Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Adoption of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017

File No.: CP2017/21825

Purpose

1. To adopt the final version of the Hibiscus and Bays 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 2017 to 30 June 2017.

4. The local board have considered submissions received and feedback gathered from the consultation period. There was a high level of support for the draft plan and as a result only a few changes have been made.

5. The Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopts the final Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017, Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) notes the following changes as a result of feedback to the draft Local Board Plan 2017:

i. encouraging sustainable business practices by local businesses

ii. recognising the importance of providing parking in and around local centres and advocating for the retention of the land and carpark at 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay

iii. investigating options for more pontoons at local beaches

iv. recognising the rich history of the local area

v. supporting only those developments that demonstrate a willingness to protect and enhance the environment

vi. reducing the use of chemicals for week control

vii. supporting initiatives that reduce waste to landfill

viii. investigating Low Carbon initiatives for the local board area.

c) delegates authority to the Chairperson 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 must be adopted by 31 October 2017.

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

· makes decisions on local activities and projects

· provides input into regional strategies and policies.

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

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

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

· online form available on the Shape Auckland website

· hard copy form included in the household summary document

· via email or post.

12. In total 756 submissions were received on the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, 59 people provided feedback at engagement events and there were 13 pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook.

Consideration of submissions and feedback

13. The local board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. They received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback to read on 27 July 2017 and held a workshop to discuss this on 3 August 2017. Advice has been sought from staff on matters raised in the consultation period and this is reflected in the table included later in this report.

14. Public feedback on the draft plan was generally positive 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
Fifty two submissions were received on the importance of parking in and around town centres.	Continued growth, especially in higher density areas including many apartment block developments will continue to add pressure to existing parking availability.	Added a key initiative to the Outcome: Our Communities have excellent transport choices: Advocate to Auckland Transport and the Governing Body to retain the land and car park at 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay.
There were 151 submissions requesting an all-weather football training facility on the Hibiscus Coast.	Supply and Needs studies for both winter and summer codes are being updated to respond to population growth and changes in community diversity through investment in the sports parks network infrastructure.	Meeting the needs for all users wanting all-weather sports fields on the Hibiscus Coast is acknowledged under “Challenges”.
There was support for more pontoons to be provided.	It is acknowledged that pontoons are very popular at local beaches.	Added a key initiative to the Outcome: Our communities enjoy access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for sport and recreation; · Investigate options for the provision of more pontoons at beaches
There was support for exploring the local history, telling early settlement stories and promoting cultural features through art and signage.	It is acknowledged that local history is important to recognise and capture through arts and cultural activities.	The text has been strengthened in the Outcome: A protected and enhanced environment to elevate this.
Strong support was received for key initiatives under the Outcome: A protected and enhanced environment.	Continued growth impacts negatively on the natural environment in many ways. This provides opportunities to make a difference. Many submissions indicated the need to do more.	The text has been strengthened regarding reducing waste to landfill. Additional key initiatives added to the Outcome: A protected and enhanced environment including: · Investigating Low Carbon initiatives for the local board area · Work with partners to minimise the use of chemicals for weed control.

Changes to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

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

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

· regional strategies and policies

· staff advice

· stakeholder views from community groups and mana whenua.

Māori impact statement

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

· considered views expressed by mana whenua authorities at a sub-regional governance level hui

· 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 Chairperson.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017	11

Signatories

Author	Michelle Sanderson – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Kathryn Martin - Acting Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Hibiscus Coast Temporary Alcohol Ban Request

File No.: CP2017/21627

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on a temporary alcohol ban for selected Hibiscus Coast beaches and parks on 2 and 3 December 2017.

Executive summary

2. Temporary alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified areas, at specified times and are enforced by the New Zealand Police.

3. New Zealand Police have requested a temporary alcohol ban on 2 and 3 December 2017 for seven areas on the Hibiscus Coast.

4. The request is a response to significant crime and disorder that resulted from large unofficial Crate Day celebrations at Stanmore Bay in 2016 and Manly Beach in 2015.

5. This included multiple arrests for common assault, fighting in a public place, disorderly behaviour likely to incite violence, breach of the peace and general offensive behaviour and language.

6. In 2016, the New Zealand Police also observed six people treated by ambulance staff for significant lacerations to their feet after stepping on broken beer bottles at the Stanmore bay event.

7. Staff identified the following options to respond to the request.

· Option one (no temporary alcohol ban) – maintain permanent alcohol ban.

· Option two (limited alcohol ban) - adopt a temporary alcohol ban at Stanmore Bay and Manly Beach for 2 December 2017.

· Option three (extended alcohol ban) - adopt a temporary alcohol ban in all seven beach and park areas on the Hibiscus Coast requested by New Zealand Police for 2 and 3 December 2017.

8. Staff recommend Option three (extended alcohol ban) as it provides the most certainty of effectiveness. The impact on rights and freedoms and the cost of implementation are higher than Options one and two. Staff do not consider this to be unreasonable when weighed against the evidence or alcohol related harm and disorder associated with a Crate Day event.

Recommendation/s

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

(a) adopt a temporary alcohol ban between 7 am and 10 pm on the 2 and 3 December 2017 in the following locations (see indicative map Attachment A):

(i) Hatfields Beach and the immediately adjoining park areas of Hatfields Beach Recreation Reserve and Hatfield Bay Domain

(ii) Orewa Beach and the immediately adjoining park areas, including:

· Arundel Recreation Reserve

· Kinloch Reserve

· Moana Reserve

· Orewa Park

· Orewa Reserve

· Western Reserve.

(iii) Red Beach and the immediately adjoining park areas

(iv) Stanmore Bay beach and the immediately adjoining park areas Stanmore Bay Park

(v) Big Manly Beach and the immediately adjoining park areas Manly Park

(vi) Victor Eaves Park

(vii) Arkles Bay and immediately adjoining park areas, including:

· Arkles Bay beach front Reserve

· Cochrane Mckenzie Reserve

· Mackenzie Avenue – Arkles Strand Reserve.

(b) allocate up to $2500 + GST to cover the costs of temporary signage and a public notice for the alcohol ban on 2 December and 3 December at the locations identified in (a) above.

(c) direct staff to work with the New Zealand Police to communicate the decision in (a) above to The Rock radio station and any known social media promoters.

Comments

Background

New Zealand Police requested a temporary alcohol ban on parts of the Hibiscus Coast to prevent problems associated with informal ‘Crate Day’ celebrations

9. On 23 August 2017, New Zealand Police (NZ Police) requested a 48 hour temporary alcohol ban (alcohol ban) in seven areas of the Hibiscus Coast for 2 and 3 December 2017 (see Attachment B).

10. The request seeks to prevent alcohol-related crime and disorder associated with Crate Day celebrations on parts of the Hibiscus Coast.

11. Crate Day is unofficially celebrated around New Zealand as the first Saturday of summer in December. The event has been promoted by The Rock radio station since 2009. It is typically marked by people gathering outdoors, enjoying music and “sharing a crate” of alcohol.

12. In recent years Crate Day celebrations on the Hibiscus Coast have been organised through social media groups and their attendance has increased.

Local boards can adopt alcohol bans if a request meets legislative and bylaw criteria

13. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has the power to make temporary alcohol bans by resolution under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (resolution GB/2014/121).

14. In determining whether to make a temporary alcohol ban, the local board must be satisfied that it meets legislative and bylaw criteria in the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014(see attachment C).

15. Legislative and bylaw criteria requires a temporary alcohol ban to be:

· in response to a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· an appropriate response in light of the evidence provided

· a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

16. The bylaw criteria for a ban also requires consideration of:

· appropriate community-focussed solutions as an alternative / compliment to an alcohol ban

· the views of Police, Māori, owners, occupiers or persons that council has reason to believe are representative of the interests of owners or occupiers of properties within the alcohol ban area.

Alcohol bans prohibit alcohol in public places and are enforced by NZ Police

17. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified areas for specified times. They are enforced by the NZ Police.

18. Under section 169 and 170 of the Local Government Act 2002, NZ Police have powers of search, seizure, infringement notice and arrest for the specified times and areas that an alcohol ban applies.

Problem Definition

19. Celebrations at Manly in 2015 attracted 300-400 attendees and resulted in NZ Police attendance and arrests for alcohol related crime and disorder.

20. The following year NZ Police used non-regulatory methods of reducing harm by communicating with Crate Day promoters on social media. They stressed the need to drink responsibly and to look after each other when celebrating Crate Day. They also stated that Manly is ill-suited to a large gathering.

21. NZ Police and Crate Day promoters anticipated alcohol-related crime and disorder could be prevented through a move to Stanmore Bay in 2016. They also promoted messages on drinking responsibly to try and modify behaviours, and thought that the attendees might be more easily managed at this location because it was further away from residents, and in closer proximity to toilets.

22. However, despite this intervention and a police presence at the location, the same alcohol-related crime and disorder occurred as in the previous year.

NZ Police have provided evidence of crime and disorder at previous Crate Day gatherings held at Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay

23. Evidence provided by NZ Police relates to previous Crate Day gatherings at Stanmore Bay in 2016 and Manly Beach in 2015 (Attachment B).

24. NZ Police have not provided evidence for the other five areas included in their request because the event has not previously been held in these locations.

25. NZ Police have requested that the temporary ban cover these additional locations because in their view, if an alcohol ban was only imposed at Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay, the event could easily relocate to another location within the general area.

26. Crate Day gatherings at Stanmore Bay on 3 December 2016 required 22 police personnel and eight police vehicles to respond to incidents of alcohol-related crime and disorder. Evidence of crime included 29 arrests for:

· fighting in a public place

· disorderly behaviour likely to incite violence

· common assault

· breach of the peace

· offensive behaviour and offensive language.

27. Other crimes were identified including a serious assault to a woman struck on the head with a bottle. However arrests were not made because offenders were able to disappear into the large crowd.

28. NZ Police also observed alcohol-related disorder including:

· six people treated by ambulance staff for significant lacerations to their feet after stepping on broken beer bottles

· numerous incidents of public urination.

29. The NZ Police state that the resources and the observed behaviors were consistent with those at Manly Beach on 5 December 2015. However, they have not provided the same level of details of offences and arrests as they have for Stanmore Bay in 2016.

NZ Police have highlighted community support for an alcohol ban

30. NZ Police’s request (Attachment B) does include a letter from a local Manly resident on the impacts of the event at Manly Beach in 2015 :

“… drinkers started converging on the esplanade from 10am last Saturday with their crates of beer … Police arrive in numbers at 1.15pm … the esplanade becomes gridlocked as at least 200 people, mostly drinkers arrive in their vehicles or on foot with crates of beer.”

“The police spend the whole afternoon and evening having to wet nurse this very large crowd. After 9pm they start to shut it down. What sort of message does this send out to this mob? Drink as much as you can over a 9-hour period while the police stand by and watch.”

“The council needs to take into account the long-term damage and stress these ugly incidents leave on the residents who cannot even leave their properties while this nonsense is taking place … this has to stop”.

Alternative approaches could help prevent or respond to incidents of crime or disorder

31. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and NZ Police could talk to radio event promoters and known social media promoters of the event. Discussions could include highlighting the problems caused by large groups gathering to celebrate Crate Day, and the options available to council and NZ Police to prevent or respond to any large gatherings.

32. These discussions may help to promote a more responsible message around alcohol consumption and deter social media promoters of large scale events.

33. This approach was used in 2016 and while successful in preventing incidents at Manly, the event relocated and alcohol related crime and disorder still occurred in the new location.

34. Under the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015, events organised on public places (including parks and beach reserves) require a permit.

35. Event staff advise that Crate Day could potentially be classified as an event under the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015. This would allow the event to be regulated and controlled by council. However such an event is unlikely to be granted a permit based on the incidents of crime and disorder of previous years.

36. If the event does occur in December 2017 with similar outcomes to the last two years, then council could prosecute the event organiser. If convicted the event organiser may be liable for a court imposed fine.

37. However, identifying an event organiser is difficult given the use of unofficial social media to promote the activity.

38. NZ Police could also use a range of powers which they already have under the Summary Offences Act 1981 to respond to incidents of crime or disorder as they have in previous years.

39. Depending on the offence NZ Police officers have the power of arrest, and offenders may be liable for a court imposed fine or term of imprisonment.

40. Both the police powers under the Summary Offences Act and council prosecution under the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw are interventions that can be taken after an incident has occurred. Neither of these would be effective in preventing incidents from occurring.

Options

41. Staff have identified the following options to respond to the request from the Police:

· Option one - no temporary alcohol ban. Maintain current permanent alcohol ban.

· Option two - limited alcohol ban. This option would adopt a temporary alcohol ban at Stanmore Bay and Manly Beach from 7 am to 10 pm on Saturday 2 December 2017. This reflects where and when past harms have occurred.

· Option three - expanded alcohol ban. This option would adopt a temporary alcohol ban at the seven beach and park areas on the Hibiscus Coast requested by Police from 7 am to 10 pm for both Saturday 2 and Sunday 3 December 2017. This is a response to the informal nature of the event and anticipates where and when the event could be most likely relocate to.

42. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these options is provided below.

Option one - no temporary alcohol ban

43. Option one does not include a temporary alcohol ban for any of the location requested by the NZ Police. The permanent bans on all but one (Hatfield’s Beach) of the locations will prohibit alcohol consumption from 10pm to 7am daily.

44. There are alternative approaches available to both the council and the NZ Police to deal with incidents if they occur again this year as described above.

45. Based on previous experience; this option is unlikely to be effective in preventing a Crate Day event from occurring on the Hibiscus Coast this year and would not provide the NZ Police with the early intervention tools required to be able to shut down an event before it becomes problematic.

46. The option would not impact on the rights and freedoms of those who want to participate in Crate Day. However, the rights and freedoms of participants must be balanced against the impact on other members of the public who may not feel (or be) safe in the public place where an event occurs.

47. There would be no direct costs for implementation of this option. However there would likely be costs to council associated with cleaning up after an event if one did occur. If the council did want to pursue a prosecution under the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw, this would also require additional operational and legal resource.

48. The advantage of this option is that there is no legal risk for council from this decision being challenged based on a perceived lack of evidence.

Option two – limited alcohol ban

49. This option would adopt a temporary alcohol ban at Stanmore Bay and Manly Beach from 7 am to 10 pm on Saturday 2 December 2017. This reflects where and when past harms have occurred.

50. There is clear evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder at Manly Beach and at Stanmore Bay as a result of events held on Crate Day at these locations in the past. The imposition of an alcohol ban in these two locations on Crate Day is clearly justified by the evidence provided.

51. There is already an evening alcohol ban in place from 10pm to 7am during summer on both Many Beach and Stanmore Bay. A temporary ban from 7 am to 10 pm on Saturday 2 December would therefore have the practical effect of imposing a 31 hour continuous alcohol ban from 10 pm Friday night to 7 am Sunday morning.

52. The NZ Police are of the view that if there is only a ban imposed on the two locations of Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay; then the event and subsequent harm would simply relocate to another convenient nearby location within the area.

53. If that occurs, then this option would not provide the NZ Police with the early intervention tools required to be able to shut down an event before it becomes problematic at another location.

54. This option would have some impact on the rights and freedoms of those who want to participate in Crate Day and on other members of the public who would also be prevented from drinking responsibly in these locations. However, given this restriction would only be applied to two locations and for one day; this would be a reasonable limitation.

55. The implementation costs for temporary signage and promotion of the alcohol ban at these two locations is estimated at $1600.

56. There is a legal risk for council of this decision being challenged based on a perceived lack of evidence given that no specific event has been promoted for this year’s Crate Day.

Option three - expanded alcohol ban.

57. This option extends the ban to include the additional five locations within the general area and to include Sunday even though the event has only been held on the Saturday in the past.

58. The NZ Police have requested a 48 hour ban covering seven beach and reserve areas within the Hibiscus Coast.

59. All of the areas included in the NZ Police request, apart from Hatfields Beach, already have an evening alcohol ban in place from 10pm to 7am during summer. A temporary ban from 7 am to 10 pm on Saturday 2 and Sunday 3 December would therefore have the practical effect of imposing a 57 hour continuous alcohol ban from 10 pm Friday night to 7 am Monday morning.

60. The NZ Police request includes indicative maps for the seven areas listed. These are mostly replications of the maps of existing evening alcohol bans and include some streets and areas that the NZ Police are not requesting to be covered by this temporary ban. The NZ Police request is only for “Beach, foreshore and adjacent public reserves”. Attachment A provides a consolidated map of the actual areas, (beaches and reserves) that are proposed to be covered by the alcohol ban request under this option.

61. There is no specific evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder caused by Crate Day events on any beach or park on the Hibiscus Coast other than Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay. There is also no specific evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder on the Sunday following Crate Day at any of the locations for which this request has been made.

62. The NZ Police are of the view that if a ban is only imposed on the two locations of Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay; then the event and subsequent harm would simply relocate to another convenient nearby location within the area. The request does not provide specific reasons for making a “48 hour” ban.

63. The effect of a ban on the two locations of Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay as proposed may cause the event to move within the area.

64. Staff consider that there is a high likelihood that a change to another beach location close by will occur. The reasons are the length of time Crate Day has operated, the number of people who are motivated to participate, and the informal and flexible nature of the event. We have no basis that would suggest Crate Day might move to the Sunday. Staff consider the move to a Sunday Crate Day has a low probability of occurring.

65. A high level of uncertainty exists around the location that the event will be held and when and where the harm will occur. There is a high likelihood of harm and disorder occurring if the event is held at any location and day. This likelihood of harm, and the need for certainty in this case may justify extending the scope of the ban locations and date.

66. Other examples do exist where a broadened area approach has been applied to the introduction of an alcohol ban. Most recently, the decision of Queenstown and Lakes District Council to apply a temporary alcohol ban to a broad area of Queenstown for Crate Day celebrations on 2 and 3 December 2017.

67. This option introduces a higher level of uncertainty about meeting legal evidence requirements. The evidence base is specific to a single day and two locations.

68. There is a legislative requirement to demonstrate a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area. What is meant by ‘in the area’ is not specifically defined in the legislation. This may extend beyond just the immediate location and support option three or it may not.

69. The implementation costs for temporary signage and promotion of the alcohol ban across all seven of these locations is estimated at $2500.

Legislative requirement

70. Table 1 contains a comparative analysis of each option against the legislative criteria in section 147 of the Local Government Act.

· Evidence base: How well is this option supported by the evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder.

· Appropriateness: How is effectively will this option prevent or minimise future alcohol related harm and disorder?

· Reasonableness: What limitations does this option place on people’s rights and freedoms?

71. Each option is ranked relative to the other two options with a score of 3 representing the strongest option and 1 the weakest. However, this does not mean that the highest ranked option is three times better or stronger than the lowest ranked option.

72. The local board also need to consider the weight which it places on each of these criteria For example, option three is scored as the least reasonable of the three options because it is the most limiting on people’s rights and freedoms. However, this does not mean that it is unreasonable.

Table 1: Options analysis against the legislative criteria.

Criteria	Option 1 - No alcohol ban	Option 2 - Limited alcohol ban	Option 3 – Extended alcohol ban
Evidence	1	3	2
Effectiveness	1	2	3
Reasonableness	2	3	1

Summary of analysis

73. Option one is the least effective of the options. An event similar to what has been experienced in the past few years would occur and the levels of alcohol related crime and disorder experienced in previous years will be repeated. This option has the least cost and imposes the least constraints on people’s rights and freedoms.

74. Option two best meets the legislative criteria. It also has the most evidence of crime and disorder and is the most reasonable in terms of impacts on individual freedoms. There is still a level of uncertainty, as the informal event can relocate in response to this option and the same levels of alcohol related crime and disorder will occur. This option does provide a high level of certainty for the residents and users of Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay.

75. Option three covers other locations in the general area where the event is considered most likely to relocate to. It also provides for the low possibility that the event could move from the Saturday to the Sunday. This option does come at a higher upfront cost than option two and is the most limiting on people’s rights and freedoms. It has the highest level of certainty of reducing the high likelihood of harm and disorder occurring if the event is held at any location and day. There is still a risk that the event could relocate to an area not included in the ban, either within the local board or elsewhere within the region.

76. The key trade-off between option three and options one and two is that option three provides more certainty of effectiveness but places greater limits on people’s rights and freedoms.

77. Staff consider Option three to be the most effective at reducing alcohol related crime and disorder experienced with a Crate Day event given its informal and highly flexible nature.

Staff recommend Option three (extended alcohol ban)

78. Staff recommend Option three (extended alcohol ban) as it provides the most certainty of effectiveness. The impact on rights and freedoms and the cost of implementation are higher than Options one and two. Staff do not consider this to be unreasonable when weighed against the evidence or alcohol related harm and disorder associated with a Crate Day event.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

79. Local boards have previously been supportive of temporary alcohol bans to prevent alcohol-related crime and disorder for events in Auckland.

80. It is unlikely that this would result in the event moving to a location within a neighbouring local board area due to the distances involved.

Māori impact statement

81. Managing alcohol-related harm associated with events increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. Mana Whenua have been consulted widely on the use of alcohol bans and have previously been supportive.

Implementation

82. If the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board choses to implement a temporary alcohol ban, then it would be responsible for:

· organising installation of standard Auckland Council signage to inform the public of the temporary alcohol ban area dates and times

· meeting the statutory requirement to publicly notify the ban in either the local paper or the New Zealand Herald

· meeting the costs of both signage and notification.

83. Based on the costs of implementing past temporary alcohol ban, the costs associated with options are:

Cost to implement

Option One:

No additional costs

Option Two:

Cost of temporary signage for two areas (up to $600) and public notice (up to $1000).

Total $1600 plus GST.

Option Three:

Cost of temporary signage for seven areas (up to $1500)and public notice (up to $1000).

Total $2500 plus GST.

84. There would also be an expectation that the local board will assist with the wider promotion of the alcohol ban. This includes:

· working with the NZ Police to prepare communications for distribution on Facebook and to local newspapers

· communication with The Rock radio station and any known promoters of Crate Day celebrations

85. NZ Police will be responsible for enforcement.

86. The NZ Police request (Attachment B) states that 19 officers will be dedicated to ‘Operation Crate Day’ on the Hibiscus Coast. Officers will provide groups with the opportunity to remove themselves and their alcohol from the alcohol ban area, followed by a warning. NZ Police will take further enforcement action when all opportunities to avoid prosecution have failed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Indicative map of requested temporary alcohol ban areas	53
b ⇩	Police request and evidence	55
c ⇩	Decision making criteria	77

Signatories

Authors

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Kathryn Martyn - Acting Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Land owner approval for an ice cream van to operate at Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park

File No.: CP2017/20560

Purpose

1. To seek support from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to approve the land owner application from Super Kool Ice Cream for an ice cream van to operate in the car park areas of Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park for a trial period of three months (1 November 2017 – 31 January 2018).

Executive summary

2. Super Kool Ice Cream seeks land owner approval to operate an ice cream van in the car park areas of Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park in the afternoon (between 12.00pm and 5.00pm) during weekends and school holidays.

3. Staff recommend that the local board supports the application on a three month trial basis (1 November 2017 - 31 January 2018). This will enable staff and the local board to identify the level of support for and the level of success of the operation of the ice cream van at the above locations.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the application from Super Kool Ice Cream for land owner approval to operate an ice cream van in the car park areas of Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park, as indicated in Attachment A, for a trial period of three months, between 12.00pm and 5.00pm during weekends and school holidays.

Comments

4. Super Kool Ice Cream (the applicant) seeks land owner approval to operate an ice cream van in the car park areas of Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park, as shown in Attachment A.

5. The applicant seeks to operate two vans, one at each of the above two sites, in the afternoon, between 12.00pm and 5.00pm, during weekends and school holidays. The van will typically stay at each site at any one time for approximately 30 minutes before moving to other approved sites.

6. Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park are classified as recreation reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act). As per s54 of the Act and the further advice of council’s Legal Services team, Auckland Council may grant short-term permission to trade on classified recreation reserves for up to a maximum of five days a week for three months; longer-term permission would require public notification and approval of a formal license agreement.

7. The options available to the local board are to support or reject the land owner application. If the local board supports the application, this will enable the applicant to operate an ice cream van from the proposed sites for three months. This is the recommended option. If the local board rejects the application, the applicant will not be able to operate an ice cream van from the proposed sites.

8. Staff recommend that the application is approved on a three month trial basis to allow for the determination of the level of effects and support for the ice cream van at each of the sites. Following the three month period, a longer term approval may be considered by the local board, subject to proper public notification procedures, if requested by the applicant.

9. The applicant will be required to have a valid mobile trading licence, which will be issued by the council’s regulatory department. This allows the applicant to trade in a public space.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. The application was sent to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on Friday 1 September 2017 requesting feedback. The local board responded noting that the application is deemed to be more than minor and requested the application and associated report come to a full local board meeting for consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The operation of the ice cream van does not trigger any Treaty of Waitangi settlement issues or matters in relation to customary rights outcomes. In this matter iwi consultation has not been undertaken by the applicant as there are no readily identifiable impacts on Māori and any impacts will be no different to those on others.

Implementation

12. If the local board supports the application, the applicant will operate an ice cream van in the car park areas of Orewa Domain and Stanmore Bay Park for a trial period of three months.

13. Conditions will be placed on any land owner approval regarding:

· the three month trial operation time

· restricting days and hours of operation to those specified

· the requirement for a Health and Safety plan

· ensuring the applicant controls litter

· ensuring the non-displacement of other park users.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Car park locations for ice cream van to operate	81

Signatories

Authors

Darren Cunningham - Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Remy De La Peza - Manager Land Advisory Services

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan

File No.: CP2017/20165

Purpose

1. To adopt the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan (Attachment A), undertaken by 4Sight Consultants on behalf of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Executive summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated locally driven initiatives budget in the 2016/2017 financial year to support the North West Wildlink Assistance programme. A portion of that budget was used to commission the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan.

3. The Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan was developed by 4Sight Consulting on behalf of the local board and in consultation with a wide range of community stakeholders and iwi. It was also peer reviewed by officers in Community Facilities as many of the projects suggested in the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan involve restoration work on public reserve land.

4. Officers sought agreement in principle for the adoption of the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan (Attachment A) by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board members at a workshop held 24 August 2017.

5. This report seeks the formal adoption of the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Recommendation

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopt the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan, as attached (Attachment A).

Comments

6. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated locally driven initiatives budget in the 2016/2017 financial year to support the North West Wildlink Assistance programme. A portion of that budget was used to commission the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan (the plan).

7. The Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) is identified by officers and the Hibiscus Coast branch of the Forest and Bird Society (Forest and Bird) as an important part of the North West Wildlink. It also provides value for the local economy, cultural heritage, amenity and recreation.

8. Ongoing pressure from urbanisation and development around the estuary has resulted in the introduction of environmental weeds, predators and decreased water quality, leading to a decline in the health of the estuary.

9. There are increasing numbers of landowners, residents groups and schools who want to carry out restoration activities around the Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) which has highlighted the need for an overarching plan to guide these activities.

10. The plan was therefore commissioned to provide guidance to local stakeholders and communities to enable a collaborative and coordinated approach to restoration and enhancement activities around the estuary. The aim is to offset some of the development pressures the estuary is being subjected to.

11. The collective vision of several community groups and stakeholders in the area, such as Forest and Bird, Hilltop Residents Association, and Millwater and Totara View residents, provided input into the plan. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara were also involved in the development of the plan.

12. The plan is designed to provide information to community and stakeholders for ecological activities around the estuary and to give guidance about how to achieve best outcomes. Key topics include:

· Restoration guidelines, recommended locations, planting schemes and species recommendations.

· Mātauranga Māori – protocol for accidental discoveries.

· Animal pest and environmental weed control.

· Various options for monitoring – including birds, animal pest control and restoration planting monitoring

13. The plan was developed with advice and peer review from officers within council’s Community Facilities and Infrastructure and Environmental Services Departments to ensure it met council’s policies and strategic outcomes.

14. It builds on the success of current restoration initiatives such as the Forest and Bird Pest Free Peninsula initiative at Whangaparaoa and the overall North West Wildlink by creating safe, connected and healthy habitat for native species.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The local board funded the plan as part of its 2016/2017 environmental work programme.

16. Agreement in principle to adopt the plan was sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at a workshop on 24 August 2017. The local board advised at the workshop that it is supportive of the plan in principle.

Māori impact statement

17. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara were involved in the development of the plan and provided information for the Mātauranga Māori section of the report.

18. There are sites of cultural significance across the South Kaipara, including Orewa, which are at risk of being lost or damaged. Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust provided the accidental discovery protocol and process within the plan and have provided contact details should koiwi, taonga or archaeological features be discovered.

19. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

20. The plan is a resource provided to inform, empower and guide community organisations and individuals in ecological restoration and protection of the Orewa estuary.

21. The local board support ecological restoration with their North West Wild Link budget. The plan will inform the restoration work carried out with this budget in the Orewa Estuary catchment.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Orewa Estuary (Te Ara Tahuna) Community Restoration Plan	87

Signatories

Authors

Theresa Pearce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Kathryn Martin - Acting Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

File No.: CP2017/21793

Purpose

1. To seek feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. This plan is prepared under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and is part of council’s responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.

3. This report seeks feedback from the Rodney Local Board on the revised proposed approach to waste management and minimisation. In particular:

· advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship

· addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

o construction and demolition waste

o organic waste, and

o plastic waste

· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

4. These points were initially discussed with local boards during September and October workshops on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2017, seeking approval to publicly notify the draft plan. Formal feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Comments

Legislative context

6. Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, Auckland Council is required to adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, as part of its responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management.

7. The first Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted by council in 2012. It set an aspirational vision of achieving zero waste to landfill by 2040. It placed initial priority on waste reduction within the waste services that are more directly managed by council, which account for approximately 20 per cent of all waste to landfill in the region.

8. Council is required to review the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan every six years. This includes conducting a Waste Assessment to review progress, to forecast future demand for waste services, and to identify options to meet future demand. This assessment was completed in mid-2017, and the findings have been outlined below.

Findings of the Waste Assessment: progress and challenges

9. Under the first Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, seven separate council-managed waste services to households are being merged into one standardised region-wide service. This has included:

· introducing a new inorganic collection service

· introducing large bins for recycling across the region

· introducing bins for refuse in areas that had bag collections

· establishing five community recycling centres in Waiuku, Helensville, Devonport, Henderson and Whangaparaoa, with another seven to be established by 2024.

10. Some service changes agreed under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 are still to be introduced to standardise the approach across the whole Auckland region, most notably, a food waste collection in urban areas and pay-as-you-throw charge for kerbside refuse collections.

11. Whilst the council-managed services have achieved waste minimisation, the total amount of waste to landfill has increased by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2016. This is due to the increased amounts of commercial waste being generated, particularly construction and demolition waste. The amount of waste sent to landfill is projected to continue to grow unless a concerted effort is made to intervene to address this trend.

12. Barriers to waste minimisation in Auckland include the low cost of sending waste to landfill compared to diverting waste to other productive uses, the lack of financial incentives to divert waste from landfill, the lack of council influence over the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed, and rapid population growth.

Options analysis

13. The Waste Assessment identified and evaluated three options to guide the direction of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018, as follows below.

14. Option one: status quo involving full implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. Undertaking the actions agreed in 2012 will focus interventions on 20 per cent of waste within council’s direct control. Although this option could be implemented within council’s waste budget envelope it would not meet council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in Auckland.

15. Option two: expanded focus. Full implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 and a focus on three priority commercial waste streams identified in the Waste Assessment - construction and demolition waste, organic waste and plastic waste. This option addresses the 80 per cent of waste outside of council’s direct control and could be implemented within the current waste budget, with some reprioritisation.

16. Option three: significant investment in residual waste treatment technologies. This option requires development of residual waste treatment facilities, with energy from waste (mass-burn incineration facilities) likely to achieve the best diversion. Significant investment is needed from both the private and public sector to develop these technologies, and there would be reputational risks associated with disposal of waste by incineration.

17. It is proposed the council adopts option two, which has the potential to significantly reduce total waste to landfill, and can be undertaken within the current funding envelope.

Proposed updates to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012

18. It is proposed that the new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will continue the direction of the 2012 Plan, and extend the focus of council activity from the 20 per cent of waste that is directly managed by council and its contractors, to the other 80 per cent that is commercially managed.

19. The proposed vision of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is ‘Auckland aspires to be zero waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment, and turning waste into resources’.

20. It is proposed that zero waste is maintained as an aspirational target. Achieving high diversion rates in Auckland (in the order of 80 per cent as achieved by an exemplar city, San Francisco) is considered to be a successful response to such an aspirational target.

21. To achieve the zero waste vision, three goals are proposed: minimise waste generation, maximise opportunities for resource recovery, and reduce harm from residual waste.

22. Three updated targets are proposed:

· total waste; reduce by 30 per cent by 2027 (no change from the current waste plan)

· domestic waste: reduce by 30 per cent by 2020/2021 (extension of date from 2018 to align with the roll-out of the food waste kerbside collection service; a new target will be set once this is achieved)

· council’s own waste;

o reduce office waste by 60 per cent by 2040 (target doubled from current waste plan)

o work across council to set a baseline for operational waste (generated as a result of council activities such as property maintenance, construction and demolition, and events, and implement these baseline targets by 2019.

23. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan identifies the actions that will be undertaken over the next six years. The priority actions that will have the biggest impact on waste reduction include:

· continued delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, including the transition to consistent kerbside services (including introduction of a kerbside organic collection in urban areas and the standardisation of pay-as-you throw kerbside refuse collection across the region), and establishment of the resource recovery network

· a focus on addressing the 80 per cent of waste that council does not directly influence, by;

o advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship

o addressing three priority commercial waste streams;

- construction and demolition waste,

- organic waste, and

- plastic waste

o addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

24. The draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will put emphasis on partnership and engagement with other sectors that are relevant to the priority action areas. Council recognises that it cannot achieve its waste minimisation responsibilities by acting alone.

25. It is important to note that council has limited tools to address commercially managed waste. Achieving policy changes at central government level will be essential to achieving waste to landfill reductions in Auckland. If council is unsuccessful in its advocacy, targets will not be met.

Request for local board feedback

26. Local boards are being asked whether they support the proposed approach taken in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and in particular the focus on:

· advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship

· addressing three priority commercial waste streams;

o construction and demolition waste

o organic waste, and

o plastic waste

· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

Financial implications

27. The actions proposed in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be achieved within existing waste funding. Funding will be obtained through a combination of:

· pay-as-you-throw domestic refuse collections, which will be progressively introduced across the region

· rates funding, and

· revenue from the waste levy (from the $10 per tonne waste levy that is administered by the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to councils, amounting to $6.1 million for Auckland Council in 2016).

28. Infrastructure to enable commercial resource recovery will require investment from external sources such as government and the private sector.

29. The budget for implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be considered through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Workshops were held with all local boards in September and October 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards.

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua and mātāwaka have been actively engaged in implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. A number of initiatives have enabled waste minimisation from a te ao Māori context. Through Para Kore ki Tāmaki, marae in the Auckland region are able to foster kaitiakitanga practices and affirm their connections with the natural world. More than 2,000 whānau participate in the programme annually, and over 50 Para Kore zero waste events have been held since the programme rolled out in 2014. The programme provides a catalyst for taking the kaitiakitanga message from the marae into homes and the community. Protecting Papatūānuku, connecting with traditions and showing respect for customs has become a priority for whānau through this programme.

32. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan seeks to present a stronger mana whenua and mātāwaka perspective, recognising the close alignment between te ao Māori and zero waste. Two mana whenua hui and one mātāwaka hui held in June 2017 have identified mana whenua and matāwaka principles and priorities, for direct inclusion into the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Implementation

33. The draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will have financial implications, as the targeted rate for food waste must be costed and included in consultation on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. It is proposed that this be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This will ensure that any budget implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Parul Sood – General Manager Waste Solutions (Acting)

Julie Dickinson – Waste Planning Manager (Acting)

Authorisers

Barry Potter, Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for October 2017

File No.: CP2017/21796

Purpose

1. To respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update and seek approval on the current status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects, a summary of consultation material sent to the local board and information on transport-related matters of specific application and interest to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. This particular report provides updates and information on:

· The Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund Projects;

· Consultations on regulatory processes;

· Traffic Control Committee results;

· Issues Raised by Elected Members;

· 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay;

· Update on construction of the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station;

· Repair to start on sea wall;

· Auckland Transport appoints new Chief Executive;

· Auckland Transport’s Quarterly Report to Council;

· Road Safety Programme; and

· Road resurfacing.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) notes the Auckland Transport (AT) Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for October 2017.

Comments

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Funds Projects

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,639,244
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$265,610
Remaining Budget left	$2,373,634

3. The available funding shown above comprises $1,684,932 which must be spent before 30 June 2019 and $688,702 which may be spent before 30 June 2020.

4. The $265,610 committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction comprises funding allocated to completion of Project 091, Mairangi Bay Art Walk; Project 411, Torbay Revitalisation; and funding recently allocated to Project 558, Orewa Pedestrian Crossings (see paragraph 5. below).

5. At its meeting on 20 September the local board approved the allocation of $127,510 from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) towards Project 558, the upgrade of four crossings on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Moana Avenue and Moenui Avenue (HB/2017/154).

6. The local board also requested in relation to this project that Auckland Transport (AT) investigate the possibility of swapping the motor cycle park at 348 Hibiscus Coast Highway with the motor vehicle car park at 342 Hibiscus Coast Highway.

7. AT’s traffic engineering team has confirmed that the motorcycle parking will be moved closer to the intersection as part of this project. The screenshot below shows the existing motorcycle spaces in red, to the right of where the existing zebra crossing is (in red). The new zebra crossing in blue has the motorcycle spaces closer to the intersection, to improve visibility for those exiting Moana Avenue:

8. The project includes the installation of road marking, tactiles, light poles and belisha beacons to improve pedestrian safety at informal crossing points on Hibiscus Coast Highway at its intersections with Moana and Moenui Avenues. The treatment selected by the local board around the tactile pavers features contrasting stone setts to provide contrast for the visually impaired:

Orewa Town Centre After_option2

9. AT staff are currently finalising the design for these works, anticipate awarding the tender in November and completing construction prior to the end of December, subject to approval of the traffic management plan.

10. A range of projects is being considered by the local board’s Transport Interest Group (TIG) and will be brought to the local board for confirmation before being assessed against the criteria for the LBTCF by AT staff. Assuming these projects meet the criteria, a rough order of cost for each will be provided for further consideration by members.

Consultations on Regulatory Processes

11. Documentation describing the proposed installation of NSAAT restrictions on Deborah Place, Okura was forwarded to Transport Interest Group (TIG) members and Members Bettany and Holmes on 29 August 2017. No objections were received from the local board.

12. Documentation outlining a proposal to install NSAAT restriction along the Beulah Avenue cul-de-sac in Rothesay Bay was forwarded to members of the TIG and Member Bettany on 21 September 2017. No objections were received from the local board.

Traffic Control Committee Results

13. No regulatory decisions were made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area during September.

Issues Raised by Elected Members

14. The following table lists issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 4 October 2017:

	Location	Issue	Status
1	Moenui Avenue, Orewa	Request for second footpath on Moenui Avenue, Orewa.	Member Parfitt requested a second footpath on Moenui Avenue, Orewa, on 21 March 2017, advising that that there was no ramp access for wheel chairs or mobility scooters to the existing footpath. On 15 September TIG members were advised that the request for a pram crossing had been investigated but there was no suitable location on the southern side of Moenui Avenue, as these crossings should be two directional, cannot be installed between a private property and a footpath and also require a footpath on both sides. In relation to the request for a second footpath they were advised that the 2017/2018 programme for investigation, design and construction of new footpaths had already been approved, but prioritisation for the 2018/2019 programme would begin in October 2017. The request for a new footpath at this location would therefore be included in that process.
2	Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale	Pedestrian access across Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale.	Member Parfitt forwarded the concerns of a Whangaparaoa resident regarding safe access, particularly for the disabled, from the East of Hibiscus Coast Highway to the new Silverdale Centre. On 25 September Members of the TIG, and Members Vicki Watson, Caitlin Watson and Williams were advised that AT is currently investigating provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing on the left turn slip lane from Whangaparaoa Road to Hibiscus Coast Highway as part of the Whangaparaoa Road dynamic lane trial, to provide safe access to the existing signalised pedestrian crossings at the intersection. However, as the signalised crossing is still subject to investigation, design, traffic modelling and prioritisation, it was not possible to confirm whether it will be feasible and/or progressed at this stage. Whilst it was acknowledged that the alternative route via the underpass near Tavern Road is a significant detour, in the current absence of a safe crossing this is considered the safest route.
3	Beach Road, Mairangi Bay	Request for 'Welcome to' signage on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay.	Member Cooper asked on 14 July that ‘Welcome to Mairangi Bay Village’ signs, of the style recently installed at the entrance to Silverdale Village, be installed at the intersections of Brighton Terrace/Beach Road and Newhaven Terrace/Beach Road, Mairangi Bay. On 14 September TIG members and Member Bettany were advised that the ‘Welcome to Silverdale’ signs had been installed in conjunction with threshold treatment, which also included surface colouring, side islands, and other road markings required because of the speed limit reduction from 70 km/h to 50 km/h when entering the Silverdale Village. Providing similar destination signs is not generally considered by AT in urban town centres such as Mairangi Bay, where speeds are already reduced by the roundabouts at either end of the village, these acting as a form of traffic calming and negating the need for speed reduction treatment. Should the local board or business association wish to fund these signs however, AT could review and approve suitable locations.
4	Spur and Duck Creek Roads, Stillwater	Maintenance on Spur and Duck Creek Roads, Stillwater.	The Office of Mark Mitchell MP raised concerns on behalf of a constituent about the roads into and out of Stillwater, namely Spur and Duck Creek Roads which have been subject to slips and reoccurring potholes. On 18 August 2017 the MP's Office was advised that work was underway on the slip in the vicinity of 335 Duck Creek Rd, Stillwater, and that the depression on Spur Road had been repaired. It was also noted that Spur Road was on the programme for resealing later this financial year.
5	Mairangi Bay Town Centre	Pavers in Mairangi Bay Town Centre.	Member Cooper raised concerns about the slip-resistance of the pavers installed in the Mairangi Bay Town Centre on 10 August 2017, asking that, as this safety issue is identical to the situation reported in the media about Papakura where remedial action has been requested, whatever remedy is approved for Papakura also be applied to Mairangi Bay CBD. Referred to AT's Roading Asset Manager for investigation to establish whether the pavers in Mairangi Bay meet acceptable standards of slip resistance.
6	Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa	Parked cars and unsafe overtaking on Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa.	The Office of Mark Mitchell MP asked that the matter of cars parked in the vicinity of the Peninsula Club Retirement Village, causing serious visibility issues for residents exiting and entering the village, and unsafe overtaking in the area between Beverly and Brightside Road, be investigated. On 12 September 2017 Mr Mitchell’s Office was advised that there is a significant length of NSAAT restrictions at this location which are considered sufficient to provide adequate visibility at the Peninsula Club Driveway. Whilst it was acknowledged that speeds in the area were relatively high because of the 60km/h restriction, driver feedback signs to encourage speed compliance near the driveway had been installed. However, a pedestrian refuge in the vicinity does not have sufficient NSAAT restrictions to provide pedestrians with safe sight distances so additional restrictions will be investigated and installed subject to design, consultation and legislative requirements. The slow vehicle lane has the correct signage and markings and was operating as intended. It was suggested that drivers observed passing in an unsafe manner, not using the slow lane as it is intended, be reported to the Police as there are no changes to the existing signage or markings that can be made to discourage this behaviour.
7	John Downs Drive and Glencoe Road, Browns Bay	Request for modification of entry/exit to Sherwood Park at the intersection of John Downs Drive and Glencoe Road, Browns Bay.	Member Cooper asked on 22 August 2017 that consideration be given to modifying the exit from Sherwood Park, Browns Bay, by the installation of a kerb build-out to deter vehicles entering the exit from John Downs Drive and lengthening the central median on Glencoe Road to also deter entry from Glencoe Road. On 11 September TIG members were advised that during an on-site investigation it was noted that the car-park exit has two existing ‘No Entry’ signs and arrow road markings indicating it is an exit only, making it very clear to drivers on John Downs Drive and Glencoe Road that they should not enter the car-park at this point. Modifying the exit or central island to discourage illegal entry into the car-park is not feasible without adversely impacting on legal exit movements from the car-park or adjacent intersection. It is therefore considered that further measures at the exit to discourage illegal movements are not necessary.
8	97 Pacific Road, Manly	New work dug up to lay drains outside 97 Pacific Road, Manly.	Mark Mitchell MP asked on 30 August 2017 why two days after the road outside 97 Pacific Road Manly was upgraded, this work was destroyed when contractors came back to lay drains in the area, suggesting that better coordination between teams. Referred to Road Corridor Delivery and Road Corridor Access.
9	Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat	Complaints regarding public transport on the Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat.	Member Watson forwarded complaints regarding public transport on the Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat on 30 August 2017. A response from AT’s PT Customer experience team on 28 September advised that feedback commenting that route 983 does not travel directly to Orewa from Red Beach and Whangaparaoa had been received when the New Network for the Hibiscus Coast was consulted on; however, the 984 service directly connects Red Beach Road and Orewa. The New Network design aims to reduce duplication and complexity of routes, and fewer, simpler routes is one of the trade-offs required to provide higher frequency and better connectivity across the network. The connections at Hibiscus Coast Station are designed as a ‘pulse’ network whereby buses arrive and then depart within a few minutes of each other in order to facilitate connectivity between routes while trying to minimise the wait time for passengers. The performance of these services is regularly monitored to ensure that buses are making the connections, but if there are specific instances of this not happening, customers are asked to contact AT with the details so they can be investigated and a determination made as to whether timetable changes are required. When the Dairy Flat service was consulted on it was for a peak service (Monday to Friday) only. As a result of feedback it was decided to continue to operate trips throughout the day Monday to Friday. Whilst a lower frequency weekend service had been considered, the cost would be significant and a service was therefore not provided. With regards to the concerns about parking, AT is in the process of constructing additional carpark spaces at the Hibiscus Coast Station. Further information on footpath connections expected from AT’s Walking and Cycling team in December 2017.
10	Weatherly Road, Torbay	Request for NSAAT restrictions on Weatherly Road, Torbay.	Member Parfitt asked on 22 September 2017 that the existing NSAAT restrictions on Weatherly Road, Torbay, near its intersection with Glamorgan Drive, be extended further up Weatherly Road so that it is safe enough for cars to pass in both directions. On 4 October 2017 Member Parfitt was advised that, following an initial site visit to Weatherly Road, further investigation had been programmed and a response could be expected by mid-January, 2018. Under Investigation by Traffic Engineering.
11	142 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa	Request for Bus Shelter at 142 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa.	The Office of the Hon Mark Mitchell asked on 20 September 2017 that a request for a bus shelter at 142 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, signed by 130 residents at Northaven Village, be escalated. Forwarded to AT Metro for consideration and response.

19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay

At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 20 September in relation to the Browns Bay Parking Study and specifically to the proposed disposal of the property at 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay by Panuku Development Auckland, the board resolved to (HB/2017/154):

c) continue to express its concerns to the Governing Body regarding the disposal of 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay as it considers:

i. no justification for the sale of 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay has been provided by Auckland Transport to confirm that the site is surplus to requirements and that there is no need for the car parking that the site currently provides

ii. that the Auckland Transport commissioned Car Parking Review Report clearly indicates that the car parking area is required to meet the existing car parking capacity noting that the Browns Bay central business district area already reaches and in some instances exceeds, the 85% average occupancy standard set by Auckland Transport

iii. that the Auckland Transport commissioned Car Parking Review Report fails to address or provide any views on the impacts of the removal of 58 car parking spaces (19 Anzac Road) or the resultant loading (up to an extra 58 car parks) in the Browns Bay central business district area, which if removed, would result in regularly exceeding parking capacity levels

iv. that the Auckland Transport commissioned Car Parking Review Report fails to address that:

A) a 31% reduction in “off-street” car parks and a 7.5% reduction in the total public parking availability would result from the sale of 19 Anzac Road

B) the remaining “off-street” carparks would be at capacity on more occasions and at peak times if the land was sold

C) an estimated 26 vehicles would be added to the vehicles trying to find “on-street” parking at the southern end of Browns Bay central business district area

v. the reduction in car parking capacity spaces could have a significant negative impact on Browns Bay economic performance, especially for businesses at the southern end of the Browns Bay business area

vi. the “total car parking capacity” of Browns Bay will be reduced from 791 to 733 as a result of the potential disposal of 19 Anzac Road and this would result in a 30% reduction in the overall total of on street/off street public car parks and at peak times parking would be far worse than currently

vii. noting the new developments being completed or being built currently in Browns Bay, and the resulting off street car parking requirements under the Unitary Plan, will greatly increase the pressure on public car parking spaces in the central business district area.

d) requests that Auckland Council does not dispose of the land at 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay, as the land is an essential part of the public off street car parking in the town centre.

e) requests that Panuku Development Auckland undertake an assessment of the site for future development as illustrated by the Browns Bay Centre Plan, September 2016.

15. AT’s Parking Design Team will provide a response to the AT-related comments in AT’s update report for the local board’s November 2017 meeting.

Upcoming projects and activities of interest to the local board

Update on Construction at the Hibiscus and Bays Busway Station

16. The Hibiscus Coast busway station is being developed in two stages.

17. The first stage involves the construction of all civil work, excluding the station building:

· Earthworks to bring the site to level for the parking and station building areas, and a stormwater pond.

· Formation of bus circulation area and car park (484 consented car parks plus 127 car parks that are subject to resource consent approval).

· Construction of a retaining wall along Painton Road.

· Stormwater and sewer pipe works.

· Street lighting, CCTV and data installation.

18. The second stage involves the construction of the station building on land previously used as a temporary car park, and minor re-configuration of the lanes at the intersection with Painton Road.

19. Once the station is completed it will include ticket and top-up machines, toilets, secure cycle parking, and waiting areas that will be well lit and protected from the elements.

20. Construction is progressing to anticipated timeframes, with completion of Stage 1 expected early in 2018 and completion of Stage 2 mid-late 2018.

Repair work to start on seawall

21. Auckland Transport is about to start work on repairs to part of the seawall in the ferry basin at the bottom of Queen Street, Auckland. In August, divers identified that the erosion of the seabed and seawall in front of the Ferry Building had increased to 16 metres in length and a depth varying between 0.2 - 1.2 metres.

22. AT is progressing with design and construction planning so that the repairs can be completed prior to the busy summer holidays.

23. Engineering firm Tonkin and Taylor has completed a preliminary stability analysis and confirmed that there is no risk of imminent failure. However, they recommended completion of the works as soon as possible to prevent the erosion from continuing.

24. It is anticipated that repair work will commence in mid-October and take 6 - 10 weeks. Berth 1A will be closed during repairs and some ferry services will need to be relocated within the ferry basin. However, AT is working with its operator to ensure that full services are maintained over the period of the works.

Auckland Transport appoints new Chief Executive

25. Auckland Transport has appointed Shane Ellison as its new Chief Executive. Mr Ellison is a returning New Zealander with more than 20 years’ global experience in senior leadership roles across the transport and infrastructure sectors in complex commercial, political and organisational environments. He will join AT on 11 December for a handover from AT’s current Chief Executive, David Warburton.

26. Mr Ellison has held a number of senior executive roles in Transdev Australasia, including senior executive responsible for the delivery of Transdev’s operations across ferry, bus and light rail in New South Wales and Queensland. He has been instrumental in delivering exceptional customer experience, workplace safety and patronage outcomes in these roles.

27. Prior to 2011 Mr Ellison was located in Paris with Transdev where he was responsible for global corporate development and innovation, playing a key leadership role in large transport infrastructure projects in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Australia.

28. His appointment was a collaboration between the Board of AT and Auckland’s Mayor, Phil Goff, with the Mayor, AT’s Board Chairman Dr Lester Levy and Deputy Chairman Wayne Donnelly, fully involved in the selection process. Chair of the Waitemata Local Board Pippa Coom and Renata Blair, a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board, were also involved in the final selection panel.

29. Both Dr Levy and the Mayor have acknowledged the contribution that David Warburton has made as the organisation’s founding Chief Executive, noting that he has brought multiple legacy organisations into a single united organisation that has delivered many significant projects of world-class scale and complexity.

AT Quarterly Report to Council

30. AT’s update to local board members and its Quarterly Report to Auckland Council was presented to local board members by AT Board Member, Mark Gilbert, and Chief Financial Officer, Richard Morris, on 25 September 2017.

31. Mr Gilbert’s section of the report, which is appended to this report as Attachment A, focussed on:

· Governance and planning frameworks;

· AT’s strategic and funding sources; and

· Local board satisfaction with AT.

32. Mr Morris’ section of the report discussed:

· AT’s achievements over the past year;

· Auckland’s growth;

· Delivery of operational and capital projects;

· Planning for the future;

· Working with local boards, iwi and manu whenua;

· Customer experience;

· Organisational development;

· The last year of the Long-term Plan; and

· Looking ahead.

Road Safety Programme

33. AT’s Road Safety Update to local boards was also presented to local board members on 25 September 2017. This report outlined:

· how Auckland’s network is performing;

· why road trauma is increasing;

· what ‘Best Practice’ looks like;

· where investment is best prioritised; and

· the next steps towards improving safety across Auckland’s network.

34. The full Road Safety Programme report presented is appended to this report as Attachment B.

Road Resurfacing

35. With the approach of drier weather AT’s maintenance crews will begin their summer road resurfacing works.

36. Roads require periodic resurfacing (resealing) to keep the sealed surface waterproof and maintain good skid resistance, as bitumen in the surfacing oxidises over time causing it to become brittle and either crack, unravel or lose chip. Providing resurfacing is carried out at the right time, the surface remains waterproof, skid resistance is maintained and surface water does not penetrate the road pavement.

37. Roads are resurfaced using either a chip seal or a thin asphaltic concrete surfacing (hotmix). Generally, chip seals have a life of 8-12 years while hotmix can be expected to last 10-14 years

38. Chip seals are the most cost-effective method of resurfacing and in many situations are the only method that can practically be used to restore the road surface to a suitable condition. Hotmix is generally only used on high trafficked roads (those carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day) or in high stress areas such as at intersections or cul-de-sac heads.

39. Costing in the order of $4-8 per square metre, chip seals are a cost effective way to resurface roads, with hotmix costing $20-30 per square metre depending on the type of mix used. Approximately 80% of the resealing carried out by AT is therefore chip seals.

40. Many resurfacing complaints arise from the resurfacing of existing aged hotmix surfaces with chip seal when they reach the end of their service life, but the majority of hotmix surfaces were constructed by developers at the time of subdivision. The need to periodically resurface the road to avoid water ingress into the pavement is often not understood by the adjoining residents, who consider the rougher chip seal surface to be inferior to that of the smoother hotmix.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. The local board’s views will be considered during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

42. 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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Combined Fourth Quarter Report	213
b ⇩	Road Safety Local Board Presentation	235

Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager North, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Manager, Elected Member Relationship Unit,Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Public alerting framework for Auckland

File No.: CP2017/19668

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 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 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 for Auckland 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 siren and signage. Further information will be presented to local boards in due course.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

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 hazards including but not limited to; fire, fault line ruptures, coastal inundation, landslides, lifeline utility failures and serious health issues.^{^[3]}The Tonga-Kermadec trench is one of the 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 travel time more than 1 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 1 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 1 to 3 hours travel time to Auckland

· 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 3 hours or greater. ^{^[4]}

Figure 1. 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

8. 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.

9. 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. There are valuable benefits in using tsunami sirens, in particular, sirens can be used when other communications (e.g. cell phones and radio broadcasting) may not have the maximum reach or be as effective. It is commonly accepted across the emergency management sector that effective public alerting systems are those that take a holistic view. This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned, understood, and in conjunction with effective public education information and campaigns. This is imperative for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting that communities can use and understand.

10. The limited locations of the present tsunami siren systems have been identified as a gap in the public alerting capabilities of Auckland region. Presently, Auckland is not well represented by tsunami sirens with the estimated reach of Auckland’s current sirens being 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

11. Auckland Council has recognised the need for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting through the adoption of the Public Alerting Framework. 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, what it can and cannot do;

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

· highlight the advances being taken with regards 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.

12. Auckland Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as such, has allocated funds from the Long-term plan for this venture. This funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.

13. It is important to understand that no one public alerting system is without fault. The Public Alerting Framework focusses 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. Through this project, prioritised public education is critical. Without effective public education and engagement activities, sirens alone are not considered a standalone approach to public alerting.

GNS Science report

Introduction and methodology

14. Following the endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, crown research agency GNS Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (see Appendix B) of those communities most at-risk of tsunami.

15. A GIS 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 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology please see Appendix B.

Figure 2. Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used in the GNS Science analysis

Results

16. 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 Appendix B.

Next steps

17. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region in order to share the results of the GNS Science report and 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

18. 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 formal business meetings of local boards.

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

Māori impact statement

20. 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 ubiversal.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Public Alerting Framework	259
b ⇩	GNS Science report	269

Signatories

Author

Celia Wilson, Project Manager

Authorisers

Craig Glover, Head of Strategy and Planning

John Dragicevich, Civil Defence Emergency Management Director

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One:2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/19860

Purpose

1. To present applications received for round one of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has approved a total community grants budget of $493,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $17,171 has been allocated for Quick Response Round One 2017/2018, leaving a total of $475,829 to be allocated to the remaining two quick response rounds and one local grant round.

3. Fifty-two applications were received for the Local Grant Round One 2017/2018 requesting a total of $448,308, including six multi-board applications.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this Local grant round one.

Application ID	Applicant	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1806-101	Browns Bay Chinese Society	Towards costs of hall usage; English language education and cultural festivals.	$2,500	Eligible
LG1806-104	Sport Limited	Towards costs associated with marketing and delivery of the community engagement hockey project at Orewa College turf	$2,510	Eligible
LG1806-105	Orewa Lions Club	Towards the purchase of outdoor free gym equipment on Orewa Beach Reserve	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-106	North Harbour Volleyball Association Incorporated	Towards the cost of coaches, event management fees, facility costs, maintenance and equipment costs for the summer beach volley competition 2017-2018 at Mairangi Bay Beach Volleyball Centre.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-107	Browns Bay Business Association	Towards costs of screen and film rights for the Flicks & Fun event at Browns Bay (Beachfront/Plaza) on 3-4 March 2018.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-108	Centrestage Theatre Company (Orewa) Inc.	Towards costs of lighting for production of the New Zealand Amateur Premiere “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” at the Centrestage Theatre in Orewa on 19 November 2017.	$9,085	Eligible
LG1806-109	Hibiscus Coast Cricket Club	Towards costs of purchasing gazebos for use by cricket clubs and wider communities in the Hibiscus Coast areas.	$7,200	Eligible
LG1806-111	Hibiscus Petanque Inc	Towards costs of excavation and construction of an 18 piste pentaque terrain at 214 Hibiscus Highway, Orewa.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-112	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Towards costs of hiring of equipment for the food and wine festival on 17 February 2018 at Beachside, Mairangi Bay.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-115	Mairangi Bay Tennis Club	Towards a contribution of costs for the court removal and remedial work at the Mairangi Bay Tennis Club.	$9,750	Eligible
LG1806-116	Coast Youth Community Trust Incorporated	Towards costs associated with a youth worker programmes in Whangaparaoa	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-117	Kelly McQuinlan	Towards costs of organising a summer dip event at Castor Bay Beach on 2 December 2017, including umbrellas, surf life saving costs, first aid costs, food for volunteers and advertising.	$2,499	Eligible
LG1806-119	Long Bay Primary School	Towards costs of gardening tools for Long Bay Primary School "Team Green" garden and native planting extension project.	$2,361	Eligible
LG1806-120	Stage51 Limited	Towards costs of staging and production for the Christmas event on the 23 December 2018 at Western Reserve Orewa	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-121	Canterbury and New Zealand Business Association	Towards costs of administrative expenses: phone, internet, volunteer expenses, and community office rental in Auckland central.	$4,000	Eligible
LG1806-122	Harbour Sport Trust	Towards costs of traffic management and promotional printing for the “Shore to Shore 5km Fun Run/Walk” on the 25 March 2018	$8,000	Eligible
LG1806-123	Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated.	Towards costs associated with youth development, mentoring, counselling and safe space facility, health and safety and child safety approvals and other operational support for Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated.	$20,000	Eligible
LG1806-124	Torbay Business Association	Towards the costs of advertising for the "Through our eyes" photo competition	$1,500	Eligible
LG1806-126	Whangaparaoa Tennis Club	Towards funding contribution for tennis court lighting upgrade for Whangaparaoa Tennis Club	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-127	Carole McMinn	Towards costs of purchasing watches with Global Positioning Systems to track Alzheimer sufferers.	$3,500	Eligible
LG1806-128	Equestrian 4 Everyone	Towards costs of wages for a head coach for six months, excluding school holidays.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-132	Whangaparaoa Golf Club Inc.	Towards the cost of plants and pest control for the “Whangaparaoa Golf Club Swamp Restoration Phase Three” projects.	$2,542	Eligible
LG1806-133	Love Soup Hibiscus Coast	Towards costs of transportation, operational costs, kitchen and office supplies, gardening supplies for the “Love Soup Hibiscus Coast” programme, Whangaparaoa.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1806-134	Community Impact Days	Towards costs of purchasing equipment for gardening, cleaning, tools for furniture regeneration.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1806-136	Eaves Bush Appreciation Group (EBAG)	Towards costs of material to install education signage around Eaves Bush Reserve	$2,135	Eligible
LG1806-138	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Towards costs to create, rehearse and deliver the Youth Engagement performances and workshops including dancers’ salaries, artistic teams’ salaries, transport to schools and rehearsal space hire.	$7,500	Eligible
LG1806-139	Mairangi Arts Centre	Towards costs of project management, artist and skilled practitioner fees, documentation, and reporting for the free public workshops project “Edible Landscape project” at Mairangi Arts Centre.	$9,250	Eligible
LG1806-140	Rodney Aphasia Group, Incorporated.	Towards a contribution of costs for an administrator for people with language disabilities at Rotary House, Main Road, Silverdale.	$4,000	Eligible
LG1806-141	Friends of Long Bay	Towards costs for weed control at Awaruku Wetland.	$10,000	Ineligible as project is on council land.
LG1806-142	Estuary Arts Charitable Trust	Towards 60 volunteer training and facilitation costs for the Estuary Arts Centre at Orewa.	$2,000	Eligible
LG1806-143	Hibiscus Coast Softball Club Incorporated.	Towards costs of secure storage for club equipment and an information technology upgrade project for the club office bearers for Hibiscus Coast Softball Club Incorporated.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-144	Okura Forest Festival 2018	Towards the event running costs, such as fence hire, lighting, stage, sound and food at the Okura Forest Festival 2018 on 10 February 2018.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-145	Hibiscus Rodders Incorporated	Towards costs of traffic management during the Rodders festival from the 26 to 28 March 2018.	$11,853	Eligible
LG1806-146	Orewa College	Towards costs of purchasing a saxaphone and a tuba for use by members of the Hibiscus Coast Community Band and Orewa College.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-147	Awatuna Sea Scout Group	Towards costs associated with roof replacement for the Awatuna Sea Scout Hall,Torbay	$60,645	Eligible
LG1806-148	45 Events Limited trading as Beach Series	Towards funding key event operational costs, mainly assisting with the cost of Surf Life Saving New Zealand to manage the water safety of the ocean swim and stand-up paddle events at Orewa Beach over 14 Thursday evenings on Orewa Beach from November 2017 to March 2018)	$8,500	Eligible
LG1806-149	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards a contribution for a salary for a senior youth development worker for the months of November to December 2017 and January 2018	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-150	Stephanie Rigold	Towards costs for a sound and lighting director, band director and marketing costs of the Romeo and Juliet Production at Whangaparaoa Hall on 2 to18 February 2018.	$7,500	Eligible
LG1806-151	New Zealand Stand Up Paddling (NZSUP) Incorporated	Towards the design, and printing of event signage, event delivery: including event safety management, race number bibs and first aid costs	$9,200	Eligible
LG1806-152	Diane Sharp	Towards costs of a large dome shelter to be used by Rodney Home-school Community playgroups.	$770	Eligible
LG1806-153	Murrays Bay Residents Association	Towards costs of the Birdman Festival at Murrays Bay beach including; sound equipment, scaffolding, entertainment and performers, security, waste management, traffic management costs on the 25 March 2018,	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-155	YMCA of Auckland	Towards the cost of purchasing and replacing wet-suits for Shakespear Lodge facility.	$5,394	Eligible
LG1806-156	Whangaparaoa College	Towards costs associated with plants and site maintenance for the Rata Stream.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1806-157	Windsor Park Redevelopment	Towards costs of concept plans for the multi-sport indoor facility, feasibility study completion and project management costs for Windsor Park redevelopment	$22,625	Eligible
LG1806-158	Kids Safe With Dogs Charitable Trust	Towards costs of printing of material and paying instructors/administrators	$10,000	Eligible
LG1817-113	Browns Bay Racquets club	Towards costs associated with completing the ceiling and lighting installation at Browns Bay Racquets club	$10,000	Eligible
		Total amount requested	$416,819

b) Consider the applications listed in table two and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

App. ID

Organisation

Name

Project

Amount Requested

Eligible/

Ineligible

LG1807-111	Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind	Towards costs of purchasing digital talking books for 177 blind or low vision residents vision residents in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.	$ 2,000.00	Eligible
LG1802-116	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Towards a contribution for operating costs for the 2017/2018 financial year.	$ 15,000.00	Eligible
LG1802-139	Hockey New Zealand Incorporated	Toward the costs for the Women's World League Hockey Final, school and community engagement programme:	$ 5,000.00	Eligible
LG1808-101	The Korean Society of Auckland	Towards costs of venue and equipment hire and volunteer costs for the 2018 Korean Day at the North Shore Event Centre on the 14 of April 2018.	$ 1,400.00	Eligible
LG1803-124	NZ Women Ltd	Towards costs of performers fees, advertising, equipment and operational costs for Elvis in the Gardens 2018 on 4 March 2018 at Auckland Botanic Gardens	$ 1,000.00	Eligible
LG1706-203	LiteClub Hibiscus and Bays	Towards salaries, materials, administration costs, travel costs, and promotion for the assessment at Orewa Tennis Club, East Coast Bays Rugby League Pupuke Golf Club and Red Beach Surf Lifesaving Club and Squash Club.	$7,089	Eligible
		Total amount requested	$31,489

Comments

4. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme (see Attachment A).

5. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements

6. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will operate three quick response and two local grant rounds for this financial year. The first quick response grant round closed on 18 August 2017 and the first Local Grant Round One closed on 25 August 2017.

7. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

8. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board set a total community grants budget of $493,000. A total of $17,171 has been allocated for Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 leaving a total of $475,829 to be allocated to the remaining two quick response rounds and one local grant round.

9. Fifty-two applications were received for this Local Grant Round One 2017/2018 including six multi-board applications, requesting a total of $448,308.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

11. The local board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

12. A copy of each application for the local grant round one is attached (see Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

13. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

Implementation

14. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

15. Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for local grants, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Grant Programme 2017/2018	341
b ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Local Grants Round One 2017/18 Applications	345

Signatories

Authors

Catherine Bolinga - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Kathryn Martin - Acting Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 October 2017

[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	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
Members	Chris Bettany
	David Cooper
	Gary Holmes
	Caitlin Watson
	Vicki Watson
	Mike Williamson

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events	Confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation	Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson
Transport Information Group	Discuss transport issues/projects	Janet Fitzgerald Julia Parfitt
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes Janet Fitzgerald
Urgent Decision Making	To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board	Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

Organisation	Local Board Member
Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society)	Julia Parfitt Chris Bettany - Alternate
Estuary Arts Charitable Trust
Victor Eaves Management Committee	Mike Williamson
Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland)	Janet Fitzgerald
Business Improvement Districts (BIDS)
Destination Orewa Beach	Vicki Watson David Cooper - Alternate
Torbay	Chris Bettany Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Browns Bay	Gary Holmes Chris Bettany - Alternate
Mairangi Bay	David Cooper Julia Parfitt - Alternate

Author	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Kathryn Martin - Acting Relationship Manager