Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

08 August 2017

Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 Hearing

File No.: CP2017/15500

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2. 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 must use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan.

3. The consultation period for the draft local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017. Submissions were made through the following channels and coded together:

· Online form available on the Shape Auckland website

· Hard copy forms included in the household summary documents

· Via email or post.

4. In total 158 submissions were received on the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, 34 people provided feedback at the ‘Have your Say’ engagement events and there were 11 pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook. All of this information is attached as Appendices A, B and C.

5. The information contained in this report is a higher level assessment of the submissions received to this point.

6. Local Board Services will work with the board on a detailed analysis of all submissions including the outcome of the hearing to inform an updated Local Board Plan.

7. The following questions were asked on both the online form and hard copy form and responses given via those channels, email and post.

Question 1: On a scale of one to five, are we on the right track with our proposed local board plan?

8. 80 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this question, while 16 per cent neither agreed or disagreed and 4 per cent either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Tell us what you think about the draft local board plan?

9. A total of 102 submissions were processed for this question. The majority of responses to this question were grouped under the ‘Other comments’ category. Most of the responses expressed a positive opinion on the plan.

Question 3: Are there any specific projects or initiatives you would like the board to focus on?

10. ‘An accessible, connected and safe transport network with well-designed streets’ (Outcome 5) and ‘Attractive and versatile public spaces that meet our communities’ needs’ (Outcome 2) received the most support, with 25 and 24 per cent respectively.

11. A total of 18 per cent of respondents thought the local board should focus on Outcome 3: ‘The natural environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, while 11 per cent chose ‘Inclusive communities that are vibrant, healthy and connected’.

12. The outcomes with the least number of responses were ‘A high quality built environment that embraces our heritage’ (Outcome 4) and ‘An innovative, productive and resilient local economy’ (Outcome 6), both with 3 per cent.

Question 4: If there was one key initiative from our draft local board plan that you wish to see prioritised for funding, what would it be?

13. Most of the responses to this question highlighted initiatives related to protecting our natural environment and improving transport, including better cycling and walking connections and safer streets.

14. In terms of the environment, the themes with the highest level of support were improving water quality (strong support), reducing the use of chemical spray in parks and streets and increasing tree planting.

Transport related responses had a particular focus on pedestrian safety and cycleways including:

· Strong support for Greenways

· Improve footpaths and pedestrian environment

· Delivery of the City Centre Master Plan and laneways

· Provision of residential parking

· Enhance pedestrian safety by removing car spaces

· Implement Vision Zero, a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries.

15. While recognising they may be outside the board’s remit, addressing accommodation for rough sleepers and improving housing affordability were highlighted as priority key initiatives for the board to focus on. One submitter said: “Address accommodation for rough sleepers. This will improve the quality of life for all - both rough sleepers, everyone else who lives and works in the city, and how tourists see us.”

16. A high number of submitters supported parks and recreational spaces within Waitematā, in particular pocket parks, hockey, basketball, cricket and volleyball facilities and community garden spaces in parks.

Question 5: Do you have any other comments to make on the draft local board plan?

17. The majority of comments referred to the environment (30 per cent), followed by transport (14 per cent) and parks, sports and recreation (13 per cent). Twenty four comments - representing 18 per cent of submissions - were classified as ‘Other comments’ and refer to a wide range of topics such as support to smoke free policies, reducing the number of gambling machines, allowing campervans and motorhomes and acknowledging iwi.

18. Eight per cent of respondents referred to community services and planning, while a small number submitted on other topics such as arts, culture and events; economic development; finance and governance and support.

19. Submitters to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 have been given the opportunity to speak at a hearing. Of the 23 submitters who originally requested an opportunity to attend the hearing 16 have chosen to attend the Waitematā Local Board Hearing.

20. All submissions and feedback received on the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 are attached to this report as Attachments A, B and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive submissions and feedback on the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017

b) hear submitters wanting to speak in support of their submission to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017

c) thank submitters for their verbal presentation to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017

d) consider any potential amendments to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017.

Comments

21. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017.

22. 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. This includes ensuring the opportunity for a ‘spoken interaction’.

Feedback received on the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017

Written responses and submissions

23. Results gathered from the five questions asked in the online and hardcopy form and submissions made via email and post are discussed below. The vast majority of submissions received were via the online form.

Question 1: On a scale of one to five, are we on the right track with our proposed local board plan?

24. The purpose of the first question was to gauge respondent’s general support for the overall draft plan. The responses were highly supportive of the plan as evident in the below table.

Question 2: Tell us what you think about the draft local board plan?

25. Responses to this question were open ended and then coded against different categories such as ‘other comments’; ‘transport’, ‘environment’ and ‘planning’.

26. A total of 102 submissions were processed for this question. The majority of responses to this question were grouped under the ‘Other comments’ category. Most of the responses expressed a positive opinion on the plan, with some examples below:

· “It's great - you're absolutely on the right track.”

· “It is very good. Like the Community focus as well as concentrating on making Waitematā Local Board area an attractive place for people to live, work and play especially as the pressure on this area is growing immensely.”

· “I think it's a bold and likeable plan.”

· “The plan has worthwhile objectives over a variety of important issues.”

There were also some further comments under the ‘Other comments’ category on how the plan could be improved, for example:

· “Written in PC language but rather short on meat.”

· “Too waffly. Big on politically correct generalisations. Talks about goals but not priorities or how goals will be accomplished. As such, it’s a license to do anything.”

· “Limited funds. Need more volunteers. More PR on what you do do.”

27. Transport was the theme with the highest number of responses, with 15, followed by Environment (13 responses), Planning (12 responses) and Parks, Sport and Recreation (10 responses). Community Services received seven supports, while Arts, Culture and Events and Economic Development received six responses each.

Question 3: Are there any specific projects or initiatives you would like the board to focus on?

28. Responses to this question were open ended and then coded against the draft outcome they most closely aligned to.

29. ‘An accessible, connected and safe transport network with well-designed streets’ (Outcome 5) and ‘Attractive and versatile public spaces that meet our communities’ needs’ (Outcome 2) received the most support, with 25 and 24 per cent respectively. Some of the specific projects or initiatives mentioned include:

Transport:

· Prioritise pedestrians in the inner city: “I would like you to advocate for making High Street a shared street and also pedestrianize Queen Street.”

· Accelerate Greenways Plan in Parnell

· Safer, greener and cleaner streets, for example, Wellesley St, Nelson St, Hobson St, Khyber Pass, Ponsonby Road

· Implement traffic speed zones.

Facilities:

· Enhance sports facilities for team sports such as hockey, volleyball and basketball

· Provide community space where volunteer groups can meet for free

· Deliver greater access to quality facilities that offer opportunities for sports, informal recreation, walking/cycling.

· Redevelop Basque Park

· Provide places where young people can engage and socialise such as Newmarket playscape, and Kari Street Commons in the Auckland Domain.

30. A total of 18 per cent of respondents thought the local board should focus on Outcome 3: ‘The natural environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, while 11 per cent chose ‘Inclusive communities that are vibrant, healthy and connected’. Some of the projects highlighted for these outcomes were:

Natural environment:

· Non-chemical vegetation management in parks and streets

· Low carbon initiatives- support solar based lighting in parks and some parts of the city centre

· Increased focus on protecting our environment from sewer overflows

Community:

· Support initiatives that enhance public amenities for the benefit of the rough- sleeping community: while resolving the housing crisis is outside the remit of the board, anything that can be done to reduce the suffering of the most vulnerable members of our community is to be applauded.

· Support for the performing arts

31. The outcomes with the least number of responses were ‘A high quality built environment that embraces our heritage’ (Outcome 4) and ‘An innovative, productive and resilient local economy’ (Outcome 6). Examples of comments related to these two outcomes include:

Heritage:

· Removal of signs or advertising in historic heritage areas

Economic Development:

· Support to local town centres and business support – “K Road requests funding from WLB to pay for MarketView business information. MarketView will no longer be provided by Auckland Council BID Team. The information is highly relevant to KBA and used to shape programmes, direction and activation.”

· Procurement practices – “Please allow community Centres and groups to get work done by locals.”

Question 4: If there was one key initiative from our draft local board plan that you wish to see prioritised for funding, what would it be?

32. This was an open question intended for submitters to select one initiative over the others. Responses gave an indication of what areas are considered in most need of prioritisation for funding.

33. Most of the responses to this question highlighted initiatives related to protecting our natural environment and improving transport, including better cycling and walking connections and safer streets.

34. In terms of the environment, the themes with the highest level of support were improving water quality (strong support), reducing the use of chemical spray in parks and streets and increasing tree planting. Specific projects mentioned included:

· Restoration of Weona-Lemington coastal reserve

· Protection and restoration of Waititiko Meola Creek and underlying aquifer

· Low carbon initiatives.

35. In regard to transport, responses had a particular focus on pedestrian safety and cycleways, including strong support for Greenways, footpath improvements, the delivery of the City Centre Master Plan and laneways, parking (with some people supporting the removal of car spaces and others opposing this) and implementing Vision Zero.

36. While recognising they may be outside the board’s remit, addressing accommodation for rough sleepers and improving housing affordability were highlighted as priority key initiatives for the board to focus on. One submitter said: “Address accommodation for rough sleepers. This will improve the quality of life for all - both rough sleepers, everyone else who lives and works in the city, and how tourists see us.”

37. A high number of submitters supported parks and recreational spaces within the area, in particular pocket parks, hockey, basketball, cricket and volleyball facilities and community garden spaces in parks. Some of the specific parks related projects included:

· Redevelop Basque Park, Linear Park (“and similar schemes to make high density living attractive and pleasant”)

· Extend the Grey Lynn Park Pump Track

· Develop Ponsonby Park

· Make the Tank Farm an urban regional park

· Make parks more pedestrian friendly, such as the Auckland Domain.

Other initiatives highlighted in response to Question 4 were:

· Pt Erin pool upgrade

· Support community led initiatives and provide community noticeboards

· Night safe parking for campervans that are certified self-contained

· More lighting

· Youth involvement

· Projects that tell the story of Waitematā’s past

· Encourage the use of Te Reo

· Greater investment in creative economy.

Question 5: Do you have any other comments to make on the draft local board plan?

38. Responses to this question were open ended and varied. The majority of comments referred to the environment (30 per cent), followed by transport (14 per cent) and parks, sports and recreation (13 per cent). Twenty four comments -representing 18 per cent of submissions- were classified as ‘other comments’ and refer to a wide range of topics such as support to smoke free policies, reducing the number of gambling machines, allowing campervans and motorhomes and acknowledging iwi.

39. Eight per cent of respondents referred to community services and planning, while a minority submitted on other topics such as arts, culture and events; economic development; finance and governance and support.

40. Some of the themes identified as a response to this question included:

· Camping locations for self-contained campervans – “More support for the growing population of freedom campers, including more public dump stations and potable water fill stations.”

· Tree identification – “Specifically we would like to physically identify all scheduled trees in the Local Board area with a sign” (Submission by The Tree Council, number 3292)

· Turn Te Wero Island into a public space – “It's crazy that we have a beautiful space that could be much better utilised than it currently is as a car park.”

· Pedestrianise High Street – “Thinking big: I wish High St was pedestrianised fully. All that parking is ugly and there is the Victoria parking building right next to it. This is already a trendy bustling area, but could be so much better!”

‘Have your say’ engagement event feedback

41. Thirty four people attended three have your say events (East, West and Central) where feedback on the draft plan was recorded or people could capture their thoughts and ideas on post it notes and attached them to a chart with the six proposed outcomes.

East Event – Jubilee Hall, Parnell, 24^th May 2017

42. Of the 14 attendees, three stated that connections to and from Parnell Train Station needed to be improved, including extending the pathway to walk from the station to the Village using asphalt and trialing shuttle buses from the station. Other comments were in support of Heard Park improvements, St Georges Bay Road Urban Design Plan, the Greenways route through the old rail tunnel and more public art.

43. One attendee highlighted that begging, rough sleeping and smell is a major issue in the city centre, while public safety was also expressed as a concern. Availability of residential and business parking was also mentioned as an issue, as well as a lack of clarity over who maintains parks.

44. Parnell Community Committee raised that the plan should have a position regarding the impact of the Port, in particular considering environmental and social concerns around this subject.

Central Event – Waitematā Local Board office, City Centre, 1^st June 2017

45. A total of 12 people attended this event, with most of them raising homelessness as their key concern in the city centre (nine comments). Most of the comments were around providing amenities for rough sleepers, for example showers in places like Ellen Melville Centre, carpark buildings and Victoria Park, as well as lockers and emergency night shelters for rough sleepers.

46. Other key themes were the provision of public spaces for community activities and the protection of trees. In terms of transport, comments were in relation to reducing congestion, increasing the number of cycleways, upgrading footpaths, prioritising pedestrians and improving public transport.

47. A minority of submitters called for more youth engagement, reducing noise levels in the city, better air quality, inorganic and organic collection in particular for apartments, dealing with social isolation –especially students and having less cars.

West Event – Grey Lynn Community Centre, 7^th June 2017

48. Two themes emerged as being most important for the eight people who attended this event: low carbon initiatives and better planning and urban development, including designs that provide for weather protection, ground floor activation and more green space and trees. The need for stormwater and wastewater separation was also raised as an urgent concern.

Comments were received about the importance of Te Reo and Māori engagement, in particular promoting Te Reo on signage, supporting Māori Responsiveness Plan locally and weaving iwi engagement within the local board plan and board projects. The maintenance of beaches, parks, plants and trees was raised as an area of concern, with a particular mention to Rose Road Gully.

49. In terms of advocacy positions, the board was asked to assist communities in their opposition to new liquor stores and to support the ‘no relocation’ of machines in the Gambling Policy.

50. Other comments showed support for the reinstatement of park rangers, the planting of more trees, the extension of libraries hours and the increase of the Transport Capital Fund.

Social Media feedback

51. Eleven pieces of feedback were received via Facebook. The submissions covered the following topics:

· Support for smokefree public spaces, including Board events, and better signage and monitoring

· Support for libraries

· Support for a centrally located volleyball facility

· Request for more and upgraded basketball facilities

· Request for a skate park by the Grey Lynn Park Pumptrack

· Strong objection to cycleways

· Request for a “disabled” carpark on Ponsonby Road

· Support for more cycleways

· Improved and safe walkability with specific reference to shared spaces

· Slower and safer traffic

Common themes

52. Common themes across all channels of feedback received were:

· Homelessness and housing affordability, including the provision of showers, lockers and emergency shelter. While recognising that the board’s role is to advocate for improvements on this space, the majority view is that urgent measures need to be implemented to improve the dignity and wellbeing of rough sleepers. A minority of people expressed concerns about begging and a perceived lack of safety.

· Transport, in particular pedestrian safety, prioritisation of walking and cycling, Vision Zero, safe and sustainable transport options, more street trees, lower speed limits, connectivity of the public network and reducing congestion. Particular projects mentioned under this theme include:

Pedestrianise High Street and Queen Street

Safe connections from the planned Pt Chevalier Cycleway on Meola Rd to Western Springs College, via the MOTAT precinct

Support for the delivery of the City Centre Masterplan and provision of laneways

· Low Carbon – a large number of submitters highlighted the importance of supporting low carbon initiatives such as solar based lighting in parks and the city centre, introducing carbon emissions reduction in council’s procurement practices, low carbon transport options such as electric vehicles and implementation of a ‘carbon audit’ to get an idea of how council could reduce its carbon footprint.

· Use of chemical spray in parks and streets – some individual submissions were received in regard to reducing the use of chemical spray and 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”.

· Polluted water and stormwater and wastewater separation – this emerged as a strong theme, with particular mentions to water quality issues in Cox’s Bay, the Harbour, Three Kings-Meola-Western Springs Aquifer.

· Parks, sports facilities and public spaces – different sports organisations, including rugby, cricket, tennis, hockey, basketball, volleyball and curling expressed that they would like to see more facilities or increased access to facilities. The provision of parks, in particular pocket parks and green spaces in the city centre, and public shared spaces was highlighted by a large number of respondents.

Other matters raised included the implementation of bi-lingual signage, tree protection including identification, support to smoke free, alcohol reduction and gambling reduction policies and support to libraries.

Submissions made by organisations to Waitematā Local Board

53. The following organisations made submissions to the draft Waitematā local board plan:

· BMX New Zealand Inc.

· Grey Lynn Pump Track

· Sustainable Future Collective

· For the Love of Bees

· Auckland Cricket Association

· The Basement Theatre

· Sport Auckland

· STEPS- St. Lukes Environmental Protection Society

· Walk Auckland

· Auckland Regional Migrant Services

· Love Our Libraries

· Albany United Football Club

· The Tree Council Inc

· Auckland Central Volleyball Club

· Brake, the road safety charity

· Ponsonby Business Association

· Newmarket Business Association

· Karangahape Road Business Association

· EcoMatters Environment Trust

· The University of Auckland

· Uptown Business Association Inc

· Auckland Rugby Union

· Waitemata Low Carbon Network

· Pollinator Paths

· Bike Pt Chev

· SPLICE-

· Newmarket Protection Society

· New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Inc.

· Waitemata Youth Collective

· Te Whakakitenga O Waikato-Tainui

· Tennis in Auckland

· Parnell Business Association

· Age Concern Auckland

· New Zealand Association for Environmental Education

· Alcohol Healthwatch

· Aktive - Auckland Sport & Recreation

· Civic Trust Auckland

· Heathy Auckland Together

· Cancer Society Auckland Northland

· Hāpai Te Hauora

· Auckland Curling Club

· Toxic Awareness Group (TAG)

· The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Creative NZ

· Parnell Community Committee

Generic submissions made to all local boards

54. 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”.

55. A copy of this pro forma can be found in (Attachment D). While a number of the pro formas were the same generic form, it should also be noted that many submitters also made individual comments relevant to this issue.

56. Many of the pro formas submitted to all boards did not include the submitters residential details, so it is not possible to get a good understanding if the submission came from residents within Waitematā.

57. Submissions from Audrey Van Ryn, Hāpai te Hauora and STEPS were also received directly by the Board.

Information on submitters

58. The tables and graphs below indicate what demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

59. Of the 91 of people who provided demographic information, 48 (53 per cent) were female and 43 (47 per cent) were male.

60. Eighty seven per cent identified as New Zealand European followed by Asian (7 per cent), other European (4 per cent), Māori (2 per cent), Pacific (2 per cent) and other (2 per cent). Some people identified with more than one ethnicity.

61. The age cohorts were generally well represented with submission from youth through to people in the 75 and older category.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

62. The Waitematā Local Board will consider all submissions and feedback to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 prior to adopting the final local board plan at its business meeting on 17 October 2017.

Māori impact statement

63. Maori outcomes have been considered in the development of the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017.

64. An engagement hui with mana whenua was held in March 2017.

65. Further engagement with mataawaka and mana whenua was conducted by reviewing and considering pre-existing feedback

66. The board has made direct contact with mana whenua groups seeking their input into the draft plan

Implementation

67. Local Board Services will work with the board on a detailed analysis of all submissions including the outcome of the hearing to inform an updated Local Board Plan.

68. The Waitematā Local Board will consider all submissions and feedback to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 and amend the plan based on this feedback prior to adopting the final Local Board Plan at its business meeting on 17 October 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a Part One	Waitematā Written Feedback - part one (Under Separate Cover)
A Part Two	Waitematā Written Feedback - part two (Under Separate Cover)
⇩B	Waitematā Have Your Say Event Feedback	21
⇩C	Waitematā Social Media Feedback	27
⇩D	Chemical Spraying Proforma	33