in a working party to oversee the development of the Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan.

Comments

7. Auckland Plan: The Auckland Plan describes Sunnynook as a centre suited for future growth having regard to its proximity to State Highway 1 and the Northern Busway. The Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy identifies Sunnynook as an area of “significant change”.

8. Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part): Rezoning in the Unitary Plan enables significant growth potential in the Sunnynook and Totara Vale areas. The additional capacity takes into account the area’s proximity to market-attractive features including the Sunnynook Bus Station, Northern Motorway, Sunnynook town centre, schools and parks.

9. Kaipātiki Local Board Plan (2014 and 2017 draft): Local board plans recognise the value of vibrant town and village centres with a thriving local economy. Totara Vale is identified as one of several small local precincts that would benefit from enhancement. Supporting safer and more vibrant communities, along with the ability to get to and around Kaipātiki easily are priorities in the draft Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017. To deliver on the key outcome ‘Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kainga’, the draft proposes undertaking improvement projects in smaller centres such as Totara Vale to support local community aspirations.

Study Area

10. The study area for the Plan is proposed to include the town centre and the surrounding areas of Sunnynook and Totara Vale. It is proposed that the Plan should reinforce the primacy of Sunnynook town centre as the community heart of these residential catchments. It will not include Wairau Park retail and industrial areas as those areas would be better served by a comprehensive Wairau retail and commercial plan that will cater to the needs to the business community and employment sector. A map of the proposed study area is attached as Attachment A.

11. Benefits of a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan include:

· taking a community led approach – build on the Sunnynook Visioning Report prepared by the Sunnynook Community Association with wider consultation and engagement to include Totara Vale;

· focusing on place making and identity – identify and protect or enhance valued local characteristics;

· taking an integrated approach to place making projects – transport, accessibility, community facilities and open space, environment and flood management;

· creating a safe and healthy place to live, work and enjoy recreation;

· supporting growth – guide and influence development provided by the Unitary Plan; and

· informing a 30 year programme to support growth with short, medium and long term projects for the local board to advocate for in the council’s and council controlled organisations’ work programmes.

12. A plan is seen as the best option for combining the community’s vision for itself and the council’s desire for an integrated approach to future issues of growth and amenity in and around Sunnynook. The commencement of a plan is appropriate and timely. There is a high level of community expectation, as articulated in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and the recent Sunnynook Community-led Visioning Report. There is also a range of relatively recent information gathered on the area and its surrounds.

Approach

13. Staff propose that a working party comprising representatives of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, Kaipatiki Local Board and the Sunnynook Residents’ Association be established to guide the development of the Plan. The approach for the plan is to draw on existing research and the community’s recent visioning work. This will provide the foundations for community and stakeholder consultation in September 2017 to identify opportunities and issues that will inform the Plan.

14. To encourage community buy-in to the Plan it is proposed that a ‘live project’ be developed alongside development of the Plan itself. Previous consultation undertaken in the Sunnynook area and recent feedback from the Sunnynook Residents’ Association suggests that a project on ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’ (CPTED) would be welcomed by the community.

15. The following table shows key milestones for developing the plan:

Milestone	Planned Date
Local Board endorses commencement of the plan and appointment of members to a working party	August 2017
Working party workshop No1	September 2017
Community, school and stakeholder consultation	Sept–Oct 2017
Working party workshop No 2	November 2017
Working party workshop No 3	February 2018
Working party workshop No 4	April 2018
Draft plan reported to Local Boards for consideration and endorsement for consultation	May 2018
Community and stakeholder consultation on draft plan	June 2018
Working party workshop No 5	July 2018
Final Sunnynook Plan endorsed by the Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipātiki Local Boards	August 2018
Implementation of action plan	Begins September 2018

Financial implications:

16. The total cost of developing and completing a Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan is estimated to be $75,000. It is proposed that the Kaipātiki Local Board contribute $15,000 to the cost, recognising the inclusion of Totara Vale in the study area.

17. As part of the plan, a detailed CPTED analysis of the area is proposed. Recommendations and costs for implementing actions will be brought to the local boards later this year. The actions will be included in the Plan.

Risk assessment and mitigation strategy

18. The risks for the project are considered to be low. Sufficient resourcing will be provided in a project team drawn from across the wider council group and funding is available to develop and complete the Plan.

19. The most likely risks to this project are changes to the key milestone dates. This plan is being developed as other council priorities such as local board plans and the Auckland Plan Refresh are being consulted and finalised. Consultation fatigue and/or changes in the council and local board priorities and budgets may influence the time frames for the delivery of this plan. To address any issues that may arise, timeframes and project budgets could be renegotiated with the local boards as necessary. However, a communications and engagement plan will be developed to avoid unnecessary engagement duplication and consultation fatigue as much as possible.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The community and stakeholders will be consulted at the start of the plan preparation and again on the draft plan. Surveys and consultation for work undertaken by North Shore City Council in 2009/10 provides useful background information. In addition to this, engagement feedback for the Sunnynook Community Visioning Report, the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan 2014 and draft local board plan 2017 are also seen as important starting points for the issues and ideas to be addressed in the Plan. The Sunnynook Community Association has also provided a paper (May 2017) outlining issues that provide further insights into local needs and concerns.

Māori impact statement

21. A key move in the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan is to recognise the mana whenua as kaitiaki and celebrate local Māori identity and cultural heritage. The development of the Sunnynook Totara Vale Plan should provide opportunities to recognise and celebrate any identified local Māori identity and cultural heritage concerns.

22. A process of engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka will be developed specifically for this plan in collaboration with the Māori responsiveness team in the Chief Planning Office.

23. The following iwi groups will be invited to be part of the engagement process:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua;

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara;

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki;

· Te Kawerau a Maki;

· Te Akitai Waiohua;

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua;

· Ngāti Paoa;

· Ngāti Maru;

· Ngāti Whanaunga;

· Ngāti Tamaterā; and

· Te Patukirikiri.

Implementation

24. The Plan will propose a range of actions and aspirations. As a priority, it may be possible to implement some of the CPTED recommendations at an early stage. Further implementation can occur through a range of methods, including the Long-term Plan, the Local Board Agreement, local board plans and working with Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and local community groups. If specific new budgets are required, they will need to be considered through the Long-term Plan process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sunnynook Plan project area and AUP Zones - map	319

Signatories

Authors

Susan Ensor - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 August 2017

Feedback on the proposed direction of the Regional Pest Management Plan

File No.: CP2017/14305

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 Kaipātiki Local Board on the proposed management approach for some specific regional programmes as detailed in Attachment A, in particular:

· cats;

· possums;

· widespread weeds; and

· 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 publicly 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 Kaipātiki Local Board, and the approaches being developed for these local board specific interests have been included as Attachment B. Feedback on these approaches is also being sought.

Recommendation

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

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

Programme types

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

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

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

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

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

· 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 Kaipātiki Local board at its 21 May 2014 workshop, and more recently at its 26 July 2017 workshop in relation to these issues is summarised below:

· Cats: Board members noted the cats are an issue in the area and are supportive of measures that manage unowned or stray cats and cats in important biodiversity areas in the proposed plan. The board also considered that education is important, along with collaboration with organisations such as the SPCA and that the public will need a reasonable lead in time to adjust to any new measures.

· Widespread pest plants: Widespread pest plants such as moth plant and rhamnus are an issue in the local board area. The board supports the ability to enforce weed removal on Crown land and land controlled by council controlled organisations (CCOs). Officers need the right tools for enforcement and best practice examples of behavior change programmes need to be researched. The board requests that Wilding Pines are added to the list of widespread pest plants.

During the discussion the board also noted that whilst they support a site-focused approach to priority species management, the community needs to be included in the conversation about sites to ensure that the work of the community is not undermined by this approach. Success stories relating to specific sites should also be shared.

· Ban of sale for some pest species: The board noted support for this measure as it is important for retaining New Zealand’s unique flora and fauna.

Kaipātiki specific issues

18. In addition to the specific regional issues, the Kaipātiki Local Board has provided feedback at its 21 May 2014 workshop, and 26 July 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 Kaipātiki Local Board included:

· Pest birds: Pigeons suggested as a pest bird.

· Wallabies (Kawau Island): Query regarding the status of wallabies on Kawau Island in the proposed plan.

· Rodents: Noted as an issue in the local board area.

· Kauri dieback disease: Kauri dieback is an issue in the area. Volunteers have basic spray bottles but the board considers more stations and signage are needed in local reserves to ensure the public are aware of, and carry out, required management practices. The board requests that the Kaipātiki Local Board area (Kauri Glen in particular) be included in the exclusion zone. Any exclusion plan for the board will need to take into account the board’s ‘Connections Plan’ and public enjoyment values of the area.

· Biocontrol: The board noted strong interest and support regarding biocontrol measures and their development.

· Education around pests: Request for the provision of information and advice on pest identification, impacts and control for members of the public. The board note that education is very important, but also monitoring of behavior change and enforcement.

· Community pest control: The need for council and community pest control initiatives to work together and support each other.

20. 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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. An initial workshop was held with the Kaipātiki Local Board on 21 May 2014, where the issues raised in Attachment A were discussed. A recent workshop with the board was held on 26 July 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. Feedback provided at these workshops has been considered under the Kaipātiki specific issues in Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

27. Wider issues raised included:

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

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

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

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

· the need for more education around pests;

· the need to look holistically at rohe (regions);

· the importance of community pest control by linking scattered projects; and

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key regional issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan	401
b ⇩	Kaipātiki Local Board issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan	403
c ⇩	Regional Pest Management Plan feedback form	405
d ⇩	Previous engagement on the Regional Pest Management Plan	409

Signatories

Authors

Dr Nick Waipara – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Dr Imogen Bassett – Environmental Advisory Manager

Rachel Kelleher – Biosecurity Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 August 2017

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Kaipātiki Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017

File No.: CP2017/15831

Purpose

1. To provide the Kaipātiki Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter four, 1 April to 30 June 2017, against the local board agreement work programme.

Executive summary

2. This report provides an integrated view of performance for the Kaipātiki Local Board. It includes financial performance and work programmes.

3. The snapshot (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Kaipātiki Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B).

4. 82% of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. 39 activities were undelivered from the agreed work programmes in the 2016/2017 financial year.

5. The overall financial performance result for the Kaipātiki Local Board for the year 2016/2017 is favourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the board to note:

· Kaipātiki Local Board's net operating expenditure for the year was $11.1 million, a 3% variance above budget;

· Operating revenue was below budget as was the trend in the previous quarters;

· Operating expenditure for both asset based services and locally driven initiatives are in line with budget; and

· Capital investment for the year was $8.1 million, in line with the full year budget.

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 this quarter. The results are included as a separate item on this meeting agenda entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Kaipātiki Local Board report”.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 June 2017.

Comments

Key highlights for quarter four

7. The Kaipātiki Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter four period, which include:

· The independent 360⁰ strategic review report of Northart Gallery was finalised. Staff will be reporting their recommendations as a result of this report in the 2017/2018 financial year.

· Kaipātiki achieved a 100% score in the March ambient survey, which measures how much of the city is graffiti free. This represents a one point increase on the previous September 2016 survey and is the highest score achieved by Kaipātiki since the survey began in 2011.

· The ANZAC Day services at Birkenhead, Glenfield and Northcote were successfully delivered.

· The installation of a sun shade over the Lynn Reserve play space.

Key project achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme

8. The following are year-end achievements relating to key projects identified in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· The opening of Kaimataara ō Wai Manawa – a key transformational project for Birkenhead identified in the 2006 Highbury Town Centre Plan. The name, meaning the place enabling people to watch over the source of water, was gifted to the community by mana whenua.

· The opening of the redeveloped hall in Marlborough Park created to be a new youth-focused facility. The centre operator, Kaipātiki Youth Development Trust, has commenced offering a range of events, services and programmes to improve youth wellbeing and employment readiness.

· The completion of the stormwater infrastructure upgrade at Croftfield Lane. Not only did this project deliver an improved stormwater wetland area, it also provided additional park space, sustainable transport link, and a backdrop for a public art installation.

Achievement of the 2016/2017 work programme

9. The Kaipātiki Local Board has an approved 2016/2017 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 13 July, 2016;

· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 8 June, 2016;

· Libraries and Information, approved on 8 June, 2016;

· Community Facility Renewals and Community Leases, approved on 10 August, 2016; and

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services and Local Economic Development, approved on 13 July 2016.

10. The snapshot (refer Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Kaipātiki Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (refer Attachment B).

11. In previous quarterly performance reports, the traffic light Red Amber Green (RAG) status system reflected progress: Red = issues, Amber = warning, Green = on track. As the quarter four report reflects the status of delivery at the end of the financial year, the traffic lights indicate Red = incomplete/not delivered, Green = delivered as expected.

12. 82% of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered.

13. Departments delivered the 2016/2017 work programmes as follows:

Arts, Community and Events work programme 96% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	14
Green	In progress *	11
Red	On Hold, Deferred	1
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Points to note:

CS: ACE: Events – Community Volunteer Awards (Kaipatiki)

· The scheduling of the Community Volunteer Awards has yet to be confirmed with the local board.

CS: ACE: Community Places – Marlborough Park Youth Facility

· The operational planning work is incomplete due to a change in circumstance and staffing resources. Operational planning will be will be prioritised and progressed accordingly in Q1 2017/2018 as part of the ongoing support for the facility. This will be workshopped with the local board at the earliest convenience in 2017/2018.

Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 93% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	9
Green	In progress *	3
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	1

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Points to note:

CS: PSR: Sport & Rec - Netball North Harbour Funding Agreement Grant

· Project not yet fully funded.

Libraries and Information work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	12
Green	In progress *	0
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Community Facilities work programme 77% delivered (includes operations and maintenance, renewals and development projects)

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	47
Green	In progress *	41
Red	On Hold, Deferred	22
	Cancelled	5
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Points to note:

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipātiki FY17 Community Leases renewals

· Revise scope and timing of works to align with other projects being undertaken in Onepoto Domain.

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipātiki FY17 Glenfield Library renewals

· Project on hold while building condition report being reviewed.

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipātiki FY17 Libraries FF&E renewals

· This project has been delayed until July 2017. The delay has been caused by the library requesting to have time to re-arrange their collections before they decide on what furniture items they require.

CF: Project Delivery - Birkenhead War Memorial Park - Service Road (Recreation Drive to Mahara Ave)

· Project on hold as other parks project required first.

CF: Project Delivery - Birkenhead War Memorial Park Carparks Renewals

· Mahara Drive carpark on hold because of Grandstand issues, Recreation Drive carpark on hold due to budget constraint.

CF: Project Delivery - Chatswood Reserve (Sign, tracks, Furniture)

· Physical works to be staged over two to three years.

CF: Project Delivery - Dudding Ave Reserve tracks

· Physical works planned for summer 2018/2019.

CF: Project Delivery - Elliot Reserve Play and Furniture Renewals

· Physical works estimated to commence January 2018.

CF: Project Delivery - Eskdale Reserve Network tracks and Furniture renewals

· Physical works for stage 1b, including the new Lauderdale crossing, is planned for summer 2017/2018. Stage 2 will commence summer 2018/2019. Stage 3 is planned for summer 2019/2020.

CF: Project Delivery - Glenfield Cemetery Pathways

· Pathway renewal scope of works and allocated budget to be confirmed.

CF: Project Delivery - Greenslade Reserve Fixture and Furniture Renewals

· Project cancelled as the work scope is to replace two bins that are actually still fit for purpose.

CF: Project Delivery - Hilders Park Fixture and Furniture Renewals

· Working with the community representatives and furniture suppliers to explore options for memorial seats.

CF: Project Delivery - Hilders Park Pontoon

· Risk assessment has been undertaken by a qualified playground specialist. Results of the assessment feature as part of another report on this agenda, including identification of health and safety issues and limitations as they pertain to the local board and the implications this might have on options to keep the boat in its current form.

CF: Project Delivery - Hinemoa Path and Light Renewal

· Physical works planned for late summer 2017/2018

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipātiki Play Undersurface Renewals FY17

· Project separated by reserve for reporting and finance to reduce complexities.

CF: Project Delivery - Kauri Park track and signage renewals

· Stage 1 planned to start summer 2018/2019, with other stages planned over the next two to three years.

CF: Project Delivery - Manuka Reserve Playspace Renewal

· Project on hold due to funding constraints. There is potential to redefine scope of works as renewal component is outstanding.

CF: Project Delivery - Witheford Reserve Track Renewals

· Project on hold.

CF: Project Delivery - Marlborough Park Playspace, Path, Furniture, & Skate Renewals

· Stage 1 work, which includes paths, furniture and playspace, in underway and is due to be completed by October 2017. Stage 2 works, which includes the skatepark and youth area, is planned for physical works for summer 2018/2019.

CF: Project Delivery - Onewa Domain FY17 Carpark, Bollards, and Fixtures & Fittings Renewals

· Preparation for tendering works is still underway.

CF: Project Delivery - ActivZone - Roof replacement over training and turret

· Physical works on the exterior has yet to commence.

CF: Project Delivery - Kauri Glen Reserve track and Furniture renewals

· Consultation continues with the volunteers business association and high school groups on the exact alignment for the new track section 18, including the viewing platform to protect kauri. Next steps include developing design and lodging resource consent. Stage 1 to realign section 18 and address kauri tree root issues is planned for summer 2017/2018, with other stages planned over the next two to three financial years.

CF: Project Delivery - Glenfield Pool & Leisure Centre - Filtration Refurbishment to Splash Pool

· This project has been cancelled as it is no longer required. It may become a larger project further down the track.

CF: Project Delivery - Birkenhead War Memorial Park Grandstand renewal

· Project on hold. Awaiting strategic assessment from community services for the future building requirements.

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipatiki Project - Lauderdale - Asbestos Removal & Remedy

· Project is currently on hold until a decision is made on the best way forward for the facility (refurbish or rebuild).

CF: Project Delivery - Lancelot Reserve

· Project has not progressed past concept design.

CF: Project Delivery - Monarch Park - Entrance Improvements

· This item is a duplicate

Community Leases work programme 73% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	6
Green	In progress *	16
Red	On Hold, Deferred	8
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Points to note:

CF: Community Leases - Onepoto Awhina

· On hold as it is linked to Northcote Project.

CF: Community Leases - RNZ Plunket Society Birkenhead Branch Beach Haven Sub Branch

· On hold as work regarding multi-premises lease for all the Plunket leases in the region is in progress.

CF: Community Leases - RNZ Plunket Society - Pearn Crescent Northcote

· On hold as work regarding multi-premises lease for all the Plunket leases in the region is in progress.

CF: Community Leases - RNZ Plunket Society - Birkenhead Library

· On hold as work regarding multi-premises lease for all the Plunket leases in the region is in progress.

CF: Community Leases - NS CAB - Bentley Avenue

· On hold being a part of multi lease project

CF: Community Leases - NS CAB - Birkenhead Library

· On hold being a part of multi lease project

CF: Community Leases - Beach Haven Marae

· The feasibility study is in progress and there is no build of the marae at this stage until the feasibility is completed.

CF: Community Leases - Lindisfarne Hall

· On hold being a part of Northcote Project

Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	2
Green	In progress *	3
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Local Economic Development work programme 67% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	2
Green	In progress *	0
Red	On Hold, Deferred	1
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Points to note:

CCO: ATEED - Impact assessment of infrastructure investments in Highbury

· This project was agreed by the local board to be deferred on the basis that insufficient time had lapsed following the new investment in Highbury to enable accurate impact assessment. This assessment will be undertaken in 2017/18 and steps are underway to develop a research brief and commission a suitable contractor.

14. 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 but the project has not been delivered.

15. The Kaipātiki 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:

· Highbury Improvements Impact Assessment Project - $15,000; and

· Volunteer Awards - $5,000.

Financial performance

16. Kaipātiki Local Board’s net operating expenditure for the year was $11.1 million, a 3% variance above budget.

17. Operating revenue was below budget as was the trend in the previous quarters. The revenue from the early childhood centres makes up the majority of the variance for the year due to lower enrolments than was budgeted as well as lower revenue from the leisure centres.

18. Operating expenditure for both asset based services and locally driven initiatives are in line with budget. The board approved a carry forward of $20,000 for the two projects outlined in paragraph 15 of this report, which was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee.

19. Capital investment for the year was $8.1 million, in line with the full year budget. Parks and leisure asset renewals made up the majority of the spend, totaling $4.8 million, including projects such as the AF Thomas carpark renewal and the Marlborough Park upgrade. Other key projects completed were Kaimataara ō Wai Manawa ($1.2 million) and the Marlborough Park Youth Facility ($775,000).

20. The full summary of financial performance information is provided in Attachment C.

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 item on this meeting agenda entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Kaipātiki Local Board report”.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. This report informs the Kaipātiki Local Board of the performance for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Māori impact statement

23. A number of the activities in the local board work programmes positively impact Māori. One project of particular impact is that of the Beach Haven Marae. The study is currently being finalised and will be used to support the potential development of a marae.

24. Kia Māia Te Whai, Dare to Explore summer reading programme gave many tamariki the opportunity to read, learn and participate in Te Reo Maori as booklets were available in English or Maori or both languages (bilingual). A total of 479 registrations were recorded across the three libraries in Kaipātiki.

Implementation

25. The Lead Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, which was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017.

26. Local Board Services will refer undelivered projects from the agreed 2016/2017 work programme to the relevant operational department for investigation. Departments will be asked to identify their ability to deliver the activity in the 2017/2018 financial year.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kaipātiki Work Programme Snapshot Quarter Four, 2016/2017	469
b ⇩	Kaipātiki Work Programme Update Report Quarter Four, 2016/2017	471
c ⇩	Kaipātiki Work Programme Financial Appendix Quarter Four, 2016/2017	503

Signatories

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipatiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - 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.

Chairperson	Danielle Grant
Deputy Chairperson	John Gillon
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Kay McIntyre, QSM
	Anne-Elise Smithson
	Adrian Tyler
	Lindsay Waugh

	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 LTP and Annual Plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

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

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 ⇩	Draft Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report	441
b ⇩	Draft Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 event feedback	447
c ⇩	Draft Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 social media feedback	453
d ⇩	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 proforma submission	455
e ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 1) (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 2) (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 3) (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 4) (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 5) (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 6) (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 7) (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Draft Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 submissions (Volume 8) (Under Separate Cover)

Authors	Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager