I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 17 August 2017

9.30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Deputy Chairperson

Margaret Miles, JP

 

Members

Uzra Casuri  Balouch, JP

 

 

Nicholas Mayne

 

 

John McLean

 

 

Brian Neeson, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Cindy Lynch

Democracy Advisor

 

11 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 486 8593

Email: Cindy.Lynch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

8.1     Greenhithe Community Trust                                                                             6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held, Thursday 20 July 2017     9

13        Auckland Transport monthly report - August 2017                                                53

14        Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Upper Harbour Local Board                              71

15        Feedback on the proposed direction of the Regional Pest Management Plan    85

16        Submissions and feedback on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 99

17        Governance Framework Review recommendations                                             121

18        Upper Harbour Local Board feedback to the 'Tākaro - Investing in Play' Discussion Document                                                                                                                   357

19        Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017                                                                         365

20        Input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services                                     399

21        ATEED six-monthly report to the Upper Harbour Local Board                           403

22        Whenuapai herb garden                                                                                            419

23        Approval of a new road name for the subdivision at 29 Oscar Road, Greenhithe 427

24        Governance forward work calendar                                                                        433

25        Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 July, and Thursday 3 August 2017                                                                                   437

26        Board Members' Reports                                                                                         445  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 20 July 2017, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

8.1       Greenhithe Community Trust

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2.       Amanda Mitchell, Chair of the Greenhithe Community Trust, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to present their annual financial report and to provide an update on the activities of the trust.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the deputation from Amanda Mitchell, Chair of the Greenhithe Community Trust, and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Greenhithe Community Trust - report on activity................................ 451

b          Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park.............................. 455

c         Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park quotes.................. 457

d         Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park grant application.. 459

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held, Thursday 20 July 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15188

 

  

Purpose

The open unconfirmed minutes and minute attachments of the Upper Harbour Local Board ordinary meeting held on Thursday, 20 July 2017, are attached at item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only.

 

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that the open unconfirmed minutes and minute attachments of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Thursday, 20 July 2017, are attached at item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only, and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board unconfirmed minutes, 20 July 2017

11

b

Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments, 20 July 2017

21

      

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Auckland Transport monthly report - August 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15158

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to:

·     respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters;

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

·     request approval for new LBTCF projects;

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

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

Executive summary

2.       In particular, this report covers:

·     progress report on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s advocacy initiatives;

·     progress report on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s transport capital fund projects;

·     consultation documents on proposed safety improvements; and

·     local board requests on transport-related matters.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport update for August 2017.

b)      request Auckland Transport provide rough orders of cost for the following projects:

i.        walking and cycling footpath, from 8 to 12 Chester Avenue to 32 Chester Avenue.

ii.       walking and cycling path request, from 32 Chester Avenue through to the road becoming Wickham Lane, to the intersection with Kyle Road, Greenhithe / Schnapper Rock.

iii.      walking and cycling path, from 170 Albany Highway to 8 to 12 Chester Avenue, Greenhithe.

iv.      pedestrian crossing outside Pinehill School.

v.       re-alignment of Rame Road, Greenhithe.

 

Comments

Strategic alignment

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

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

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

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

6.       The five strategic themes endorsed by the board of AT are:

·     prioritise rapid, high frequency public transport;

·     continually transform and elevate customer experience;

·     build network optimisation and resilience for travel times;

·     enable quality urban growth to meet demand; and

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

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

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

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

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

11.     AT is improving public transport with the implementation of the New Public Transport Network, which has a revised bus service proposed for the area. This will increase bus service provision in the area and offer an enhanced public transport system. The New Public Transport Network will be rolled out in 2018 in the Upper Harbour area.

12.     AT will be looking to enhance timetables for delivery by ferry operators on both the Hobsonville and Beach Haven routes.

13.     AT will work with the local board on public requests for footpath improvements, through footpath renewals and new footpath programmes. If there are any safety issues in relation to existing footpaths, AT will assess them on an individual basis and repair as required.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

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

Project

Description

Current Status

Gills Road pedestrian bridge

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

·   Detailed design for the footbridge is underway.

·   Detailed design for the gravel footpath is completed.

·   Road safety audit and non-motorised user audit indicate some sections along the proposed footpath are unsafe.

·   The construction tender was advertised and resource consent applications for the earthworks and tree removal logged, in an attempt to achieve completion by early August 2017.

·   AT’s process and good engineering practice requires an independent Road Safety Audit (RSA) and Non-motorised User Audit (NMUA) to be carried out on developed designs, to ensure any proposal provides a safe environment for all road users. The independent RSA and NMUA for the footpath raised a number of serious concerns for pedestrian safety. AT therefore decided to revisit the design and include retaining structures and a boardwalk with a gravel footpath to address localised issues.

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

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

·   Tender for construction of gravel footpath to be closed and re-advertised once the detailed design is complete. Should be complete before the end of August.

 

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary

Total funds available in current political term

$1,835,080

Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction

$297,222

Remaining budget

$1,537,858

 

Rough estimate of costs (ROCs) requests

15.     The Upper Harbour Local Board requested AT provide ROCs for the following projects:

·     walking and cycling path, from 8-12 Chester Avenue to 32 Chester Avenue;

·     walking and cycling path, from 32 Chester Avenue through to the road becoming Wickham Lane, to the intersection with Kyle Road, Greenhithe/Schnapper Rock;

·     walking and cycling path, from 170 Albany Highway to 8-12 Chester Avenue, Greenhithe;

·     pedestrian crossing outside Pinehill School; and

·     re-alignment of Rame Road, Greenhithe.

Upcoming projects and activities

Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers Association concerns about roading and pedestrian access on Herald Island

16.     Further detailed investigation needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of these issues. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review, at which stage, AT will be in a position to provide the local board with the outcome and recommendations of its assessment. The local board can expect to receive an update from AT by mid-October 2017.

Update

17.     AT is investigating the concerns raised by the Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers Association. Once this work is completed, AT will report back.

Reducing speed on Lonely Track Road

18.     Concerns have been raised about speeding on Lonely Track Road and how this might be addressed. AT is currently investigating this request.

The Northern Corridor Improvements (NCI) project: Rosedale bus station update

19.     The project team met with the local board on Thursday, 27 July 2017 to provide an update on the Rosedale bus station. This bus station is proposed along the new busway extension being built by the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) NCI project.

20.     At the workshop on 27 July 2017, the project team provided an update on progress made since the last update in March 2017. Pending approvals, a developed design and resource consenting strategy will be prepared later this year. Start dates for construction will be driven by this consenting timeline, as well as the overall construction programme for the busway extension in the main NCI works.

21.     The recommended option remains the same option that was discussed at AT’s March workshop session – a northern busway station with platforms spanning across Rosedale Road, to allow transfers to and from local road bus bays located on Rosedale Road.

22.     At the March workshop, the project team discussed with the local board their intention to investigate potential park and ride opportunities alongside the new station. Since then, the project team has confirmed that providing a park and ride facility, over and above the 40 bays on the 9 Arrenway Drive property, is contrary to AT’s parking strategy and therefore, is not feasible.

Transit 2 (T2) Lane Albany Highway review

23.     AT have completed the survey of the T2 lane along Albany Highway. AT is in the process of analysing the data and will be in a position to update the local board with the results in late August.

Major capital works in the Upper Harbour area

24.     Gills to Oteha Valley connection (approved funding $25 million):

·     currently finalising the business case for design; and

·     Regional Growth Fund (RGF) funding application has been approved.

25.     SH17 / The Avenue project (approved funding $14 million):

·     RGF funding application has been approved.

26.     Medallion Drive link (approved funding $20 million):

·     RGF funding application has been approved;

·     tender documents have been drawn up for design professional services contract procurement; and

·     estimated design completion by December 2017.

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

·     this project is led by NZTA as part of their NCI project. AT is currently negotiating a legal agreement with NZTA to confirm cost-share and roles/responsibilities.

Major projects in the Upper Harbour area

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

Major arterial (10 year indicative programme)

Cost

Indicative completion

Albany Highway

$38 million

    2017

Northern busway additional stations

$6.4 million

2020/2021

Brigham Creek Road

$11 million

2022/2023

NorthWest transformation PC14

$23 million

2023/2024

NorthWest transformation PC15 

$45 million

2018/2019

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

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

·     East Coast Road driveway, 982A-986 East Coast Road, Northcross (New Zealand Fire Service);

·     speed camera proposal, Dairy Flat Highway (Albany Hill); and

·     broken yellow lines, Capri Place/Calypso Way, Unsworth Heights.

Traffic control committee (TCC) report

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

Hugh Green Drive

Pinehill

No stopping at all times (NSAAT), bus shelter, bus stop, flush median, traffic islands

Upper Harbour quarterly report for the period: April to June 2017

31.     The following reports are attached to this monthly update:

·     Attachment A – report from AT departments on activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter; and

·     Attachment B – report on Travelwise school activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area over the last quarter.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

AT departmental activity report

59

b

Travelwise school activities

69

     

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Upper Harbour Local Board

 

File No.: CP2017/15258

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report compares actual activities and performance with the intended activities and level of service set out in the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The information is prepared as part of the local board’s accountability to the community for the decisions made throughout the year.

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017 is currently being prepared and progressed through the external audit process. In late September, the audit is expected to be completed and the final report will be approved and released to the public. The Annual Report will include performance results for each local board.

3.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its Local Board Agreement for 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service, and for the comments to be included in the Annual Report.

4.       The performance measures reported on are those that were agreed on and included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP). This is the second time we are reporting an annual result for this set of measures.

5.       The attached report is proposed for approval by the local board. The report includes the following sections:

·        message from the chairperson;

·        the year in review;

·        how we performed; and

·        financial information.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the draft local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

b)      receive the draft local board report to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

c)      approve the message from the chairperson, which provides the local board’s comments on local board matters in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

d)      give authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson to make typographical changes before submitting for final publication.

Comments

6.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 as follows:

Section 23 monitoring and reporting:

·        each local board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area; and

·        each annual report of Auckland Council must include, in respect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that:

i.        compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year);

ii.       specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and

iii.      gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.

7.       Each local board must comment on the matters included in the Annual Report under subsection 2 above in respect of its local board area, and council must include those comments in the Annual Report.

8.       This report focuses on the formal reporting referred to in Section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

9.       The report contains the following sections:

 

Section

Description

a)

Message from the chairperson

Legislative requirement to include commentary from the local board on matters included in the report.

b)

The year in review:

·      financial performance

·      highlights and achievements

·      challenges

Snapshot of the main areas of interest for the community in the local board area.

c)

How we performed

Legislative requirement to report on performance measure results for each activity, and to provide explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved.

d)

Financial information

Legislative requirement to report on financial performance results compared to LTP and Annual Plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

10.     The next steps for the draft Annual Report are:

·        audit during August 2017;

·        report to Finance and Performance Committee on 19 September 2017;

·        report to the Governing Body for adoption on 28 September 2017;

·        release to stock exchanges and publish online on 29 September 2017; and

·        physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Local board comments on local board matters in the Annual Report will be included in the Annual Report as part of the message from the chair.

Māori impact statement

12.     The Annual Report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 over a 12-month period. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 - Upper Harbour Local Board

75

     

Signatories

Authors

Michele Going - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney - Manager Corporate Performance & Reporting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Feedback on the proposed direction of the Regional Pest Management Plan

 

File No.: CP2017/14307

 

  

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 Upper Harbour 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, and approval will be sought 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

 

Comments

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

8.       Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy, prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council. The expiry date of 17 December 2012 was extended to 17 December 2017, while the National Policy Direction on Pest Management was completed and changes to the Biosecurity Act were made through the Biodiversity Amendment Act 2015.

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

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

11.     Following public consultation, governing body approval, 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. This will enable delivery of 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 ecological 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 with 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; and

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

17.     Previous feedback received from the Upper Harbour Local Board’s May 2014 workshop in relation to these issues is summarised below:

·        Possums: possums are a problem at Massey University;

·        Widespread pest plants: widespread pest plants such as rhamnus, wild ginger, jasmine, woolly nightshade are an issue in the local board area; and

·        Ban of sale for some pest species: palms were noted to be an issue in the area due to planting in backyards next to bush areas.

Upper Harbour specific issues

18.     In addition to the specific regional issues, the Upper Harbour Local Board provided feedback at its 23 May 2014 workshop in relation to the issues discussed in Attachment B. The proposed approach and the rationale in relation to these issues, is also provided in Attachment B. Note that members of the local board attended a regional pest management plan briefing in May 2017.

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

·        Rabbits: rabbits are a problem at Massey University and Rosedale Pony Club, Rosedale Park;

·        Kauri dieback: Gills Reserve contains healthy kauri which needs protection, and there is currently low awareness of kauri dieback in the area. This area is also an important resting place for birds as part of the North-West Wildlink;

·        Chickens: dumping of chickens at Kell Park is an issue;

·        Birds: Indian mynas flock and become a nuisance. They are also aggressive, and push natives out; and

·        Rats and wallabies: query about status of them under the proposed plan.

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.     A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 23 May 2014, where the issues raised in Attachments A and B were discussed and have been taken into account in the proposed approaches described in these attachments.

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

91

b

Upper Harbour  Local Board issues for the Regional Pest Management Plan

93

c

Regional Pest Management Plan feedback form

95

d

Previous engagement on the Regional Pest Management Plan

97

     

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

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Submissions and feedback on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15419

 

  

Purpose

1.       To provide a high level overview of data gathered through public consultation on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017, along with all submissions and feedback received.

Executive summary

2.       The consultation period for draft local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

3.       In total, 391 submissions were received on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post (refer to Attachments E to M under separate cover). In addition, 14 people provided feedback at the official ‘Have Your Say Event’ (Attachment D), and 9 pieces of feedback were gathered through Facebook (Attachment B).

4.       Some pro forma submissions were made to all local boards by an organisation called ‘Spray Free Streets’, who created a campaign entitled ‘Draft Local Board Plan Feedback: Stop spraying chemical herbicides in our streets and parks’. A copy of this pro forma can be found in Attachment C.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive submissions and feedback on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017.

 

Comments

5.       The consultation period for the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

6.       In total, 391 submissions were received on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post. In addition, 14 people provided feedback at the official ‘Have Your Say Event’, and 9 pieces of feedback were gathered through Facebook.

7.       Some pro forma submissions were made to all local boards by an organisation called ‘Spray Free Streets’ who created a campaign entitled ‘Draft Local Board Plan Feedback: Stop spraying chemical herbicides in our streets and parks’.

8.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017. Under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan.

9.       A high level overview of consultation data, titled ‘Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report’, along with all submissions and feedback received is attached (Attachment A). The report includes an overview of consultation findings such as responses to questions asked, common themes and demographic information on submitters.

10.     Staff are currently analysing the consultation data before formulating any recommendations to the board on the final content of their local board plan.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     The Upper Harbour Local Board will consider all submissions and feedback to the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 prior to adopting the final local board plan in October.

Māori impact statement

12.     Māori outcomes have been considered in the development of the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017.

Implementation

13.     The board will adopt the final Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 at their October business meeting.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan analysis and feedback on submissions

101

b

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan social media feedback

111

c

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan proforma submission

113

d

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan Have Your Say Event feedback

119

e

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 1) (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 2) (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 3) (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 4) (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 5) (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan submissions (Volume 6) (Under Separate Cover)

 

k

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board plan submissions (Volume 7) (Under Separate Cover)

 

l

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board plan submissions (Volume 8) (Under Separate Cover)

 

m

Draft Upper Harbour Local Board plan submissions (Volume 9) (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Daniel   Han - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Governance Framework Review recommendations

 

File No.: CP2017/15973

 

  

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 PWP on those three workstreams and seeks local board feedback on those positions. The PWP will report back to governing body on 28 September 2017 with recommendations for decisions, including local boards’ views.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (CCOs) requires Auckland Transport, amongst other things, to:

·      develop, with local boards, a shared understanding of local board views and CCO 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 CCOs 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 CCO 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 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 the New Zealand Transport Agency in decision-making).

xviii.  note that the following activity statement has been included in Auckland Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent:

·      ‘Participation in the governance review which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant council family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local boards to give effect to their governance role, particularly around local place-shaping.’

xix.    note that the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential delegation of a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party recommends that additional work be undertaken to identify delegation opportunities.

xx.     direct Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:

·      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 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 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 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 council’s governance framework as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA), focussing on the complementary governance relationship between local boards and 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, 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 feedback of the elected members.

10.     In December 2016, governing body established a PWP 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 governing body. The PWP 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 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; and

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 (PWP) and structure of this report

12.     The working party has been considering the 36 recommendations of the GFR. They are grouped into 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 PWP 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 PWP 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 LGACA, 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 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; and

·     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 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 Local Government Act (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 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; and

·     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 unfettered 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 governing body in March 2017. An issues and options paper is expected in November 2017 and the review will be completed before 2019; and

·     the role of local boards in resource consent applications was considered by a PWP 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 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:

·     Option 1: status quo (decision-making continues to lie with governing body);

·     Option 2: delegate decision-making for local reserves to local boards; and

·     Option 3: 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:

·     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; and

·     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, 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:

·     Option 1: status quo – decision-making on reserve exchanges remains with governing body, in line with decision-making for acquisition and disposal of non-reserve property; and

·     Option 2: 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 Reserves Management Act 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.     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 (LBTCF).

56.     To address these issues, various options were developed for decision-making roles, funding for local transport initiatives, and engagement between Auckland Transport and local boards.

Decision-making roles

57.     A range of decision-making functions were assessed for potential delegation to local boards. This included, for example, decision-making over major and minor capital investment, non-road parts of the road corridor for a variety of uses, event permitting and traffic management planning, signage and banners, regulatory controls over parking, traffic and transit lanes, traffic calming, physical infrastructure (including town centre infrastructure as well as kerb and channelling or swales for stormwater), and community education programmes.

58.     Delegation of decision-making functions to local boards generally did not perform well on evaluation criteria. Analysis showed that while local boards do and should have a role in place-making, of which the road corridor and town centres are a significant part, it is practically difficult to split up formal decision-making for parts of the transport network.

59.     In addition, Auckland Transport remains liable for the impacts of decisions even if they are delegated. Therefore, the functions that could be delegated tend to be quite low-level and operational in nature; the administrative and transactional costs of numerous operational decisions being made by local boards would be high. 

60.     For these reasons, advice to the PWP was that the place-making role of local boards would be more effective 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 LBTCF, which would likely result in greater delivery of  local transport projects and local transport outcomes; and

·     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 LBTCF 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 Long-term Plan (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 LBTCF should be increased significantly, and that an appropriate final quantum for the fund should be determined through the LTP process, alongside other budget priorities. The method of allocating this fund across local boards should also be considered through the LTP process.

63.     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

64.     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.

65.     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, which takes into account local boards’ local governance role and Auckland Transport’s statutory responsibilities.

66.     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.

67.     Various functions of Auckland Transport were assessed for potential local board empowerment. It was proposed that Auckland Transport:

·     ensure 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.

68.     It was also proposed that these directions be actively monitored and reported annually to governing body.

69.     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.

70.     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.

71.     Recommendations xii-xxv reflect these positions. Local board feedback is sought on these.

72.     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

73.     The GFR identified that there are some practices 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.

74.     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.

75.     A range of functions and decisions that the GFR suggested could be devolved to local boards are currently under the purview of 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.

76.     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).

77.     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; and

·     developing some key local transport strategic approaches, such as a 10 year transport plan and Waiheke and Hauraki Gulf Islands design guidelines.

78.     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.

79.     The Waiheke Local Board will oversee governance of the pilot project. It is proposed that the pilot be implemented from 1 October 2017.

80.     The PWP endorsed the pilot project and recommends that it be endorsed by governing body. Recommendations xxvi-xxvii reflect this position. Local board feedback is sought on these.

81.     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

82.     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

83.     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 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); and

·     inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of when local boards, or groups of local boards, can undertake procurement of major contracts.

84.     The workstream looked at a range of alternative models for financial decision-making around local activities:

·     Option 1: status quo (predominantly governing body and some local board decision-making);

·     Option 2: entirely local (unconstrained local board decision-making);

·     Option 3: local within parameters (local board decision-making but within parameters set by governing body);

·     Option 4: entirely regional (all governing body with local boards as advocates);

·     Option 5: joint governing body/local board (joint committees); and

·     Option 6: multi-board (joint decision-making of two or more local boards).

85.     The early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Attachment I describes these options in more detail.

86.     After initial discussion with the PWP, the options for further exploration were narrowed down to two. 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 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 governing body on the level of rates, efficiency savings and levels of service would be reflected through, as necessary, to local board budgets. Within these parameters, some additional flexibility for local decision-making is proposed; and

·     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.

87.     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:

·     Legal context – the LGACA 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;

·     Capital expenditure – both models of decision-making have assumed that decisions on major capital expenditure will be reserved to governing body. Control of debt and council’s credit rating are key regional issues. There is also recognition that governing body is best placed to make decisions on investment in new assets that are essentially part of a community infrastructure network;

·     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;

·     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;

·     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 methods of delivery, the existing funding base in very uneven. This creates a number of difficulties for the enhanced status quo model;

·     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.

·     Funding:

o 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 governing body;

–     it is difficult to address the historical funding inequities; and

–     all ratepayers pay the same (based on property value).

o 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; and

–     the redistribution of rates may impact more in communities least able to afford it.

·     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.

88.     In summary the two proposed models of financial decision-making have the following characteristics:

·     Enhanced status quo:

o limited additional financial decision-making – may not give full effect to legislative intent of local boards with local decision-making and accountability;

o maintains the efficiencies of more centralised organisational support and procurement at scale;

o governing body determines budgets and therefore levels of service - tends towards regional standards;

o unlikely to address legacy inequities of funding in the short term; and

o 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:

o gives more decision-making and accountability to local boards – may be more in line with legislative intent;

o will be less efficient as additional resources will be required to support local decision-making;

o levels of service will tend to be more varied across the region;

o enables local boards to address funding inequities; and

o redistribution of rates will impact on some communities who can least afford it.

89.     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; and

·     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.

90.     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; and

·     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.

91.     These positions are summarised in recommendations xxviii-xxx. Local board feedback is sought on these.

Workstream 3: Governance and representation

92.     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

93.     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 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’. 

94.     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.

95.     There are several other processes ongoing that make a reorganisation proposal not currently 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; and

·     the GFR 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.

96.     Within this context, three potential high level scenarios for change were developed and presented to the PWP:

·     a reduction to 14 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; and

·     an increase in the number of local boards.

97.     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.

98.     Two options for how to proceed were presented to the PWP:

·     Option 1 (recommended): no further work 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 GFR, 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.

99.     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.

100.   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.

101.   In line with this position, recommendation xxxi has been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and recommendation.

102.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Number of local boards’ (Attachment L).

Next steps

103.   If this recommendation is accepted by governing body, staff will not do any further work on this issue until directed otherwise.

Methods of electing governing body members

104.   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.

105.   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.

106.   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.

107.   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; and

·     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).

108.   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 governing body, and changing the voting system to single transferable vote (STV).

109.   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. Governing body will also consider electoral methods, such as changing to STV, at its August meeting this year.

110.   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.

111.   In line with this position, recommendations xxxii-xxxiv have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and the recommendations.

112.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Representation options’ (Attachment M).

Next steps

113.   There are no specific next steps for implementation if this recommendation is accepted. 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

114.   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.

115.   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 the LGACA, which refers to both councillors and local board members together, may become confusing and problematic.  Legislative amendment may become necessary to resolve this.

116.   If a decision is to be made on naming conventions, then this would be made by 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 governing body. In making such a decision, governing body would be required to consider the views of local boards.

117.   Three options were assessed and presented to the PWP:

·     Option 1: status quo – a member of 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’); and

·     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’)

118.   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.

119.   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.

120.   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).

121.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Naming conventions’ (Attachment N).

Next steps

122.   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

123.   Consideration needs to be given to future oversight of the GFR past September 2017, particularly implementation of any decisions.

124.   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.’

125.   The PWP 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.

126.   The broad role of such a group could be to consider governance issues that impact on both local boards and governing body, for example the upcoming representation review, the oversight of the implementation of the GFR, and any ongoing policy work arising from the review etc.

127.   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.

128.   At this point, feedback is sought from local boards on the following possible recommendations for governing body in September:

·     Option 1: recommend that governing body thanks the PWP for its work on the GFR and notes that any further decision-making arising from the implementation of the review will be considered by governing body; or

·     Option 2: recommend that governing body thanks the PWP for its work and agrees that an ongoing PWP, 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 governing body on these matters.

129.   This request for feedback is summarised in recommendation c).

 

Next steps

130.   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 governing body for adoption.

Consideration            

Local board views and implications

131.   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 governing body for its consideration in decision-making.

132.   Significant consultation has been undertaken with local boards throughout the GFR 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

133.   The GFR did not specifically consider the governance or representation of Māori in Auckland. The relationship between the two governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) was also out of scope.

134.   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 Māori to participate in decision-making in Auckland local government;

·     engaging and consulting Māori and considering the needs and views of Māori communities when making decisions; and

·     recognising the need for greater involvement of Māori in local government employment.

135.   These statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted. No specific actions are recommended.

136.   The secretariat also identified that there is:

·     a lack of definition of the relationship between governing body, local boards and the IMSB;

·     the lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting issues for Māori; and

·     the lack of awareness of 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.

137.   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.

138.   No specific Māori impacts have been identified.

Implementation

139.   Implementation of changes will begin after governing body has made final decisions in September. An implementation plan will be developed.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of recommendations

145

b

Regional decision-making and policy processes

155

c

Allocations and delegations

169

d

Reserves Act land exchanges

199

e

Local Boards and Auckland Transport

205

f

Confirmation of draft transport recommendations

233

g

Waiheke Local Board pilot project - proposed approach

237

h

Waiheke Local Board pilot project - project structure and governance

241

i

Funding and finance workstream: Options

261

j

Funding and finance workstream: Purpose and problem definition

279

k

Funding and finance workstream: Description of two options for financial decision-making

287

l

Number of local boards

303

m

Representation options

325

n

Naming conventions

345

     

Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Manager Mayoral Programmes

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Upper Harbour Local Board feedback to the 'Tākaro - Investing in Play' Discussion Document

 

File No.: CP2017/15989

 

  

Purpose

1.       To provide formal feedback to the ‘Tākaro - Investing in Play’ discussion document.

Executive summary

2.       At the Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting of 20 July 2017, the ‘Feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play’ discussion document’ report was presented to the local board for consideration and comment prior to the deadline date of 21 August 2017.

3.       Attached to this brief report as Attachment A, is the Upper Harbour Local Board’s formal feedback to the discussion document.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      submit Attachment A of the agenda report as their formal feedback to the ‘Tākaro - Investing in Play’ discussion document.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board feedback to Tākaro - Investing in Play discussion document

359

     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15471

 

  

Purpose

1.       To provide the Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. It includes financial performance and work programmes.

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

4.       Ninety per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. Thirteen activities were undelivered from the agreed work programmes in the 2016/2017 financial year.

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

·     Financial operating performance is 95 per cent of revised budget for the year ended 30 June 2017. Operating revenue is 83 per cent of the target, due to less than anticipated uptake in the leisure area. Operating expenditure has come in under budget as costs predominantly in parks, sport and recreation were less than anticipated. Capital expenditure is greater than anticipated, due to a mixture of unforeseen costs in some projects and others being delivered ahead of schedule. 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 agenda item entitled ‘Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report’.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

 

Comments

Key highlights for quarter four

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

·     an average final graffiti vandalism prevention score of 97 out of 100, which is above the overall council average of 94;

·     Anzac Day celebrations were extremely successful in the Albany, Greenhithe and Hobsonville areas, with increased attendance at all services; and

·     highly successful High Performance Sports Forum which was held in April 2017, to coincide with the World Masters Games.

Key project achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme

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

·     completion and successful opening of the Albany Stadium Pool in January 2017;

·     installation of the ‘Upon a Pond’ and ‘Drop a Loop’ artwork, by renowned Korean/Kiwi artist Seung Yul Oh, at the Albany Stadium Pool in June 2017; and

·     attendance of 6200 people at the three Movies in Parks events in Upper Harbour.

Achievement of the 2016/2017 work programme

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

·     Arts, Community and Events, approved on 14 June 2016;

·     Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 14 June 2016;

·     Libraries and Information, approved on 14 June 2016;

·     Community Facility Renewals and Community Leases, approved on 14 June 2016;

·     Local Economic Development, approved on 28 June 2016; and

·     Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 12 July 2016.

10.     The snapshot shows overall performance against the Upper Harbour Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery.

11.     In previous quarterly performance reports, the traffic light ‘Red Amber Green’ (RAG) 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.     Ninety per cent 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 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

9

In progress *

13

Red

On hold, deferred

0

Cancelled

1

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·     There are some points to note:

ID 2571 – Community Art Programmes was cancelled as no projects were tabled with the local board for consideration and funding in FY16/17.

·    Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 69 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

4

In progress *

7

Red

On hold, deferred

1

Cancelled

3

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·     There are some points to note:

ID 1371 – 3-on-3 basketball court, Unsworth Heights, has been deferred as insufficient budget was originally identified to deliver on the full scope of the project.  The local board allocated the required additional funding in July to ensure completion of the basketball court;

ID 3425 – Limeburners Bay walkway was cancelled as there is no budget and inadequate scoping to complete the project;

ID 3423 – Scott Point park record is a duplicate and has been cancelled and merged with SharePoint record 3422, Hobsonville Point Scott's Road develop sports field and develop local park;

ID 629 – Albany Heights Playground is a historical project. Development contributions which were anticipated did not in fact eventuate. Therefore, the project has been cancelled; and

ID 2617 – Facility development 2013 Community Sports Village is currently being re-scoped from the original purpose. Staff are investigating a sustainable and viable multi-sport business model and master plan for Albany Tennis Park.

·    Libraries and Information work programme 100 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

11

In progress *

0

Red

On hold, deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·    Community Facilities work programme 85 per cent delivered; (includes operations and maintenance, renewals and development projects)

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

11

In progress *

24

Red

On hold, deferred

4

Cancelled

1

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·     There are some points to note:

ID 4247 – Gills Reserve concrete walkway has been deferred due to inadequate scoping and allocation of budget. Community Services is undertaking a strategic assessment. Once completed, the revised scope will be confirmed and the local board will be requested to approve any additional budget required;

ID 635 – Albany Stadium Pool, although the project build is complete, final costs are expected to exceed budget;

ID 357 – Upper Harbour FY17 Community Leases Capital Works, as part of the capital works, Herald Island Fire Station was to be upgraded internally and the roof was to be painted. The project is currently on hold due to a misinterpretation of the works to be conducted. Community Facilities will need to redefine the scope of works with the guidance of the local board;

ID 4251 – Hosking Reserve development, demolition of lower chicken shed is currently on hold due to ground conditions. Although the chicken shed has been demolished, during practical completion, asbestos contamination of the land surrounding the chicken shed was identified as a potential risk. Remedial action is required but the site is currently too wet. The remedial works will be conducted in the summer months when the ground is firmer;

ID 4254 – Rosedale Park No 3 and No 4 sport field renewal has been deferred.  The next steps will involve securing budget in future programmes and confirming the concept; and

ID 3040 – Rosedale Park furniture renewals (P1) has been cancelled due to inadequate scoping and the fact that the supplementary budget was not secured, and the timeframes are unlikely to be met.

·    Community Leases work programme 100 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

1

In progress *

4

Red

On hold, deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·    Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 100 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

2

In progress *

2

Red

On hold, deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·    Local Economic Development work programme 75 per cent delivered;

 

Activity status

Number of activities

Green

Completed

3

In progress *

0

Red

On hold, deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

1

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

·     There are some points to note:

ID 2066 – World Masters Games (WMG) and Lions Tour leverage initiative was not delivered. This activity did not proceed due to insufficient competitor data. i.e. that the level of information / numbers coming out of the WMG survey of competitors with business interests was lower than anticipated, making it difficult to develop a project where Business North Harbour could supplement the Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) run business leverage project which was Auckland CBD focused.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board identified the following 2016/2017 project that met the criteria for deferral to the 2017/2018 financial year. The deferral of this project was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017:

·    opening of the Albany Community Hub, at a value of $10,000.

Financial performance

16.     Operating expenditure is 92 per cent of budget for the financial year. LDI projects have been substantially delivered and any available savings tendered. Asset Based Service (ABS) projects have been completed under budget with underspends in the parks full facility contract and in general, local park costs. There were also reduced costs associated with the delayed opening of the Albany Stadium Pool.

17.     Revenue did not achieve targeted budget predominantly due to the delayed opening of the Albany Stadium Pool.

18.     Capital spend of $16.6 million is $1.7 million ahead of delivery to budget. This is a mixture of ABS project delivery ahead of budget (e.g.in land acquisition for the Hobsonville Corridor project) being mitigated by LDI capital project costs not yet delivered. These LDI projects will be carried forward to 2017/18. Those capital projects completed in 2017/18 include the Albany Stadium Pool and the Albany Community Hub.

Key performance indicators

19.     Results from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter. However, the results are included as a separate agenda item entitled ‘Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report’.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20.     This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Māori impact statement

21.     All Māori within the Upper Harbour Local Board area are able to participate in and have access to all projects and initiatives covered in this report.

Implementation

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

23.     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

Work programme snapshot

371

b

Work programme update

373

c

Financial performance

391

     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

 

File No.: CP2017/14101

 

  

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provide input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services by 18 August 2017.

 

Comments

Background

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

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

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

12.     ACABx receives $1.796 million on an annual basis with an annual inflation provision. Provision for this expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

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

14.     Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

·     local board plans;

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

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

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

The review

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

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

Role of local boards

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

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

 

20.     Local bureaux are expected to:

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

·     provide informal updates;

·     provide opportunities to input into future local bureaux service development; and

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

23.     The following questions guided the workshop discussions:

·     What is your relationship with your local CAB?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·     What would you change if you could?

24.     Once approved, future options for funding of CABs and service provision will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2017.

Māori impact statement                          

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

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

Implementation

27.     The timeline for the review is provided below:

Date

Phase

Action

June  2017

Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state

Local board chairs forum; local board cluster briefings

June – August 2017

Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state

Local board workshops; local board business meetings

September 2017

Phase two - development of options for the future state

Report to the Environment and Community Committee

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

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

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

ATEED six-monthly report to the Upper Harbour Local Board

 

File No.: CP2017/15719

 

  

Purpose

1.       To provide the six-monthly report from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) on their activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Executive summary

2.       This report provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with highlights of ATEED’s activities in the local board area for the six months from 1 January to 30 June 2017.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the six-monthly report from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development for the period 1 January to 30 June 2017.

 

Comments

3.       The attached report (Attachment A) provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with an overview of ATEED’s activities for discussion.

4.       The Local Economic Development team at ATEED is responsible for managing the delivery of the local board’s locally-driven initiatives’ operational budget allocation. Section 2.0 details key progress on these projects, as well as an update on any activity to support local tourism within the local board area.

5.       Section 2.0 also reports on the new system for managing ATEED’s local board engagement.

6.       Section 3.0 of the report summarises the impact of ATEED’s regional programmes and initiatives that are delivered in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

7.       The report is for information only.

Māori impact statement

8.       Māori, as stakeholders in Auckland Council, are affected and have an interest in any report on local activities. However, this performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Māori.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

ATEED six-monthly report - January to June 2017

405

    

 

Signatories

Authors

Michael Goudie – Senior Advisor External Relations, ATEED

Richard Court – Manager Operational Strategy and Planning, ATEED

Samantha-Jane Miranda – Operational Strategy Advisor, ATEED

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Whenuapai herb garden

 

File No.: CP2017/15993

 

  

Purpose

1.       To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with a proposal for the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve, at 41 Waimarie Road, in Whenuapai.

Executive summary

2.       The Group Convener of the Hobsonville Herb Group, Diane Griffin, approached Upper Harbour Local Board member Uzra Casuri Balouch, to request consideration of the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve, at 41 Waimarie Road, in Whenuapai. The concept and the list of proposed herbs to be planted are attached to this report as Attachment A.

3.       The herb garden will be utilised to teach interested parties and members of the herb group how to cultivate herbs. Those herbs successfully cultivated will be available to the local residents for consumption at no cost.

4.       A limited area in the existing Malcolm Hahn Reserve, as depicted in Attachment B of the report, is proposed for use. It will entail the removal of some ground cover but the trees will be retained.

5.       An initial cost of $600, as broken down in Attachment C, will be required to establish the herb garden. The Hobsonville Herb Group is requesting the local board’s financial assistance for establishment costs. Should the local board approve the request, Community Facilities will work with the Hobsonville Herb Group to ensure that all Auckland Council processes and health and safety procedures are complied with.

6.       A site visit was conducted on Friday, 28 July 2017, with the Senior Maintenance Delivery Coordinator, who confirmed that the herb garden will not have an adverse effect on the reserve and surrounding vegetation.

7.       The local board’s consideration is sought in relation to the request from the Hobsonville Herb Group to assist with funding, and allow for the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve, at 41 Waimarie Road, in Whenuapai.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve, at 41 Waimarie Road, in Whenuapai, by the Hobsonville Herb Group, within the designated area depicted in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      approve funding of $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group, from the local board discretionary community grants fund, to enable the establishment of the herb garden.

 

Comments

8.       The Group Convener of the Hobsonville Herb Group, Diane Griffin, approached Upper Harbour Local Board member, Uzra Casuri Balouch, to request consideration for the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve, at 41 Waimarie Road, in Whenuapai. 

9.       The herb garden will be utilised to teach interested parties and members of the herb group how to cultivate herbs. Those herbs successfully cultivated will be available to the local community for consumption at no cost.

10.     A limited area in the existing Malcolm Hahn Reserve is proposed for use. It will entail the removal of some ground cover but the trees will be retained.

11.     An initial cost of $600 will be required to establish the herb garden. The Hobsonville Herb Group is requesting the local board’s financial assistance for establishment costs. The local board has a balance of $155,000 available in the local board discretionary community grants fund for the 2017/2018 financial year.

12.     A site visit was conducted on Friday, 28 July 2017, with the Senior Maintenance Delivery Coordinator, who confirmed that the herb garden will not have an adverse effect on the reserve and surrounding vegetation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The local board’s views are sought in relation to the request from the Hobsonville Herb Group at this meeting.

Māori impact statement

14.     No specific issues with regard to impacts on Māori are triggered as a result of the establishment of a herb garden in the Malcolm Hahn Reserve. The availability of the herbs for consumption is accessible to the entire community.

Implementation

15.     Should the local board approve the request, Community Facilities will work with the Hobsonville Herb Group to ensure that all Auckland Council processes and health and safety procedures are complied with.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Whenuapai Herb Garden concept

421

b

Whenuapai Herb Garden proposed placement

423

c

Whenuapai Herb Garden cost breakdown

425

     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Approval of a new road name for the subdivision at 29 Oscar Road, Greenhithe

 

File No.: CP2017/14902

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a road name, for the new private road constructed to serve the eight lot subdivision being undertaken by Miller Cove Limited, (the applicant), at 29 Oscar Road, Greenhithe.

Executive summary

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

·     Henry Blyth Lane or Way;

·     Ernest Miller Lane or Way;

·     Ludolph Lane or Way;

·     Picnic Point Lane or Way; and

·     Yeaman Lane or Way.

3.       The applicant consulted with all local iwi groups and received one response from Te Kawerau a Maki, who suggested the following alternative names:

·     Wapu Lane or Way; and

·     Okahukura Lane or Way.

4.       The applicant prefers to use one of their preferred names as they have specific historical relevance to this part of Greenhithe. 

5.       The names have been assessed against council’s road naming guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.

6.       The names were also assessed under New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and most meet the criteria. The following exceptions were noted:

·     Okahukura is duplicated in the Kaipara area; and

·     Yeaman, although not duplicated, is very similar to ‘Yeoman Place’ in Howick and it is considered this could cause confusion for emergency services.

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)   approve one of the following names for the new private road constructed within the subdivision, being undertaken by Miller Cove Limited at 29 Oscar Road, Greenhithe, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974;

i)          Henry Blyth Lane or Way;

ii)         Ernest Miller Lane or Way;

iii)         Ludolph Lane or Way;

iv)         Picnic Point Lane or Way; and

v)         Wapu Lane or Way.

 

Comments

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

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

Preferred names

Henry Blyth Lane or Way

Prominent early settler (circa 1882) who was an orchardist/fruit exporter. He purchased an original Crown-owned lot adjacent to the subject land and also named Greenhithe (hythe - landing) after a small village in Kent in the United Kingdom. He also successfully raised funds for construction of the original Greenhithe wharf and bridge. 

Ernest Miller Lane or Way

Owned the subject property as part of a larger land holding (circa 1891-1896).

Ludolph Lane or Way

Current developer of the block and also a Greenhithe resident.

Picnic Point Lane or Way

The name of a promontory near the subject property, which was a popular landing place for picnicking.

Yeaman Lane or Way

First owner of the subject block (circa 1854).

Alternatives put forward by iwi

Wapu Lane or Way

Of Māori origin that translates to wharf/jetty.

Okahukura Lane/Way

A Māori translation (along with Kaipātiki) of the general area that also encompasses Lucas Creek.

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

·      a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

·      a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

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

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

12.     The applicant does not support the alternative names suggested by iwi as they consider them to be somewhat generic, and not specifically relevant to the subject property and the wider Greenhithe area.

13.     The applicant considers their preferred names as appropriate in that they have a specific historical or current linkage to this particular part of Greenhithe.

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

15.     The names were also assessed under New Zealand Post and LINZ criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and most meet the criteria. The following exceptions were noted:

·     Okahukura is duplicated in the Kaipara area; and

·     Yeaman, although not duplicated, is very similar to ‘Yeoman Place’ in Howick and it is considered this could cause confusion for emergency services.

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

20.     The applicant consulted with all local iwi groups and received one response from Te Kawerau a Maki, who suggested ‘Wapu’ and ‘Okahukura’ as alternative names.

Implementation

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

29 Oscar Road - map

431

     

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor, Northern Resource Consenting Team

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

 

File No.: CP2017/15192

 

  

Purpose

1.       To present the Upper Harbour Local Board with its updated governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·        ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities;

·        clarifying what advice is expected and when; and

·        clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board governance forward work calendar for the period September 2017 to September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work calendar - September 2017 to September 2018

435

     

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 July, and Thursday 3 August 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15193

 

  

Executive summary

1.       The Upper Harbour Local Board workshops were held on Thursday 13 and 27 July 2017, and Thursday 3 August 2017. Copies of the workshop records are attached.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 July 2017, and Thursday 3 August 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 13 July 2017

439

b

Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 27 July 2017

441

c

Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 3 August 2017

443

     

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Board Members' Reports

 

File No.: CP2017/15198

 

  

Executive summary

An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal board members’ reports.

b)      receive the attendance record of members as submitted by Chair L Whyte in response to requests from residents via social media for more transparency on attendance.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Board members' attendance - October 2016 to July 2017

447

    

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

    

  


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    Greenhithe Community Trust - report on activity Page 451

Item 8.1      Attachment b    Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park Page 455

Item 8.1      Attachment c    Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park quotes                                                                       Page 457

Item 8.1      Attachment d    Greenhithe Community Trust - proposed car park grant application                                                      Page 459


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

 



[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.