Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

Upper Harbour 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 6

8.1 Auckland Cricket / East Coast Bays Cricket 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 17 August 2017 9

13 Auckland Transport monthly report - September 2017 71

14 Adoption of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 77

15 Public alerting framework for Auckland 111

16 Remuneration Authority consultation document 183

17 Auckland Plan refresh - local board engagement 221

18 Panuku Development Auckland six-monthly local board update: 1 February to 31 July 2017 233

19 Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 24-30 Onekiritea Road, Hobsonville 241

20 Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 129 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville 247

21 Approval of two new road names within the Scott Point Precinct subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville 253

22 Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 102-130 Clark Road, Hobsonville 261

23 Approval for six new road names within the subdivision at 194-220 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville 269

24 Public notification of intention to grant new community leases: North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated and East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated 277

25 Governance forward work calendar 291

26 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 10 and 24 August, and Thursday 7 September 2017 295

27 Board Members' reports 303

28 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

29 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 307

C1 Northern Corridor Improvement Project lease hearing - selection of commissioners 307

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, 17 August 2017, including the confidential section, 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 Auckland Cricket / East Coast Bays Cricket

Purpose

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to give a brief overview of cricket in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, and in the Auckland region.

Executive summary

2. Anthony Bowler, Operations Manager of Auckland Cricket, and Louis Delport, East Coast Bays Cricket Club Manager, will be in attendance to discuss the key issues and priorities relating to cricket in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Anthony Bowler of Auckland Cricket, and Louis Delport of East Coast Bays Cricket, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Sustainability and the changing face of cricket................................... 311

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

21 September 2017

Auckland Transport monthly report - September 2017

File No.: CP2017/17272

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 September 2017.

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 supports the local board’s initiatives and delivery of 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. AT is continuing to improve corridors and provide new road connections, improve walking and cycling facilities and enhance safety for all road users with the announcement that funding has been approved for the following three new road projects in Albany:

· a new link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road;

· a new link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway between Stevenson Crescent and Gills Road; and

· the Dairy Flat Highway intersection with The Avenue and Lucas Creek Bridge will also be upgraded.

8. AT launched a new phone application which makes catching a bus, train or ferry more intuitive and easier to use. After four months, the AT mobile application has been downloaded by over 100,000 Aucklanders. The tracking function has been a huge hit as it is simple to use and has made a big difference.

9. AT has improved the road network and access to walkways and cycleways through the completion of the upgrade of the Albany Highway and its associated footpaths and cycleways.

10. AT will work with the local board on public requests for footpath improvements, through the 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

11. 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.

Footbridge:

· Building consent application lodged with Auckland Council and is expected to be approved by the end of September.

· Construction of the footbridge is planned to start in October.

Footpath and boardwalks:

· Detailed design for the footpath is completed.

· Design is underway for the detailed design of the boardwalk and retaining structures, mostly resolving the utility issues (Chorus and Vector).

· Once detailed design is complete, AT will have to re-lodge the resource consent application.

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

Upcoming projects and activities

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

12. 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.

Reducing speed on Lonely Track Road

13. Concerns have been raised about speeding on Lonely Track Road and how this might be addressed.

Response

14. AT reviews speed limits in accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003, and also makes assessments under the New Zealand Transport Agency’s new speed management guide.

15. The speed limits rule is a central government regulation which governs how speed limits are set and seeks to achieve a consistent approach across the entire country. Under the current speed limit rule, the dominant factor in determining the speed limits is the level of roadside development. The standard speed limits under the rule are 100km per hour in rural areas, and 50km per hour in fully urban areas. The semi-rural speed limits of 80km per hour and 70km per hour are used for small towns and villages and in semi-developed areas around the edge of urban zones. The section of Lonely Track Road to the west of Fairview Road has a relatively low level of residential development and is not a fully urban area. As such, the 70 km per hour speed limit is appropriate based on the speed limits rule, given it is a semi-developed area on the edge of an urban zone.

16. The new speed management guide is the development of a new approach to speed limit setting and planned changes to the speed limit rule, which shifts the focus towards the national safe system approach. The speed management guide places greater emphasis on the function and use of the road, the geometry of the road and the crash risk. The speed limits rule is expected to be rewritten in the first half of 2017, to incorporate the new approach used by the speed management guide.

17. The speed management guide allows for a range of rural speed limits of 100km, 80km and 60km per hour. Roads with an arterial function (having higher traffic volumes), roads with straight/gently curved geometry, and roads with low crash risk will qualify for the higher rural speed limits. Roads with local access function (lower traffic and proportionately more walkers and cyclists), roads with winding geometry, and roads with higher crash risk will qualify for the lower rural speed limits. The 70 km per hour section of Lonely Track Road is windy and narrow in places with a medium-high crash risk and moderate traffic volumes. Initial indications are that Lonely Track Road west of Fairview Avenue could qualify for a speed limit in the 60-80km per hour range under the new speed management guide. The roll‑out of changes under the speed management guide will be gradual and initially targeted to the areas of greatest crash risk.

18. AT is currently developing a speed management plan for the region which will include a prioritised programme of work. This programme will identify the highest priority areas for the initial roll‑out of speed management on approximately 10 per cent of the network. Implementation of the programme will commence in the 2017/2018 financial year.

Transit 2 (T2) Lane Albany Highway review

19. AT has completed a survey of the T2 lane along Albany Highway and will attend a workshop on 14 September 2017 to discuss the results and recommendations with the local board.

Greenhithe Road footpath remediation

20. AT advertised the tender and received interest from three parties. The tender was awarded at the end of August, with works due to start towards the end of September.

Kereru Grove/Upper Harbour Drive bus relocation request

21. AT has investigated this matter and will relocate the bus shelter as soon as it can be programmed. As this is a complex matter which requires in-depth investigation, AT is unable to provide the local board with a timeframe as to when this will happen.

Kyle Road - damaged walkway

22. AT referred these works to Auckland Council in early September for implementation.

Request for installation of ‘SLOW’ road markings on Oakford Park Crescent

23. AT is investigating this request and should have a response by mid-September.

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

24. 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:

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

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

25. Decisions of the TCC over the month of August 2017 affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are shown in the following table:

Westminster Gardens	Unsworth Heights	No stopping at all times (NSAAT) and angle parking
Apollo Drive / Rosedale Road / Hugh Green Drive	Rosedale	Lane arrows, NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, traffic islands, metered roundabout, give-way controlled roundabout, flush median, edge lines
Fairview Avenue	Fairview Heights	NSAAT and bus stop
Gills Road	Albany Heights	NSAAT, bus stop and edge lines
Gills Road / Silver Moon Road	Albany Heights	NSAAT, bus stop, give-way control and flush median
Gills Road / Living Stream Road	Albany Heights	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, removal of bus stop, removal of bus shelter, give-way control and flush median
Schnapper Rock Road	Schnapper Rock	NSAAT and bus stop
Aberley Road / Newbury Place	Schnapper Rock	NSAAT, bus stop and give-way control
Aberley Road / Newbury Place	Schnapper Rock	NSAAT, bus stop, road hump and give-way control
Waimarie Road / Totara Road	Whenuapai	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter and give-way control

Longer term major projects in Upper Harbour

‘Auckland Transport announces raft of new projects for Albany’

26. On 3 August 2017, AT announced that funding had been approved for three new roading projects in Albany:

· a new link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road;

· a new link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway between Stevenson Crescent and Gills Road; and

· the Dairy Flat Highway intersection with The Avenue and Lucas Creek Bridge will be upgraded.

27. The bulk of funding (of approximately $60 million) will be provided by Auckland Council through the Local Residential Growth Fund (LRGF).

28. The investigation of designs and statutory requirements for each of these projects will commence in coming months. Subject to land acquisition and statutory approvals, physical construction will start for the link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road in October 2018. Work on the link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and the Dairy Flat Highway upgrade will commence in early 2019.

29. The Albany area has seen rapid growth in the past 20 years, changing from a rural environment on the fringe of Auckland city, to a growing, urbanised environment on the outer edge of the city boundaries. These new projects will improve corridors and provide new road connections, improve walking and cycling facilities and enhance safety for all road users. The LRGF is provided to facilitate local transport infrastructure projects for vital residential growth areas.

30. The LRGF is designed to bridge the budget gap for critical missing infrastructure links in residential areas that would impede the development of new homes but are not the responsibility of a private developer, under the requirements of a Resource Management Act consent or other planning condition.

31. Auckland Council and AT will deliver essential public infrastructure to support the growth of over 3,000 residential dwellings in the Fairview Heights and Albany Heights areas. In addition, work on the Dairy Flat Highway will connect with future transport infrastructure needed for the estimated 25,500 to 30,000 dwellings to be constructed in the Wainui, Dairy Flat and Silverdale areas over the next 30 years.

32. The Upper Harbour Local Board welcomes this announcement as improving transport infrastructure is essential for the ongoing prosperity and wellbeing of Albany’s residential and commercial communities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

34. 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

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Adoption of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017

File No.: CP2017/16847

Purpose

1. To adopt the final version of the Upper Harbour 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.

5. The Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopt Attachment A as the final Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017.

b) delegate authority to the Chair to approve any minor edits that may be necessary.

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 Upper Harbour 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; and

· 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; and

· via email or post.

12. In total, 391 submissions were received on the draft Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, 184 people provided feedback at engagement events and there were 9 pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook.

Consideration of submissions and feedback

13. The board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. They received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback to read on 4 August 2017 and held a workshop to discuss this on 10 August 2017. They also held a deliberations meeting on
17 August 2017.

14. Public feedback on the draft plan was generally positive although 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
183 submitters expressed their support of the draft plan’s direction, with an additional 47 in strong agreement. In contrast, only nine submitters indicated disagreement, and three strongly disagreed	Given the widespread support the draft plan has received, staff recommend that the board continue with the direction that has been set out.	No change is proposed
148 submitters ranked “the investigation and securing of indoor multi-sport and multi-use sports and recreation facilities in Upper Harbour” as the most important priority in the plan.	Given the widespread community support for a multi-sport, multi-use sports and recreation facility, care must be taken to ensure that the facility will be large enough to meet the community’s needs and not be over-subscribed.	No change is proposed to the outcome chapter for Healthy and active communities
Transport attracted the most number of comments from submitters after parks, sport and recreation. Comments were mostly for more transport infrastructure, such as expanded parking at Albany Park ‘n Ride, rail development for the North Shore, or more bus routes.	Transport will continue to be a key concern for the local board, given the area’s exponential growth. Transport issues, as they are brought to the local board’s attention by residents, will be raised with Auckland Transport. Alternative funding options, to aid Auckland Transport in delivering transport projects, can also be sought.	No change proposed to the outcome chapter for Efficient and effective transport links

Changes to the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017

15. The Upper Harbour 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 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, including the Auckland Unitary Plan, the Auckland Plan, I Am Auckland Strategic Action Plan, Community Facilities Network Plan, Low Carbon Auckland, Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan, Sports and Recreation Strategic Action Plan and the Upper Harbour Local Economic Development Action Plan; and

· staff advice.

Māori impact statement

19. As part of developing the plan, the board have:

· considered views expressed by mana whenua authorities at a sub-regional governance level hui and local level one-on-one hui; and

· considered pre-existing feedback from Māori within the local board area.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017	81

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Public alerting framework for Auckland

File No.: CP2017/19538

Purpose

1. To provide information on the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland. The report also provides the results of an analysis carried out by GNS Science, identifying communities at risk from tsunami across Auckland.

2. In addition, the report also seeks in-principle support for the proposed enhancement of Auckland’s tsunami siren network.

Executive summary

3. In February 2017, the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Committee endorsed the draft Public Alerting Framework for Auckland.

4. Following on from this, Crown research agency, GNS Science, was commissioned to provide an analysis of those communities most at risk from tsunami, within the orange and red tsunami evacuation zones.

5. The GNS report and the Public Alerting Framework was presented to local boards in workshop sessions. Auckland Emergency Management is asking local boards for in-principle support for the Public Alerting Framework and for an enhanced tsunami siren network.

6. Next steps involve procurement and design of tsunami sirens and signage. Further information will be presented to local boards in due course.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the approach to public alerting, as outlined in the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

b) provide in-principle support for the development of an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network, noting that further information on design, placement and other considerations for the network, will be reported in due course.

Comments

Tsunami risk for Auckland

7. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon consisting of a series of waves generated when a large volume of water in the sea, or in a lake, is rapidly displaced^{^[1]}. Tsunami threats pose a risk to New Zealand and to Auckland. Occurrence rates of tsunami are higher in the Pacific than for other oceans because of the ‘Ring of Fire’.^{^[2]} Tsunami waves are most commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. In addition, these events have the potential to cause multiple other hazards including but not limited to:

· fire;

· fault line ruptures;

· coastal inundation;

· landslides;

· lifeline utility failures; and

· serious health issues.^{^[3]}

8. The Tonga-Kermadec trench is one of earth’s deepest trenches, and is Auckland’s highest risk for tsunami. Auckland is susceptible to regional and distant source tsunami, that is, tsunami generated from earthquakes in and around the Pacific Rim with a travel time of more than one hour, as well as locally generated tsunami. Tsunami can be categorised as local, regional or distant, based on their travel time or distance to the Auckland coastline:

· local source – less than one hour travel time. These tsunamis can be generated by offshore faults, underwater landslide or volcanic activity;

· regional source – earthquakes in and around the Pacific Islands and the Tonga-Kermadec Trench, one to three hours travel time to Auckland; and

· distant source – commonly generated by a large earthquake from any location around the Pacific Rim, including but not limited to, South America, Japan, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The travel time to Auckland will be three hours or greater.^{^[4]}

This map shows the position of New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean within an area of intense seismic activity called the ‘Ring of Fire’. Source: GNS Science

Tsunami sirens

9. Currently, Auckland has 44 fixed tsunami warning sirens across nine sites in legacy Rodney and Waitakere. These sirens were installed in 2008 and 2010 and do not meet current government technical standards^{^[5]} for tsunami warning sirens. All new and existing siren installations will need to meet these standards by June 2020.

10. Auckland Emergency Management is currently investigating the upgrading of its existing siren network from ‘tone-only’ sirens to those with PA/voiceover loudspeaker capability. The sirens have a strong immediate effect and can prompt immediate action to seek further information. Tsunami sirens may be more effective or have a greater reach than other forms of communication, such as cell phones or radio broadcasting. It is commonly accepted across the emergency management sector that effective public alerting systems are those that take a holistic approach. This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned, understood, and be implemented in conjunction with effective public education information and campaigns. A regionally consistent approach to public alerting, that communities can use and understand, is imperative.

11. The present tsunami siren system is restricted to a few locations and this creates a gap in the public alerting capabilities of the Auckland region. The estimated reach of Auckland’s current sirens is only eight per cent of the ‘at risk’ population. Auckland’s tsunami siren network is currently being considered for enhancement and expansion through the delivery of the Public Alerting Framework.

Public Alerting Framework

12. Auckland Council adopted the Public Alerting Framework in recognition of the need for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting. The framework, which was approved for consultation with local boards in February 2017, has been designed to:

· explain what public alerting in a CDEM sense is, and what it can and cannot do;

· give detail on the range of channels for public alerting currently available in Auckland;

· highlight the advances being made with regard to public alerting at a national level;

· provide some commentary on tsunami sirens, their uses and limitations; and

· assist with decisions taken by the Auckland CDEM Group Committee, local boards and partners and stakeholders, with regards to the prioritisation of budgets and options for enhancing public alerting across the Auckland region.

13. Auckland Council has allocated funds from the Long-term Plan towards the enhancement of the public alerting network. This funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.

14. It is important to understand that no public alerting system is without fault. The Public Alerting Framework focuses on the use of multi-platforms, understanding that a holistic approach is one that maximises the reach of public alerting in an emergency or hazard event. Prioritisation of public education is critical. Without effective public education and engagement activities, sirens are not considered a standalone solution to public alerting.

GNS Science report

Introduction and methodology

15. Following endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, Crown research agency GNS Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (refer Attachment B) of those communities most at risk of tsunami.

16. A GeoMaps based analysis was used to calculate the number of exposed residents in communities. The analysis used 2013 census population data to identify the number of residents located in the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones (see figure below). For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology, please see Attachment B.

Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used in the GNS Science analysis

Results

17. The results of the analysis carried out by GNS Science identified 217 communities at risk from tsunami. For all 217 communities modelled, there are a total of 49,853 people at risk from tsunami in the orange and red evacuation zones. For detailed information on the results of this analysis, including detail on those communities at risk of tsunami, please refer to the report from GNS Science at Attachment B.

Next steps

18. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region, in order to share the results of the GNS Science report, and communicate the intention to implement an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network. This report seeks in-principle support for this enhanced and expanded network. More information on design, placement and other considerations for the network, will be reported in due course.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Workshops on tsunami risk were held with local boards in 2016. Following the development of the Public Alerting Framework, further information on tsunami risk, including the results of the GNS Science report, were shared with local boards between July and October 2017. Local boards were told that in-principle support for the enhanced and expanded tsunami siren network would be sought at their formal business meetings.

20. As key decision-makers representing local communities, local board input into this important project will continue.

Māori impact statement

21. There are no particular impacts on Māori communities which are different from the general population, arising from this report. The Public Alerting Framework for Auckland notes the importance of community resilience, of reaching all members of the community, and of having systems in place to ensure that public alert messages are understood and universal.

Implementation

22. Once in-principle support has been achieved, procurement and design of tsunami sirens and signage will be undertaken.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Public alerting framework	117
b ⇩	GNS report	127

Signatories

Authors

Celia Wilson – Project Manager

Authorisers

Craig Glover - Head of Strategy and Planning

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

PDF Creator

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19172

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 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 council is determined based on the size;

iii. the mayor’s salary is determined by the authority;

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

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 document is in Attachment A and provides 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 Upper Harbour 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 (appended in Attachment A). The authority states 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 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 per cent for unitary councils; and

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; and

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 per cent loading would not apply.

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

18. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

Comments:

19. It is noted that prior to 2013, the authority took population growth into account. Councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

20. 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

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

Territorial authorities:

· population, operational expenditure;

· assets; and

· deprivation index, visitor nights.

Regional councils:

· operational expenditure, geographic size;

· assets, population; and

· visitor nights.

Unitary authorities:

· population, operational expenditure, geographic size;

· assets; and

· deprivation index; visitor nights.

22. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

Comments:

23. Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

24. 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.

25. The Remuneration Authority has the following questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles should 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’?

Comments:

26. 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

27. 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 per cent majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

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

29. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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 per cent majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

Comments:

30. Setting a remuneration pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75 per cent majority vote.

External representation roles

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

36. The Remuneration Authority has the following question on external representation roles:

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

Comments:

37. 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.

38. 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 CCOs

39. The authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

40. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

Comments:

41. Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

42. 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

43. 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.

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

45. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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 a 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

46. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

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

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

Comments:

49. Local boards should comment on the following:

· the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach; and

· whether the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach:

o should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board; or

o should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

50. 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.

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

52. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

Comments:

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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.

56. 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

57. 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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government review	191

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Auckland Plan refresh - local board engagement

File No.: CP2017/18816

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 2017. 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback, including any specific feedback on the package of materials across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy (refer to attachment A of 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 view 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 the 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 2017. 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. 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, 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 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	225

Signatories

Authors

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Panuku Development Auckland six-monthly local board update: 1 February to 31 July 2017

File No.: CP2017/18263

Purpose

1. To give the Upper Harbour Local Board an overview of Panuku Development Auckland activities within the local board area for the six months, 1 February to 31 July 2017.

Background

2. Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) was established in September 2015 as a result of the merger of two council-controlled organisations (CCOs) – Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited.

3. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland – from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4. Panuku manages approximately $2 billion of council’s property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find innovative ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board update of 1 February to 31 July 2017.

Local Activities

Development

5. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

6. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery, to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

7. Following is a high-level update on development activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Unlock Hobsonville

8. In November 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved that the 14/6 Masterplan be adopted, and Panuku be allowed to proceed immediately with the development of the Airfields. Key roading infrastructure continues to be developed by Panuku to facilitate housing, with design work continuing on the ‘Mixed Use Zone’. This is likely to be market-tested later this year, following consultation with key stakeholders.

9. AV Jennings and its building partners are currently developing 102 dwellings, the first of these to be ready before the end of 2017, and of which, 10 per cent is affordable housing.

10. Top Garden Property Development (TGPD) was the successful building bidder following the marketing exercise of stage two of the Airfields. TGPD is now in the process of consenting its development, which includes 510 dwellings, and a 10 per cent affordable housing component.

11. Panuku continues to work closely with the Upper Harbour Local Board, iwi, Homes Land Community (HLC) and other key stakeholders in the wider Hobsonville precinct.

Portfolio Management

12. Panuku manages ‘non-service’ property owned by council and Auckland Transport (AT) that is not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties not immediately required for delivery of a council service or infrastructure development, but are being held for use in planned future projects, such as road construction, the expansion of parks or development of future town centres.

13. The property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases, as at 31 July 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

14. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2017 was above budget, with a net surplus to Auckland Council and AT shareholders of $1.12 million ahead of budget.

15. The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate, for the six month period, is more than 98 per cent, which is above the SOI target of 95 per cent.

Properties managed in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

16. Panuku currently manages 28 commercial and residential properties within the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Commercial Properties	25
Residential Properties	3
Total properties managed	28

Business interests

17. Panuku also optimises the commercial return from business interests it manages on council’s behalf. This is comprised of two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

18. There are currently no such managed business interests in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

19. The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025 reflects a desire of council to materially reduce or slow down expenditure, and unlock value from assets no longer required, or which are sub-optimal for service purposes. In response to this, prior to the establishment of Panuku, Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) developed a new method of dealing with service property, called optimisation.

20. Asset optimisation deals with ‘service property’. It is self-funding, it maximises efficiencies from service assets, and maintains levels of service, whilst releasing property for sale or development. A key element of optimisation is that the sale proceeds are locally reinvested, to advance approved projects and activities on a cost-neutral basis. It does not include the Auckland Transport portfolio. Panuku continues to advance this programme of work. This includes the development of a cross-council project to coordinate and execute asset sales and optimisation.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

21. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

22. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$75 million disposal recommendations	$76.9 million as at 30 June 2017

23. Panuku works closely with council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

24. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60 million disposal recommendations	$8 million as at 31 July 2017

Process

25. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council, CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally, a governing body decision.

Under review

26. Properties currently under review in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed below. This list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale, or development and sale by the governing body.

Property

Details

Clearwater Cove – Westpark Marina

Panuku has engaged with the Upper Harbour Local Board to ensure public access concerns, marina operations, transport requirements, and quality place shaping outcomes are considered, should a disposal by council’s governing body be approved.

Feedback received from the board so far has indicated support for the proposed rationalisation. Panuku will report to the board’s October 2017 meeting for a formal position from the board.

Acquisitions and disposals

27. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. We buy property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other service needs. We manage the sale of properties that are surplus to council requirements. These properties may be sold, with or without, contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

28. In the 2016/17 financial year, 22 properties were purchased in the for open space purposes around the region, at a value of $48.6 million, and seven properties have been purchased for storm water purposes, at a value of $19.4 million.

29. Three properties had purchase agreements signed in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the reporting period.

30. Panuku undertakes acquisitions for Auckland Council Parks and Healthy Waters, under delegation from the Chief Executive of Auckland Council. Panuku does not unilaterally decide what properties to buy and when, but rather follows a directive to manage the commercial transactions, following committee approval to purchase a particular property. A prerequisite of the committee resolution is reporting to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

31. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause, due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Disposals

32. For the year ending 30 June 2017, the Panuku disposals team has achieved $22.92 million of unconditional net sale proceeds, from the sale of 16 properties against the 2016/17 disposals target of $20 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

11 Scott Road, Hobsonville

33. This property has been transferred to the Crown for development of a primary school and early learning centre. A strip on the northern boundary of the site has been retained by council for future roading purposes, as set out in the Scott Point Structure Plan.

Northern Corridor Improvements project

34. Panuku has been requested by Auckland Council to assist with the compensation negotiations, relating to the land required by the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) for the Northern Corridor Improvements project and busway extension.

Housing for older people

35. Council owns and operates 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland, to provide rental housing to older people in Auckland.

36. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involves council partnering with a third party provider, to deliver social rental housing services for older people.

37. On 21 December 2015, council announced that The Selwyn Foundation was its preferred joint venture partner to manage the HfOP portfolio.

38. Panuku negotiated the new joint venture (JV) arrangements with Selwyn over 2016, and the JV was formally constituted in December 2016.

39. The new JV business, named Haumaru Housing (Haumaru meaning ‘to shelter’), took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement, from 1 July 2017.

40. Haumaru Housing was granted Community Housing Provider (CHP) status in April 2017. CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

41. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a multi-year development programme.

42. The first new development project will be a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site, Henderson. Once completed, this development will increase the provision to 1452 units.

43. The following HfOP villages are located within the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Village	Address	No. of units
Windsor Court	480A East Coast Road, Windsor Park	18

Regional activities

Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results:

Transform locations

Wynyard Quarter

44. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week. Changes include:

· the ASB Waterfront Theatre officially opened on 22 September 2016. Developed by Hawkins Construction, and home to the Auckland Theatre Company, the theatre seats 650 people and has a 5-green star rating;

· the first three phases of structural steel have been installed at the Park Hyatt Hotel. In total, approximately 2000 tonnes of primary structural steel will be used to construct the luxury five-star hotel, which will span a total area of 37,000sqm;

· in April 2017, Mayor Phil Goff officially opened the Mason Bros. building, a former industrial warehouse that has been redeveloped into a three-level office space, bringing together a community of entrepreneurs and businesses. It is the centrepiece of Wynyard Quarter’s innovation precinct;

· developer Willis Bond is constructing 500-600 apartments of various types and sizes, that are set to house around 1100 people. There are two developments currently under construction, Wynyard Central and 132 Halsey. The first residents are expected to move in from September 2017;

· the Water Edge symposium was hosted by Panuku in November 2016, and brought together waterfront development leaders from 16 international cities, to exchange knowledge and strengthen the network of industry leaders; and

· in June 2017, Panuku handed over the management of the Queens Wharf facilities, including Shed 10 and The Cloud, to Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA). Panuku continues to lead the delivery of place making and the future development of the wharf.

Transform Manukau

45. Transform Manukau was the first location to have a Framework Plan, outlining the five key moves for the project and the vision for Manukau in 2040, completed. Panuku is aiming to get the first housing site underway at Barrowcliffe Place soon. Public realm projects anticipated to start next year include council’s Hayman Park Playground and Putney Way street improvements, in conjunction with the new bus station which is targeted for completion by May 2018. Panuku is also exploring with the Scentre Group, how the Westfield shopping mall’s future development could relate to, and interface with, the town centre.

Transform Onehunga

46. Plans to Transform Onehunga, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, were approved in late March 2017. These plans were completed after significant consultation with communities. The board of inquiry relating to the East-West link is currently going through a hearing process. A draft decision is expected to be made in October 2017 and will be finalised in November 2017. This will contain numerous conditions of consent. Once the decision is known, Panuku can advance planning on the Onehunga wharf and foreshore precinct.

Unlock locations

47. In Takapuna, Auckland Council owns nearly four hectares of land around the Anzac Street car park and the gasometer site. Consultation on the redevelopment of these sites has started.

48. In Northcote, Panuku completed a Framework Plan in November 2016 that outlines the initial proposals for the town centre. An information kiosk was also opened by Homes Land Community in April 2017. The town centre masterplan and the Awataha Greenway masterplan is targeted for completion in December 2017 and the acquisition of strategic leasehold interests in the town centre are continuing.

49. Plans to repurpose the iconic Civic Administration Building in Aotea Square into high quality apartments, and the intention to develop the surrounding area, was announced in September 2016. Apartment sales are progressing well.

50. Council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop old Papatoetoe town centre in June 2017. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the Papatoetoe mall, a 2.5ha block of land, which will consist of a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded car park and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall, which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

51. With the overall plan for Henderson being approved in May 2017, the vision for Henderson is for it to grow into an urban eco-centre. This vision will guide planning and development with an outcome towards ‘liveable growth’, by creating a safe, attractive and vibrant mixed-use environment with a uniquely west Auckland identity.

52. Avondale has been upgraded from a ‘support’ location to an ‘unlock’. A high level regeneration project plan is underway, identifying opportunities within the development area. Ockham has commenced the construction of 72 apartments on Racecourse Parade, with 10 per cent of the apartments being affordable. Panuku also sold a site in Avondale to Housing New Zealand in December 2016, which allowed for the development of 103 social housing units.

53. A development agreement was signed with Todd Property for the delivery of more than 350 homes in Flat Bush, Ormiston. In December 2016, Panuku sold a site at 187 Flat Bush School Road for a 30-lot subdivision.

Support locations

54. Panuku is also working on a number of support locations, where it ensures that council is making the most of what it already has. These smaller projects are adding to Auckland’s much needed housing supply and improving communities.

55. The Mariner Rise subdivision at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa, has been completed by our development partner, McConnell Property, along with the delivery of a 2700sqm park and playground. Sixty new homes will be built on this new subdivision.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

56. This report is for the Upper Harbour Local Board’s information.

57. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries relating to a property in the local board area be directed, in the first instance, to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz.

Māori impact statement

58. Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world, with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here.

59. Māori make up 12 per cent of the region’s total population, and mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic, with 50 per cent living in Tāmaki Makaurau being under the age of 25 years. Five per cent of Māori in the region are currently 65 years and over.

60. There are 19 mana whenua in the region, with 14 having indicated an interest in Panuku’s lead activities within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

61. Māori make up five per cent of the Upper Harbour Local Board population, and there are no marae located within the local board area.

62. Panuku works collaboratively with mana whenua on a range of projects, including potential property disposals, development sites in the area, and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level, with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum, who have a broader mandate.

63. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Implementation

64. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Team Leader Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 24-30 Onekiritea Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/16273

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to name a new private road within the subdivision of superlot CA15, Catalina Precinct, at 24-30 Onekiritea Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this instance to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. The applicant, Platinum Homes (NZ) Limited, has submitted the following proposed road names in order of preference:

· Nōhanga Lane (preferred);

· Canopy Lane; or

· Habitat Lane.

4. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve a proposed road name for the new private road within the superlot CA15, Catalina Precinct subdivision at 24-30 Onekiritea Road, Hobsonville.

Comments

5. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/ developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for local board approval.

6. The road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. The criteria encourage the use of Māori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion

8. The new private road services 27-41 Wallace Road (odd numbers only) in the south-west corner of superlot CA15, diagonally across from Hobsonville Point Primary School. The applicant will be purchasing the land indirectly from consent applicant Homes Land Community (2017) Limited.

9. A plan and aerial photograph showing the location of the laneway under construction is attached (refer Attachment A).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the following table, in order of preference:

Proposed name	Meaning	Criteria
Nōhanga Lane (preferred)	Nōhanga is te reo Māori for habitat, in keeping with the bird/nature theme of the surrounding road names.	Meets criteria – Māori name related to surrounding road names.
Canopy Lane (alternate)	References the nature/bird theme of surrounding streets.	Meets criteria – name related to surrounding road names.
Habitat Lane (alternate)	References the nature/bird theme of surrounding streets.	Meets criteria – name related to surrounding road names.

11. The applicant’s preferred road type is ‘Lane’, which is appropriate for the formation of the road to be named. The road naming criteria references a ‘Lane’ as a narrow roadway.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. A decision is therefore sought from the local board in this report.

13. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board for this report does not trigger the significance policy, and is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications, or any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

14. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

15. Local iwi were consulted as part of the Hobsonville Point Place-making Group and responses in support were received from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki. No other comments were received.

Implementation

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable from the applicant, in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

17. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed, once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map - Catalina Precinct	245

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven – Resource Consent Project Management Team

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 129 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/18450

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to name a new private road, created by way of a subdivision at 129 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville Point, within the superlot SB3 Sunderland Precinct, off Frank Gill Road.

Executive summary

3. The applicant, Classic Developments for Marine Precinct General Partner Limited, have submitted the following proposed road names in order of preference:

· Alexander Willis Crescent (preferred name);

· Contact Crescent; and

· Danga Crescent.

4. These proposed road names are deemed to meet the Auckland Council Road Naming criteria and are acceptable to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and New Zealand Post.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the proposed road name for the new private road within the superlot SB3 Sunderland Precinct subdivision at 129 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville.

Comments

5. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider / developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for local board approval.

6. The road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

8. The new private road to be named services properties 3 and 5-38, and is located within superlot SB3 Sunderland Precinct at Hobsonville Point.

9. The superlot SB3 is located between Hobsonville Point Road and Buckley Avenue, adjacent to the Hobsonville Point war memorial and historic Headquarters Building, on the realigned Buckley Avenue (refer the location map at Attachment A).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the following table, in order of preference:

Proposed name	Meaning	Criteria
Alexander Willis Crescent (preferred)	Wing Commander A.E. Willis was Base Commander from 1944 to 1947. Willis was the main test pilot for the Kittyhawks. There are a couple of quotes from him in Bee Dawson’s book about flying aircraft.	Meets criteria – historic linkage to area, related to surrounding road names.
Contact Crescent (alternate)	The command called by a pilot to the ground crew member of an aircraft who spins the propeller, starting the aircraft's engine. ‘Contact’ is shouted to ensure the aircraft mechanic knows that the checks are complete and magnetos are switched on, ready to start the engine.	Meets criteria – historic linkage to area, related to surrounding road names.
Danga Crescent (alternate)	A Danga (also spelled ‘Dangar’ - full name ‘Dangaroo’) was, according to RNZAF Contact magazine, an RNZAF word originating in the Pacific theatre meaning ‘a new boy just arrived from home with news, information, speculations and wax matches.’	Meets criteria – historic linkage to area, related to surrounding road names.

11. These proposed road names are deemed to meet the Auckland Council Road Naming criteria and are acceptable to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and New Zealand Post.

12. The proposed road type ‘Crescent’ is referenced in the road naming guidelines as being ‘a crescent shaped thoroughfare, especially where both ends join the same thoroughfare’. This is appropriate for the subject road and is also the applicant’s preferred road type. However, LINZ stated a preference for the suffix ‘Road’, which is also appropriate.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. A decision is therefore sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report.

14. The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy and is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications or any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

15. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome, ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

16. Local iwi were consulted as part of the Hobsonville Point Place Making Group and responses in support were received from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki.

Implementation

17. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name is recoverable from the applicant, in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

18. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly, once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	SB3 Superlot location map	251

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven – Resource Consent Project Management Team

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Approval of two new road names within the Scott Point Precinct subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/18466

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to name two new public roads within the Scott Point Precinct, for the subdivision development at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

3. The applicant, Scott Point Estate Limited Partnership, has submitted the following road names for the two new roads, in order of preference:

· Road 12: ‘Gunn Way’ (preferred), ‘Red Rock Way’ or ‘Rakaraka Way’ (alternates).

· Road 13: ‘Treloar Crescent’ (preferred), ‘Whata Crescent’ or ‘Cotter Crescent’ (alternates).

4. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the Auckland Council road naming criteria and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve a road name for the new public road labelled Road 12, within the subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville.

b) approve a road name for the new public road labelled Road 13, within the subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville.

Comments

5. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and criteria, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for local board approval.

6. The road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. The criteria encourage the use of Māori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

8. The two new public roads to be named are located within the Scott Point Precinct of the new subdivision development at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville Point.

9. As per the attached map (refer Attachment A), the surrounding road names on adjacent subdivisions already approved and in use, are:

· Road 5 – Kota Lane;

· Road 6 – Craigs Way; and

· Road 8 – Turret Lane.

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the following table, in order of preference:

Road no.	Proposed name	Meaning	Criteria
Road 12	Gunn Way (preferred)	Family name significant to descendants of early pioneering European family of Hobsonville.	Meets criteria – historical or ancestral linkage to area.
	Red Rock Way (alternate)	Kokowai – the original name used by our Tupuna was panipani kokowai, referring to the spreading of red ochre rock mudstone in the area (brick works/lime burners). Name proposed by Toki Taiao.	Meets criteria – historical or ancestral linkage to area.
	Rakaraka Way (alternate)	Meaning: Harrow, rake. Previously submitted as an alternate name for the road approved as Aviation Drive (Road 2) within the Hobsonville Point development.	Meets criteria – Māori name.
Road 13	Treloar Crescent (preferred)	A family name significant to the developers, a proud fifth generation New Zealander. The great-great-great grandfather came to New Zealand and married Mere Type Kaikanui Pakinini – Ngai Tahu whakapapa.	Meets criteria – owner/ developer’s name. Historical / ancestral linkage to area. Promotes diversity.
	Whata Crescent (alternate)	Meaning to elevate, support, bring into prominence, or to be hanging / suspended (verb). Meaning elevated stage (for storing food, etc.) or storage place (noun). Previously submitted as an alternate name for the road approved as Tai Crescent (Road 7) within the Hobsonville Point development.	Meets criteria – Māori name.
	Cotter Crescent (alternate)	Family name significant to descendants of early pioneering European family of Hobsonville.	Meets criteria – historical or ancestral linkage to area.

11. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and criteria, and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

12. The applicant’s preferred road type for Road 12 is ‘Way’. The Road Naming Guidelines reference ‘Way’ as ‘a short enclosed road’, which is appropriate for this road, due to its length and proximity to other longer roads within the subdivision development.

13. The applicant’s preferred road type for Road 13 is ‘Crescent’. The Road Naming Guidelines reference ‘Crescent’ as ‘a crescent shaped thoroughfare, especially where both ends join the same thoroughfare’. This is an appropriate road type in this case as both ends of Road 13 join Craigs Way (Road 6) as per the attached map (Attachment B).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. A decision is therefore sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report.

15. The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy, and is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications, or any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

16. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board for this report is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome, ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

17. Local iwi were consulted and the alternate names and meanings in the above table were received by Pani Gleeson of Kaiawhina, Toki Taiao. No additional objections or comments were received concerning the proposed names.

Implementation

18. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road names is recoverable from the applicant, in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

19. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that appropriate signage is installed once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map - 23 Scott Road	257
b ⇩	Site plan for Roads 12 and 13 - 23 Scott Road	259

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven – Resource Consent Project Management Team

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Approval of a new road name within the subdivision at 102-130 Clark Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/18475

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to name a new private road created by way of a subdivision of superlot BB8 at Buckley Precinct, 102-130 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

3. The applicant, Platinum Homes (NZ) Limited for AVJ Hobsonville Pty Limited, has submitted the proposed road name ‘Angels Lane’ (preferred), along with alternate name options of ‘Airgraph Lane’, or ‘Armourer Lane’.

4. These proposed road names are deemed to meet the Auckland Council Road Naming criteria and are acceptable to both Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and New Zealand Post.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve a road name for the new private road within superlot BB8 in the Buckley Precinct subdivision, 102-130 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

Comments

6. The road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

8. The new private road to be named is a laneway that runs between Sidney Wallingford Way and Eyton Kay Road, and services the rear of properties fronting Clark Road and Walter Merton Road. The applicant, Platinum Homes (NZ) Limited, will be purchasing the land from AVJ Hobsonville Pty Limited.

9. Maps showing the location of the laneway are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the following table, in order of preference:

Proposed name	Meaning	Criteria
Angels Lane (preferred)	The RAF code for every 1000 feet in altitude, e.g. Angels 2-0 meant 20,000 feet.	Meets criteria – historical linkage to the area. Name related to surrounding road names
Airgraph Lane (alternate)	A system of sending bulk mail in the smallest possible space. An airgraph was mail that was photographed and shrunk onto microfilm. The microfilm was sent and, upon receipt, enlarged and printed at the original size. These messages were charged per word, like a telegram, and they had standard phrases you could buy like "Hello Mum and Dad", "Arrived safely", or "I am well", or you could also get them to write your own text if wanted.	Meets criteria – historical linkage to the area. Name related to surrounding road names
Armourer Lane (alternate)	The tradesmen who cared for guns, cannons, ammunition and bombs - engaged in everything from maintenance of such, to fitting them to the aircraft.	Meets criteria – historical linkage to the area. Name related to surrounding road names

11. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and LINZ.

12. The road naming criteria refer to ‘Lane as a narrow roadway between walls, building, or a narrow country roadway’. This is an appropriate choice for the laneway to be named, due to its size, purpose and location within the subdivision development, and is the applicant’s preferred road type.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy and is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications, or any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

15. Local iwi were consulted as part of the Hobsonville Point Place-making Group and a response in support was received from Te Kawerau a Maki. No other objections or comments were received.

Implementation

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

17. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly, once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map - superlot BB8	265
b ⇩	Site map - superlot BB8	267

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven – Resource Consent Project Management Team

Authorisers

Ian Dobson - Manager Northern Resource Consenting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Approval for six new road names within the subdivision at 194-220 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/18631

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for road names for six new private roads, within a subdivision development at 194-220 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville Point, being the Hudson Precinct superlots, SB6-SB10 off Marine Parade.

Executive summary

3. The applicant, Marine Precinct General Partner Limited, has submitted the following road names in order of preference:

Road no.	Type	Preferred name	Alternate 1	Alternate 2
6	Lane	Scramble	Adjutant	Fan
7	Lane	Brolly	Scramble *	Adjutant *
8a	Lane	Tour	Flak	Janker
8b	Lane	Widget	Tour *	Flak *
9	Lane	Laucala	Gordon Kells	Mayfly
10	Lane	Patrol	Chatterbox	Fan *
Repeats	* once

4. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the road naming criteria and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve road names for the six new private roads within the subdivision development at 194-220 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville Point, for the Hudson Precinct superlots SB6-SB10 off Marine Parade.

Comments

6. The road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

The six new private roads to be named all service properties within their respective superlots, within the Hudson Precinct. The applicant will be purchasing the land from Homes, Land, Community (2017) Limited. Lots serviced are:

Superlot lane no.	Lots serviced	Adjacent roads
SB6	1 - 12	Beach Road / Marine Parade
SB7	13 - 16	Cutty Sark Road
SB8A	29 - 31	Cutty Sark Road
SB8B	32 - 35	Marine Parade
SB9	43 - 56	Marine Parade / Cutty Sark Road
SB10	57 - 66	Marine Parade / Cutty Sark Road

8. Maps showing the laneways and surrounding lots in each of the superlots and existing property addresses, are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

9. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below, in order of preference. All names meet the criteria through having a historic or ancestral linkage to the area, and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and LINZ.

Road no.	Proposed name	Meaning
SB6	Scramble Lane (preferred)	Meaning to get airborne in a hurry or emergency, usually referring to fighters scrambling to get off the ground, gain height and meet enemy bombers heading their way.
	Adjutant Lane (alternate)	An officer in a position of responsibility, mainly in an administrative capacity, such as Squadron Adjutant, or Station Adjutant (now known as Base Adjutant or Base Adj in the modern RNZAF) who was in charge of the orderly room.
	Fan Lane (alternate)	Slang for propeller.
SB7	Brolly Lane (preferred)	A colloquial term for a parachute.
	Scramble Lane (alternate)	As above.
	Adjutant Lane (alternate)	As above.
SB8A	Tour Lane (preferred)	A tour was a specified number of operations before an aircrew was rested.
	Flak Lane (alternate)	Anti-aircraft fire: shells fired from the ground into the air and set to explode at a certain altitude, spreading shrapnel in all directions. Flak can work in two ways; either directly hitting the aircraft and exploding, or exploding first at the pre-set altitude and spraying aircraft with deadly shrapnel. The word ‘flak’ is an abbreviation of the German term Fliegerabwehrkanone (meaning aircraft defence cannon). Allied gun crews later added their own interpretation of the abbreviation with the words 'fondest love and kisses', a jokey term addressed from the gunners to the aircrew.
	Jankers Lane (alternate)	The military nickname for a punishment bestowed for breaking the rules or defaulting. Jankers were usually confined to camp and would be required to report to the guard house at specific times, day and night, in specific uniforms. Also menial work would be assigned to those on Jankers to fill their spare time, such as curbing and weeding etc. A defaulter on Jankers also had to wear a white webbing belt at all times, in order to show others they had defaulted.
SB8B	Widget Lane (preferred)	A young Gremlin, an air force expression now in common usage, to describe the mischievous spirit blamed for any unexplainable mishaps that occur mechanically on an aircraft. Gremlins take the form of small impish characters.
	Tour Lane (alternate)	As above.
	Flak Lane (alternate)	As above.
SB9	Laucala Lane (preferred)	Laucala Bay in Fiji was a station that many from the Hobsonville airbase spent time at.
	Gordon Kells Lane (alternate)	Warrant Officer Gordon Kells, along with his crew of three, set sail for Fiji in his home-built, 32 foot auxiliary sloop ‘Temptress’ at the start of Kells’ Laucala Bay posting. To prepare the yacht for the voyage, it was moored at Hobsonville for two weeks before departure, and a constant stream of visitors, service men and civilians arrived to look it over. The National Film Unit sent a team to cover the preparations. A Catalina from No.6 Squadron searched for (and found) the yacht six days after it sailed. The 1300 mile voyage took 13 days.
	Mayfly Lane (alternative)	Is an RAF term for the roster of crews for the day's operations.
SB10	Patrol Lane (preferred)	An operational sortie intended to seek out or guard against the enemy.
	Chatterbox Lane (alternative)	Slang for machine gun.
	Fan Lane (alternative)	Slang for propeller.

10. The road naming criteria refers to ‘Lane as a narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway’. These criteria match the form, size and location of the roads to be named and ‘Lane’ is the applicant’s preferred road type.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. A decision is therefore sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report.

12. The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy, and is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications, or any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

13. Local iwi, including Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, were consulted as part of the Homes Land Community Place-making Advisory Committee and no comments were received.

Implementation

14. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road names is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

15. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map - superlots SB6-SB10	273
b ⇩	Site map - superlots SB6-SB10	275

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven – Resource Consent Project Management Team

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 September 2017

Public notification of intention to grant new community leases: North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated and East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated

File No.: CP2017/18142

Purpose

1. To seek approval to publicly notify and consult with iwi, Auckland Council’s intention to grant new community leases to:

· the North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated, for part of Collins Park, 15A Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe; and

· East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated, for part of Bay City Park, Anderson Road, Browns Bay.

Executive summary

2. The North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated occupies a site on Collins Park, Greenhithe with its own new, purpose-built building from which it operates the Greenhithe Playcentre. The community lease granted by the legacy North Shore City Council in 1995 expired on 30 September 2015. The association has requested a new community lease to continue its activities.

3. Collins Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002. In accordance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act, public notification and iwi consultation is required prior to any lease being granted.

4. East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated owns clubrooms that occupy part of Bay City Park, Browns Bay. The community lease granted by the legacy North Shore City Council expired on 31 August 2016. The club has requested a new community lease to continue its activities.

5. Bay City Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve. However, there is no reserve management plan for the park, and the proposed lease requires public notification in accordance with the terms of the Reserve Act 1977.

6. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term. There is no requirement to undertake an expression of interest process.

7. This report recommends that the Upper Harbour Local Board approve the public notification of the intention to grant new community leases to:

· the North Shore Playcentre Association for the site it occupies on Collins Park, Greenhithe; and

· East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated, for the site on which it has its clubrooms on Bay City Park, Browns Bay.

8. The proposed leases would be for a period of 10 years, with one 10 year right of renewal. This is the recommended term in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines, July 2012.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the public notification of Auckland Council’s intention to grant a new lease to the North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated, of Part Lot 5 DP 7132 occupied by the Greenhithe Playcentre on Collins Park, 15A Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report). The terms of the proposed lease to be issued under the Local Government Act 2002 would be :

i. term: 10 years commencing from the date of the final local board approval and subject to the satisfactory outcome of the public notification process and iwi engagement, plus one right of renewal for 10 years;

ii. rent: $1.00 plus GST per annum if demanded; and

iii. the North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan as approved, be attached to the community lease document (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report).

b) approve the public notification of the intention to grant a new lease to East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated, Part Allotment 313 Parish of Paremoremo being part of Bay City Park, Anderson Road, Browns Bay (refer to Attachment C of the agenda report). The terms of the proposed lease to be issued under section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act would be :

i. term: 10 years commencing from the date of final approval by the Minister of Conservation (or a delegate), plus one right of renewal for 10 years;

ii. rent: $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested; and

iii. the East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan as approved, be attached to the community lease document (refer to Attachment D of the agenda report).

c) request that council staff report back to the local board for a decision or final approval to the proposed community leases, following public notification and engagement with iwi.

d) All other terms and conditions will be in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, The Local Government Act 2002, and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

The North Shore Playcentre Association

9. The North Shore Playcentre Association was registered as an incorporated society in November 1973 (number 224136). Its objectives are to:

· work with ngā whānau/families to provide quality learning experiences for young children;

· assist ngā mātua/parents to provide a playcentre, and maintain, equip and supervise it;

· advise, assist, encourage and coordinate the activities of existing playcentres; and

· develop public awareness of the playcentre movement and to develop public conscience concerning the welfare of young children, and foster better mātua /parent /child relationships.

Greenhithe Playcentre

10. The Greenhithe Playcentre operates from a new, purpose-built facility that replaced the former playcentre building approximately five years ago. The Greenhithe Playcentre, which operates under the lease held by the North Shore Playcentre Association, caters for children from birth up to six years of age and currently has 25 families who regularly attend. Sessions are held each weekday morning, with one supervised extension session for older children that runs into the afternoon. The playcentre is also used two afternoons each week by a local children’s drama group and on a casual basis for family gatherings, information events and celebrations.

11. The association ensures that every playcentre adult is offered free education that will give them the skills and confidence for parenting and working with children. The Playcentre Diploma is a New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) qualification that consists of six courses. The playcentre provides teaching space for these courses, when not being utilised by the children.

12. The most recent Education Review Office report was prepared in March 2014. It concludes that:

· the Greenhithe Playcentre is very well placed to promote positive learning outcomes for children;

· the learning environment is richly resourced and provides a wide range of indoor and outdoor experiences for children to enjoy. The complexity of equipment and the layout of the learning environment allows members to offer programmes that challenge infants, toddlers and older children’s learning;

· biculturalism is also evident in the programmes and is reflected in displays, resources and activities that value Māori culture. The management team has a strong commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to building both adults and children’s familiarity with te reo and tikanga Māori; and

· there has been a successful focus on retaining four year old children’s attendance at playcentre. ‘Big Kids’ sessions, designed to extend children’s development, give older children opportunities to interact with their own age group and prepare them for their transition to school. Members have established meaningful relationships with the local school and some neighbouring schools. Graduation traditions provide children with a sense of anticipation and celebration around progressing to the next stage of learning as they prepare to go to school. A feature of the centre is the strong sense of community. Effective parent leadership and association support contributes to the success of this centre.

13. Council staff have negotiated and agreed a community outcomes plan with the association (Attachment B) which, if approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board, will be appended as a schedule to the community lease.

14. The financial accounts provided indicate that the association’s funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

15. The association has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated

16. The East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated was formed in 1959 and incorporated in 1968.

17. The club’s objectives include the following:

· to continue to improve our emphasis on youth development within the community; and

· to continue development of the home grounds and clubrooms into an all year round community complex.

18. The club has been operating from the site on Bay City Park for over 50 years. The club has grown its membership over this time, and has been part of a number of key initiatives primarily focused on the growth at junior levels.

19. The club liaises with local schools and provides coaches, training courses, resources and a venue for school teams.

20. The club accommodates summer football from November until March in the off-season, and the facility is also used by the East Coast Bays Cricket Club from September until the end of March.

21. The club has approximately 1228 playing members; over 900 of these are under 21 years of age. The club has 128 female members.

22. The club has experienced great success, with a number of players named in the New Zealand U12, U20, and U23 teams, as well as progressing into the New Zealand Ferns Training Squad and the New Zealand All Whites.

23. Council staff have negotiated and agreed a community outcomes plan with the club (Attachment D) which, if approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board, will be appended as a schedule to the community lease.

24. The financial accounts provided indicate that the club’s funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

25. The club has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

26. The club is affiliated to The Northern Football Federation and New Zealand Football.

The premises

27. The clubrooms on Bay City Park comprise a two storey structure. The upper level provides a lounge, kitchen, bar area, toilets and administration space. The lower level has public toilets and changing facilities. The building is well used, managed and maintained.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. At its business meeting on 15 June 2017, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved to approve the 2017/2018 Community Facilities work programme (resolution number UH/2017/84). The proposed new leases to the North Shore Playcentre Association Incorporated and the East Coast Bays Association Football Club Incorporated, are listed on the Community Lease work programme for 2017/2018.

29. The local board was advised of the requirement for public notification of the leases to both lessees at its workshop on 24 August 2017.

30. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Māori impact statement

31. Engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in the Upper Harbour geographical area, is required regarding the proposal to grant new community leases at Collins Park and Bay City Park. In accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, consultation documentation will be provided to kaitiaki representatives, seeking assistance and comment on any spiritual, cultural or environmental impact associated with the proposal.

Implementation

32. The cost of the advertisement associated with public notification is approximately $1000. This cost will be borne by the Community Facilities Department. Should there be any submissions or objections received during the public notification process to request a hearing, this may incur additional costs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan - Greenhithe Playcentre, Collins Park, Greenhithe	283
b ⇩	North Shore Playcentre Association Inc (Greenhithe Playcentre) Community outcomes plan	285
c ⇩	Site plan - East Coast Bays Association Football Club Inc, Bay City Park, Browns Bay	287
d ⇩	East Coast Bays Association Football Club Inc Community outcomes plan	289

Signatories

Authors

Maureen Buchanan - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] Berryman, K. et al. (2005) Review of Tsunami Hazard and Risk in New Zealand. Dunedin, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited.

[2] GNS Science, Tsunami in New Zealand data accessed on 26th June 2017 from https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards/Tsunami/Tsunami-in-New-Zealand

[3] ACDEM (2016), Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021

[5] [5] MCDEM (2014), Tsunami Warning Sirens Technical Standard [TS 03/14]

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, JP
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

Authors	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager