Agenda of Rodney Local Board - 21 September 2017

Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Royal NZ Yacht Squadron

Kaipara College Board of Trustees

Gumboots Early Learning Centre

Member

Parent Representative

Director

Tessa Berger

Mahurangi Action Incorporated
Mahurangi Coastal Trail Trust

The Merchandise Collective

Friends of Regional Parks

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

President

Chairperson

Founder/Director

Committee Member

Member Forum representative

Cameron Brewer

Riverhead Residents & Ratepayers Association

Passchendaele Society Inc.

New Zealand National Party

Cameron Brewer Communications Limited

Spire Investments Limited

Member

Director

Shareholder

Beth Houlbrooke

Sweet Adelines New Zealand (Charitable Trust)
Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Assn.

Kawau Island Boat Club

Member

Louise Johnston

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

Treasurer

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Best Berries (NZ) Ltd

Officer in Charge

Director/Shareholder

Allison Roe

Waitemata District Health Board

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

New Zealander of the Year Awards

Elected Member

Chairperson

Chief Category Judge/Community

Colin Smith

Brenda Steele

Te Uri o Hau

Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

Kaipara Cruising Club

Beneficiary

Member

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Joint deputation - Kaipara College and Helensville Community Recycling Centre 5

8.2 Anti Rodeo Action NZ 6

8.3 Matua Ngaru School, Huapai 6

8.4 Warkworth Rodeo Club 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Public notification to grant a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall 9

13 Adoption of the Rodney Local Board Plan 21

14 Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement 55

15 Remuneration Authority consultation document 67

16 Silverdale Dairy Flat Business Area and Warkworth Structure Plans 105

17 Ward Councillor Update 107

18 Rodney Local Board Chairperson's Report 113

19 Governance Forward Work Programme 117

20 Deputation/Public Forum Update 121

21 Rodney Local Board Workshop Records 125

22 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 135

C1 Warkworth Swimming Pool 135

C2 Acquisition of land for open space - Wainui 135

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 17 August 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 Rodney 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 Joint deputation - Kaipara College and Helensville Community Recycling Centre

Purpose

1. Representatives from Kaipara College and Helensville Community Recycling Centre will be in attendance to address the local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Kaipara College and Helensville Community Recycling centre for their presentation.

8.2 Anti Rodeo Action NZ

Purpose

1. Representatives from Ani Rodeo Action NZ will be in attendance to speak to the local board in regard to the Warkworth Rodeo.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Anti Rodeo Action NZ for their presentation to the local board in regard to Warkworth Rodeo.

8.3 Matua Ngaru School, Huapai

Purpose

1. Alan Curtis will be in attendance to give an update on a new school at Huapai, Matua Ngaru School. Mr Curtis will outline the plans for the school, the public consultation process and the enrolment zone.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mr Curtis for his presentation on the plans for a new school at Huapai to be known as Matua Ngaru School.

8.4 Warkworth Rodeo Club

Purpose

1. Gary Jackson of the Warkworth Rodeo Club will be in attendance to address the local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Gary Jackson of the Warkworth Rodeo Club for his presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

Public notification to grant a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall

File No.: CP2017/18995

Purpose

1. To seek approval to publicly notify Auckland Council’s intention to grant a community licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall.

Executive summary

2. The Rodney Local Board wishes to see more community halls under local governance and management. The Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association have expressed their interest to manage the Point Wells Hall.

3. Staff have been working with the Point Wells Hall Committee, a sub-committee of the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association, for the purpose of implementing the community-led incorporation model, granting a licence to formally occupy and manage the hall.

4. The hall sits on the Point Wells Recreation Reserve which is currently classified for recreational use. To issue the licence the land classification must be changed to local purpose under the Reserves Act 1977.

5. The two options available to proceed with the licence are:

reclassification of the hall site which would involve a long and complex process that would delay the implementation of the community-led model

implement part of the reclassification process by engaging with iwi and publically notifying the intent to issue a licence to the hall committee.

6. This report recommends that the Rodney Local Board approve option two - the public notification of council’s intention to grant a licence to the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association, and its sub-committee, for the hall and associated ancillary area. This will speed up the process and allow the committee to move forward and take over the operation of the hall.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the public notification of council’s intention to grant the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall and ancillary area on a portion (421m² more or less) of Allotment 21 DP 32632 at Point Wells Recreation Reserve, 5 Point Wells Road (Attachment A to the agenda report) subject to the following terms:

i) term – 3 years from the date of final approval

ii) rent – $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii) a clause to be included in the deed of licence to document that as part of Point Wells Recreation Reserve described as portion (421m² more or less) of Allotment 21 DP 32632 is vested in trust in the council and as such may be identified in future years for treaty settlement.

b) nominate a hearings panel to consider and decide on any submissions or objections received following the public notification process.

c) request that staff report back to the local board for a decision or final approval of the new licence as follows ‘a portion (421m² more or less) of Allotment 21 DP 32632 (under Section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977).’

d) note that all other terms and conditions would be in accordance with the Point Wells Recreation Reserve Management Plan as adopted 24 June 2010.

Comments

Land and area occupied

7. The hall is located on Point Wells Recreation Reserve at 5 Point Wells Road (Attachment B). The reserve occupies 1.043 hectares and comprises of two defined land parcels. The hall is sitting on Lot 21 DP32632, land classified subject to the requirements of the Act as recreation reserve. This classification does not “support” the community-focused activities at the hall nor the proposed licence to occupy and manage.

8. On the 13September 2007 the trustees of Point Wells Recreation Reserve transferred the land and buildings to the Rodney District Council on the terms set out in a memorandum of understanding between the trust and council. Clause 4.1 of the MOU states:

· the trustees express the wish that the land, once dedicated as reserve, should be classified for recreation purposes or for recreation and local purposes, under the Reserves Act.

9. There are two options available to proceed with the licence required to implement the community led model as follows:

Option one: reclassification

10. Reclassifying the portion (421m² more or less) of land currently classified as recreation reserve to local purpose (hall site) reserve would mean that the PWCRA may be granted a licence for the area it occupies without the need for public notification. Similarly, further public notification would not be required for any new licence at the expiration of the proposed licence.

11. There are a number of processes that would need to be undertaken and considerations which impact on the proposal to reclassify the 421m² of land. These are detailed as follows:

· council staff must report to the Rodney Local Board, Parks and Recreation Committee seeking approval to endorse the reclassification of the 804m² under section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act

· council staff must engage with iwi and undertake public notification with regard to the proposal (cost for this is approximately $1,600.00)

· council staff must place an advertisement in relevant local newspapers giving submitters and or objectors one calendar month to respond and advising whether they wish to have their submission or objection heard in person

· subject to the outcome of the above, council staff may have to prepare for and manage a hearings process

· subject to the outcome of the above, council staff must report to the Governing Body, Environment and Community Committee recommending that the committee resolve to reclassify the 421m² under section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act

· subject to the committee resolving to reclassify the 804m², council staff would organise for a land survey to be undertaken. Survey costs to redefine the 5086m² by survey office plan would be approximately $8,000.00 to $9,000.00. The plan would take approximately three months from its preparation to “approval of the plan as to survey” by Land Information New Zealand

· subject to the survey plan being approved by Land Information New Zealand, council staff would prepare a gazette notice from the new description of the 421m² supplied by the plan, and make a submission to council’s delegate for the Minister of Conservation, seeking approval to the reclassification and to sign the gazette notice.

· subject to the gazette notice being published in the New Zealand Gazette, (cost to publish the notice is approximately $100.00), the reclassification would be completed and council would have met all the requirements of the Reserves and Conservation Acts.

12. If option one is implemented the time delay could be up to 18 months due the lengthy process outlined above. However, if the hall site is reclassified this would be done once and future licences would be issued without the need for any re-classification.

Option two: public notification

13. As the hall is on a recreation reserve, the proposed licence must be issued under section 73(3) of the Act. The Act enables part of the reclassification process to be implemented by engaging with iwi and publically notifying the intent to issue a licence to the hall committee.

14. Option two allows the hall committee to move forward quickly to pick up the management of the hall. However it will require this process to be implemented each time a licence needs to be re-issued.

15. It is recommended that, in this instance option two be used, because this allows the community led model to be implemented in a timely manner. If at a later date the local board wishes to pursue reclassification (option 1) it may do so.

Point Wells Hall Committee

16. The Point Wells Hall Committee is a sub-committee of the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association (PWCRA) and will act as such under the rules of the Incorporated Societies.

17. The PWCRA was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

18. At the PWCRA annual general meeting on 9 April 2017 a motion was unanimously resolved that the sub-committee be approved to negotiate with council for setting up a licence to occupy and manage the hall (Attachment C).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. On 13 June 2016 it was resolved to approve a community-led incorporation model whereby a hall committee manage and operate the hall RODPC/2016/46 a) (Attachment D).

20. The Rodney Local Board Parks and Recreation Committee has delegated authority to approve public notification of council’s intention to grant a community licence.

Māori impact statement

21. Engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in land in the local board area is required regarding the proposal to grant a licence to occupy and manage.

22. Staff will invite iwi representatives to hui and/or for a kaitiaki site visit to comment on any spiritual, cultural or environmental impact with respect to the proposal.

Implementation

23. The costs associated with public notification and engagement with iwi is approximately $1,500. This cost will be met by the Community Places unit of council. Should there be any submissions and/or objections received during the public notification process, a hearing process may incur additional cost.

24. Following the notification process staff will report back to the local board for a decision or final approval of the licence.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Point Wells Hall	13
b ⇩	Locality Plan	15
c ⇩	Letter from PWCRA	17
d ⇩	Resolution	19

Signatories

Authors

Jo Heaven - Rural Hall Advisor (Rodney)

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

Adoption of the Rodney Local Board Plan

File No.: CP2017/17030

Purpose

1. To adopt the final version of the Rodney Local Board Plan 2017.

Executive summary

2. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 each local board is required to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017.

3. The Act also requires local board plans to be developed using the special consultative procedure. The consultation period for the 2017 local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June.

4. The local board have considered submissions received and feedback gathered from the consultation period. As a result of this consideration, the following high-level changes are proposed:

· The outcome “we can get around easily and safely” has been restructured to better address the submission points raised including:

o clarity has been added to note that the plan proposed to only investigate a targeted rate and that specific consultation will be carried out on any investigation before the local board requests that a rate be struck

o clarity has been added noting that state highways are controlled by central government, as many submissions requested improvements to State Highway 16 in particular when this road is not controlled by Auckland Council

o specific mention has been added regarding the maintenance and upkeep of Rodney’s roads, and that the local board will advocate for a fair contribution towards the increased costs of road maintenance caused by heavy trucking linked to the boom in growth related activities (like subdivisions and cleanfills).

· The outcome “parks and sports facilities that everyone can enjoy” has been amended to include that the local board will advocate for all new developments to have enough open space to cater for growing communities, as well as paths and other connections to bring them all together.

· The outcome “our harbours, waterways and environment are cared for, protected and healthy” is amended to include reference to the local board advocating for more to be done to minimise any negative impacts on our environment from growth related activities, such as run off from new developments or clean and managed fills, including advocating for the greater enforcement of resource consent conditions.

· Numerous textual changes have been made throughout the document to reduce jargon or address minor stylistic changes the local board requested and to aid in the clarity of some key initiatives and/or text passages.

5. The Rodney Local Board Plan 2017, which includes proposed changes, is attached to this report.

6. Pending adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) adopt the final Rodney Local Board Plan 2017 as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) delegate authority to the Rodney Local Board Chairperson to approve any minor edits or typographical changes that may be necessary prior to publication.

Comments

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan every three years. This means that the Rodney Local Board Plan 2017 must be adopted by 31 October 2017.

8. Local board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how the local board:

· makes decisions on local activities and projects

· provides input into regional strategies and policies.

9. The plans form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for the following three financial years and subsequent work programmes. They also inform the development of council’s 10-year budget.

10. Under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

11. Submissions were made through the following channels and coded together:

· online form available on the Shape Auckland website

· hard copy form included in the household summary document

· via email or post.

12. In total, 1592 submissions were received on the draft Rodney Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, 267 people provided feedback at engagement events and there were two pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook.

Consideration of submissions and feedback

13. The local board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. They received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback to read on 17 August 2017 and held a workshop to discuss this on 24 August 2017. Advice has been sought from staff on matters raised in the consultation period and this is reflected in the table included later in this report.

14. Public feedback on the draft plan was generally positive with most submitters agreeing with the proposed outcomes. Some feedback was given concerning things people didn’t like about the draft or thought were missing. Key feedback points are outlined in the table below. Analysis of these points, and any resulting substantive proposed changes to the outcome chapters, are outlined in the corresponding columns.

Key public feedback points	Analysis	Proposed changes
A common theme in the submissions that answered “not sure” to the question regarding the investigation of a targeted rate was that a rate may be supported if it was relevant to the submitter and the submitter had all the cost details to peruse first. Additionally, 29% of submissions disagreed with the proposed investigations for the targeted rate with most stating that funding should be found from petrol taxes, car registration, development contributions, road user charges or general rates.	The purpose of the question was to garner feedback on the investigation process, not for a rate itself. With 15% of respondents opting for not sure, it is possible that the wording in the plan was not clear enough about that distinction. Council cannot raise revenue from petrol taxes, car registration, or road user charges and the collection of additional revenue via development contributions is restricted. The allocation of general rates revenue towards transport projects is determined by the Governing Body, not the Rodney Local Board.	The outcome “we can get around easily and safely” has been restructured to clarify that the plan proposes an investigation of a target rate only at this stage, and that specific consultation will be carried out on any investigation before the local board requests that a rate be struck.
There were a considerable number of submissions about congestion on State-Highway 16 (SH16) with a number of complaints about exiting the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway at SH16. Congestion at Hill Street intersection on State Highway 1 (SH1) was raised also.	SH16 and SH1 are both controlled by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and are not within the control of Auckland Council and the Rodney Local Board.	Additional words have been added to the outcome “we can get around easily and safely” to note that State Highways are the role of central government, not Auckland council. The advocacy point in the text has been strengthened to note the local board’s role in speaking up for Rodney residents to influence decision makers to take action.
The road quality and lack of road maintenance came across strongly. However, road sealing was mentioned comparatively less than in past engagement.	A shifting demographic towards more urbanised areas like Kumeu-Huapai and Warkworth is likely responsible for the decreased number of submissions requesting that more roads be sealed. However, the numbers requesting that roads be well maintained and looked after remains a strong theme. Certain areas (such as Dairy Flat) were very likely to submit on the damage being done to roads by increased use of roads not built for such activity.	Additional paragraphs have been included in the “we can get around easily and safely” outcome providing an advocacy point for the local board to push for better levels of service for Rodney’s roads, and that the local board will advocate for a fairer contribution towards the upkeep of our roads from those activities that cause additional damage.
There was considerable support for the investment into greenways, as well as numerous calls for better pedestrian links in and between townships, particularly those experiencing rapid growth. There was a strong theme of the need to meet the demands of safe equestrian access in our rural areas.	Links between townships and villages, including walking, cycling and bridleways, is a key aspect of the Rodney Greenways Plans. The submissions reflect a concern that these links are not being supplied at the same time or in enough quantity when new subdivisions are planned.	An additional advocacy item has been added as a key initiative to the outcome “we can get around easily and safely” to advocate for all new developments to include high quality footpaths, walkways, bridleways and cycleways.
The development of Green Road as a publically accessible reserve received overwhelming support from those submitters from Dairy Flat.	A key initiative in the draft plan is to develop, renew and improve sports parks, which includes Green Road as an example. This could be lifted out into its own initiative, given the level of support	A new key initiative in the “parks and sports facilities that everyone can enjoy” outcome has been created specifically to develop a plan Green Road
There was considerable support for funding the arts centres in Helensville and Kumeu, with approximately 140 submissions stating these facilities have a high value for those communities and local artists; this included submissions from both arts centres themselves. All of the 140 submissions requested that the local board continue to fund these facilities.	The funding of the arts centres is already included as a key initiative in outcome “arts and culture is vibrant and strong”	No change proposed, this is already provided for in the plan.
Twenty-four submission points expressly requested that council look at strategies or methods to manage clean and managed fills. These submissions primarily come from the Dairy Flat subdivision. A further 17 attendees at the Dairy Flat Have Your Say event made a similar comment. A related environmental theme was that the local board should do more to address runoff and pollution from new developments rather than focus primarily on stock exclusion.	The impact of heavy trucking on Rodney’s roads was also assessed as part of the feedback on transport. The impact of new developments and their planning was a common theme throughout the feedback, representative of the massive amounts of growth Rodney is facing.	The text of the outcome “our harbours, waterways and environment are cared for, protected and healthy” is amended to include reference to the local board advocating for more to be done to minimise any negative impacts on our environment from growth related activities, such as run off from new developments or clean and managed fills, including advocating for the greater enforcement of resource consent conditions

Changes to the Rodney Local Board Plan 2017

15. The Rodney Local Board Plan 2017, with proposed substantive changes to the outcome chapters as described in the above table, is attached to this report.

16. Other minor changes, made for the purposes of clarification, are also included

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The local board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this report.

18. In developing the plan, the local board considered:

· what we already know about our communities and what is important to them

· submissions received via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post as well as feedback provided by people at engagement events and gathered through Facebook

· regional strategies and policies

· staff advice

· stakeholder views from community groups and mana whenua

Māori impact statement

19. Maori outcomes have been considered in the development of the draft Rodney Local Board Plan 2017.

20. An engagement hui with mana whenua authorities was also held on 6 March 2017.

21. Further engagement with mataawaka and Maori ratepayers and residents was included by considering pre-existing feedback, as well as other meetings and events held with iwi during the course of developing this plan.

Implementation

22. Pending adoption of the plan, minor edits may be necessary. This report recommends that responsibility for approving these are delegated to the chairperson.

23. Photos and other design features will then be added to the plan to prepare it for publication.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rodney Local Board Plan 2017	27

Signatories

Authors	Jonathan Hope – Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement

File No.: CP2017/18788

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on draft Auckland Plan content to inform the final draft of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. In June and July 2017 the Auckland Plan refresh team provided all local boards with summaries of the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed Auckland Plan for their consideration.

3. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July, and feedback from stakeholders informed the further development of the content and development of the strategic framework. The framework was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied the report to the Planning Committee.

4. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

5. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

6. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to public consultation in early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback, including any specific feedback on the package of materials across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy (attachment A to the agenda report).

b) note that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Comments

7. Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues, to ensure the plan continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

8. On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan is intended to be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy.

Local Board involvement in the refresh

9. Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during 2017. Throughout these workshops, chairs (or their representatives) have provided early input into opportunities and challenges for Auckland over the next 30 years and feedback on the proposed strategic framework for the refreshed Auckland Plan. This input was the views of chairs only and does not represent formal local board feedback.

10. At local board cluster briefings in February and April 2017, local board members gave feedback and information which was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas.

11. A report on the Auckland Plan Refresh was considered at local board business meetings in June and July. Local boards were invited to consider their formal position on the themes and focus areas and provide further feedback.

12. Local board cluster briefings were also held in April and July on the Development Strategy which is a core component of Auckland Plan.

13. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July informed the further development of a draft strategic framework. This was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied this report to the Planning Committee.

14. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August 2017. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

15. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

16. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to full public consultation in early 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local board feedback on the package of engagement material is being sought in this report.

18. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the governing body and providing input to regional strategies, policies, and plans.

Māori impact statement

19. The council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

20. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes of the plan. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

21. The strategic themes acknowledge and celebrate Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and Māori as Treaty partners in Auckland.

22. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the plan. The outcome describes the application of Te ao Māori values to the region, acknowledges the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau and acknowledges the foundational role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

23. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, and relevant Māori community groups has been undertaken to develop the draft plan.

Implementation

24. Feedback from the local boards will be summarised and provided to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Plan Draft Content Package	59

Signatories

Authors

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19393

Purpose

1. To provide comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document “Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4. The Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which remuneration is decided:

(i) each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v) there is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no more than a cabinet minister.

5. The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions.

6. The proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings.

7. The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The consultation document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8. The proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9. The consultation document does not discuss local boards. In other councils, community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they were funded by a targeted rate. Local boards are very different from community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration of local boards should be decided.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review.

Comments

Introduction

10. The Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority has stated that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council.

11. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

12. Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv) the Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5% for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13. The report summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

Council size

14. The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

15. For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

16. For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17. Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

18. Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

· Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

· Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

· When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

19. Comments:

(i) It is noted that prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii) In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20. The discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

21. Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

· If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

22. Comments:

(i) Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23. Mayors are considered to be full-time positions. The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

24. Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles be treated as full time?

· If not, how should they be treated?

· Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25. Comments:

(i) For Auckland Council, the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities since that was determined. There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26. A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75% majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

27. The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

28. Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

· If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

· Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29. Comments:

(i) Setting a remuneration pool for an entity and making that entity responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

(ii) One issue to consider relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is fixed. If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number of members on a board is increased or decreased, say by a review of representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease or increase accordingly. This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the discussion document.

(iii) In view of this, the local board might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv) A further issue to consider is that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration. Council has not had to debate how remuneration might be apportioned among governing body and local board members. This would be a major change.

(v) Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30. The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

31. Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

· Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

32. Comments:

(i) There are many bodies such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected members are appointed. These appointments are currently treated as part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii) If the pool proposal allows councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to Council Controlled Organisations

33. The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).

34. Remuneration Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

· Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

35. Comments:

(i) Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

(ii) In the current term, Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36. The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this is clearly stated in any local board response.

37. Community board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded by way of a targeted rate.

38. Remuneration Authority questions on community boards:

· Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

· If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

· If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

Local Boards

39. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

40. Most local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41. Local boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i) On the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii) If the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a. Should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b. Should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

42. The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

43. The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44. Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45. Comments:

(i) The Authority suggests in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46. A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1 July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47. These proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council. From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Remuneration Authority.

48. The remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the Remuneration Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be reported individually to the Remuneration Authority.

Māori impact statement

50. The level at which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori as compared with the wider community.

Implementation

51. Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Remuneration Authority.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Remuneration Authority Consultation Document Local Government Review	75

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 September 2017

Silverdale Dairy Flat Business Area and Warkworth Structure Plans

File No.: CP2017/18799

Purpose

1. To request that the Rodney Local Board appoint a member to the Structure Planning Political Reference Group.

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 1 August 2017 the Auckland Council Planning Committee agreed to proceed with preparing structure plans for the Silverdale Dairy Flat Business Area and Warkworth.

3. The committee also approved forming a Structure Planning Political Reference Group which is to include a member from the Rodney Local Board. The local board is therefore invited to appoint a member to the group.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) appoint a representative to the Structure Planning Political Reference Group.

Comments

4. At its meeting on 1 August 2017 the Auckland Council Planning Committee agreed to proceed with preparing four structure plans including the Silverdale West Dairy Flat Business Area and Warkworth structure plans in the Rodney Local Board area, and two in the south. The structure plans are anticipated to be completed within 18 months.

5. The reviewed Future Urban Land Supply Strategy July 2017 identifies the Silverdale West Dairy Flat Business Area and Warkworth to be development ready in the first half of Decade One 2018 – 2022.

6. Preparing a structure plan is the first stage in the process to get the land ready for development and is required before the land can be zoned for urban purposes. This is required by the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (RPS) chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan, which also sets out guidelines for preparing a structure plan. The structure plan process analyses the area’s constraints and opportunities, establishes the pattern of land use and the transport and services network for the area, and sets out the staging required to ensure development takes place within funding constraints.

7. The committee also approved forming a Structure Planning Political Reference Group. This group is to provide feedback to staff on the contents of the structure plans prepared and to approve the draft structure plans for public feedback. The group comprises:

· Planning Committee chair

· Planning Committee deputy chair

· Rodney Ward councillor

· Franklin Ward councillor

· Rodney Local Board member

· Franklin Local Board member

· Representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board

8. The local board is therefore invited to appoint a member to that group.

9. Final approval of the structure plans lies with the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. This report is seeking the appointment of a local board representative to the Structure Planning Political Reference Group. Therefore local board views will be reflected in the decision.

Māori impact statement

11. The structure plan process itself will involve engagement with relevant iwi and the Political Reference Group will include a representative from the Independent Maori Statutory Board. Māori views will therefore be fully represented in the structure plan process.

Implementation

12. Once appointed the local board member will be able to attend the Structure Planning Political Reference Group meetings as they are required.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop Record 10 August	127
b ⇩	Workshop Record 17 August	129
c ⇩	Workshop Record 24 August	131
d ⇩	Workshop Record 7 September	133

Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Deputy Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Members	Brent Bailey
	Tessa Berger
	Cameron Brewer
	Louise Johnston
	Allison Roe, MBE
	Colin Smith
	Brenda Steele

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Jonathan Hope - Local Board Advisor - Rodney
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager