Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Asset renewal at 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale

File No.: CP2017/17314

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board to proceed with the complete re-build of the building at 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale which houses the Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre.

Executive summary

2. The main building at the 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale, which is leased by the Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre is in need of renewal. Renewal of the building is required to address water tightness, flooding and air quality issues, as well as to provide staff with a healthy working environment.

3. The main building is a repurposed crèche and has never been fit for purpose for its current use as an office, meeting/hosting/course and storage space for an environmental centre.

4. The Kaipātiki Local Board requested staff investigate potential wider options for the facility and the provision of the service to address the above issues.

5. Based on the assessment, it is recommended that a complete re-build of the main building at the centre be progressed to ensure the facility is fit for purpose for the Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre and aligns with the Community Facilities Network Plan.

6. A budget of, $662,000 of capital renewal funding is currently allocated for the renewal of the facility (resolution number KT/2017/90). The budget available is based on preliminary cost estimates only. The cost estimates will become more refined as the project progresses through design and delivery.

7. Anticipated timeframes for delivery of the centre re-build are for design and consents to occur in financial year 2017/2018 and physical works in financial year 2018/2019.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approves option two in Attachment B to the agenda report which is to demolish and re-build the main building at 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale.

Background

The Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre

8. The Kaipatiki Project Environment centre (Kaipatiki Project) is a not-for-profit ecological restoration and environmental education organisation active in the Glenfield and Birkdale area since 1998.

9. The Kaipatiki Project is the only one of its kind in the north of Auckland, one of two in the Auckland region and one of only twelve such community environment centres in New Zealand.

10. A variety of services for the environment and community are delivered by the Kaipatiki Project, including ecological restoration of the Eskdale Reserve catchment, education for sustainability and the environment for all ages, leadership and advocacy for environmental issues, provision of a range of volunteer opportunities, and an opportunity for people to connect to the environment and each other.

11. The Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2014 identifies the Kaipatiki Project as a major partner to deliver the local board’s environmental outcomes and support the work of other restoration groups in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

The site at 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale

12. The Kaipatiki Project operates out of the site at 17 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale (legal description Lot 164 DP 48270). The 825 square metre site is in a residential area, at the end of a shared right of way. It forms part of the Eskdale Reserve network and is classified as local purpose (community buildings) reserve.

13. The Kaipatiki Project has leased the site at 17 Lauderdale Road since the early 2000s, initially from the North Shore City Council, and now Auckland Council.

14. A summary of the site layout is provided in Attachment A.

15. The main building at the site is a former crèche currently being used as an office, a meeting/hosting/course space and for storage. This building and the driveway leading up to the building is owned by Auckland Council.

16. Other infrastructure and assets at the site are owned by the Kaipatiki Project. This includes:

· a garage used for storage;

· a shade house/nursery used to grow plants;

· several plant storage areas, including approximately 520 square meters in the reserve behind the centre, made available to the group on a temporary basis by the Birkenhead/Northcote Community Board in 2009;

· a covered outside area used as a volunteer work space; and

· two water tanks and irrigation systems.

The issue/opportunity

17. The main building at 17 Lauderdale Road has issues with weather tightness, flooding and subsequently air quality. It is hot in summer, cold and damp in winter and does not have any insulation. Extensive works are required to make the building a safe and healthy place to work.

18. Air quality tests undertaken by council’s Community Facilities Operations and Maintenance team in October 2016 identified that the microbial air quality could cause illness in some people. In November 2016 the air conditioning unit was cleaned in an attempt to improve air quality.

19. However, further air quality tests undertaken during the winter (in June 2017) identified that the air quality was still at poor quality and putting the occupants at risk of illness. As a result Kaipatiki Project has had to vacate the building and move to the Beach Haven Community Centre on a temporary basis, until the issue with the building at 17 Lauderdale Road can be rectified.

20. To be fit for purpose, the Community Facilities Network Plan aims for community facilities to be accessible, easy to find and get to, flexible, functional, well-maintained, safe, provide an enjoyable customer experience and be sustainable.

21. As a former crèche, the building has never been fit for purpose as an environment centre. Whilst the Kaipatiki Project has always made the best of the situation and has applied for grants to modify the building to make it more functional, the current facility does not sufficiently cater for the current demand for the services provided by the group.

22. As a result, the Kaipātiki Local Board requested councils Service and Asset Planning team to investigate whether renewing the current facility is the best use of council funding, or whether there are other, more cost-effective solutions.

23. The Service and Asset Planning team undertook a service needs assessment for the Kaipatiki Project.

Service Needs Assessment

Strategic context

24. A number of strategic documents from across Auckland Council were reviewed or referenced to inform the options assessment for the Kaipatiki Project.

25. The most relevant for the assessment has been the Community Facilities Network Plan. This plan provides a road map for how Auckland Council will invest in community facilities over the next 20 years. The plan sets a vision for community facilities for the future, which includes a move to multi-purpose, flexible, co-located/ integrated and fit for purpose facilities (versus standalone, highly specialised facilities).

26. Other relevant strategic documents are the Auckland Plan, the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and the Kaipātiki Connections Plan (Greenways Plan).

27. The Eskdale Reserve Management Plan mentions the use of 17 Lauderdale Road by the Kaipatiki Project, which is anticipated to continue. Should the group vacate the site, it is anticipated that another group could lease the site and building, without a change to the reserve management plan being required.

Kaipatiki Project views

28. Auckland Council staff met with the manager of the Kaipatiki Project in February 2017 to discuss the needs of the group and the services they provide.

29. A workshop was also held with staff, volunteers and committee members on 16 March 2017 to review findings from the previous discussion and obtain the groups views on whether renewing the current facility is the best use of funding to enable the continued delivery of the services provided by the group, or whether there are other solutions.

30. Some of the key points from the discussion are summarised below:

· Staff, volunteers and committee members strongly prefer a combined operation, with nursery/office/ course space being located at one site, a hub for environmental action.

· A Kaipātiki Local Board and Eskdale Reserve based site would be strongly preferred.

· In the long-term the group is working on its vision to be the Environment Centre for the North Shore, with a new more visible, sustainable facility (possibly at the top of Eskdale Reserve) adjacent to Glenfield Road. Currently there is no set timeframe for this.

· In the short and medium-term 17 Lauderdale Road is the best site to deliver the services. The site is seen as a building block for the future and the group is not looking/ expecting to meet all of its future accommodation needs and operational goals here. The site does however need to be fit for purpose and functional.

· The immediate need is to provide a healthy working environment for staff and volunteers, which is not currently the case at 17 Lauderdale Road.

Options considered

31. Based on the issue/opportunity identified, a number of options were considered:

i. refurbish the building - to comply with health and safety and building code standards;

ii. complete re-build - demolish the existing building and re-build to be fit for purpose at the existing site;

iii. a split operation - retain the nursery at 17 Lauderdale Road and re-locate the office/meeting spaces elsewhere e.g. to existing community facility at 134/136 Birkdale Road;

iv. do nothing;

v. retain an office only on site at 17 Lauderdale Road and move the nursery to a different site;

vi. complete re-build - at another site within the reserve; or

vii. complete relocation of nursery and office/meeting space within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

32. The last four options were not considered further based on practicality, financial implications, group readiness and lack of suitably large spaces within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

33. The first three options were considered further and assessed against a set of criteria, including alignment with the Community Facilities Network Plan and other strategic documents, group preference, impact of change on staff, customers, community cost, timeframes and expected benefits.

34. At a workshop with the local board on 26 April 2017, a further option was suggested by one of the board members and was included in the assessment. This option was:

viii. move the entire operation, nursery and office/course space, to the managers’ house at Chelsea Estate Heritage Park.

35. A summary of the assessment of the four options considered is provided in Attachment B.

Recommended option

36. After weighing up each option against the different criteria, it is recommended that option two, a complete re-build of the main building at the centre at 17 Lauderdale Road, be progressed.

37. The expected outcome of this option is a healthy, functional and flexible facility. The facility would be a significantly better fit for purpose than refurbishing of the existing buildings. The re-build could also be used as an opportunity to improve the overall layout of the site, optimising the use of the available space.

38. A complete re-build also provides the opportunity to build a more environmentally sustainable building that provides operations and maintenance savings and better suits the ethos of the Kaipatiki Project.

Lease implications

39. It should be noted that the re-build of the main building at 17 Lauderdale Road is likely to require the issuing of a new lease to the Kaipatiki Project. This would be progressed by the Community Facilities Community Leasing team.

40. The Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines set standard terms for different types of leases. As the site has a mix of council and group owned buildings on a council owned site, the anticipated term of a new lease is 10 years, with a further 10 year right of renewal, bringing the total lease term to 20 years.

41. Community groups are required to submit an agreed Community Outcomes Plan as a condition of tenancy. Community Outcomes Plans are used to identify the benefit the group will provide to the community; and includes measures that will be used to review the group’s performance against the plan over time.

42. It is suggested that as part of the Community Outcomes Plan for the new lease in a new building, the group will need to make the facility available for use by other community groups at times when the group is not running activities i.e. make it available for courses run by other organisations and meetings at times when it is not needed by the Kaipatiki Project.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

43. The Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2014 states that the Kaipatiki Project is an important partner in delivering environmental outcomes, “working on stream restoration and native bush protection, as well as providing a full and varied educational and volunteering programme”.

44. A workshop was held with the Kaipātiki Local Board on 26 April 2017 where the three options that were investigated were presented and discussed. The Kaipatiki Project manager and programme manager also attended this workshop.

45. Board members were asked which option they preferred. The majority of board members indicated that they were in favour of option two.

46. One board member suggested an additional option, the relocation of the centre to the Chelsea Estate Heritage Park managers’ house. This option was included in the options assessment (see Attachment B).

47. Another suggestion that was made during the workshop was to investigate providing driveway access to the centre via the entrance to the reserve adjacent to 58 Eskdale Road. This is not part of the scope of this project, but could be scoped as part of the ‘parks improvements fund’ allocated as part of the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiative capital budget.

48. Concerns were raised about the lack of on-site parking, but due to the size of the site this will be difficult to provide over and above what is already there.

Māori impact statement

49. The environment is integral to te ao Māori. Māori gain a sense of identity and belonging from their connection with the natural environment.

50. Providing a fit for purpose environmental centre will enable Māori to more easily participate and partner in ecological restoration activities and educational programmes within the Kaipātiki Local Board area, fostering their connection to the environment.

51. The new centre will therefore enable better outcomes for Māori communities in the Kaipatiki Local Board area.

Significance

52. The decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Implementation

53. Following approval by the Kaipātiki Local board, the Community Facilities Investigation and Design team can progress with the design and consent phase of the project.

54. Budget of up to $662,000 is identified in the Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme (resolution number KT/2017/90) for the renewal the building at 17 Lauderdale Road.

55. The budget is available over two financial years. Staff will undertake the design and consents for the preferred option in financial year 2017/2018, with the aim to undertake physical works in financial year 2018/2019.

56. The budget identified is likely to be sufficient to deliver option two. However, more accurate cost details will need to be identified during the progression of the project through design and delivery. As a result, the budget required may need to be reviewed as more detailed costs are received. Should an increase in budget be required council staff will inform the Kaipātiki Local Board.

57. The design of the new facility will be undertaken in consultation with the Kaipātiki Local Board and the Kaipatiki Project.

58. The new building design will need to provide solutions to prevent flooding and where possible increase accessibility to the site.

59. The design will need to keep in mind that the facility will be a council owned leased building that will need to be able to be repurposed in the event that the lease arrangement with the Kaipatiki Project should cease.

60. It is anticipated that the Kaipatiki Project will need to remain in temporary accommodation until the re-build is complete, although the nursery can be retained on site. Working bees may need to be cancelled from time to time during construction.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kaipatiki Project site layout	25
b ⇩	Kaipatiki Project options assessment	27

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn White - Renewals Coordinator

Nicki Malone - Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Criteria	1. Re-furbishment	2. Re-build	3. Split operation	4. Chelsea Estate Heritage Park – Managers house
Descriptions/ Scope	Complete refurbishment of the Centre, includes work on driveway.	Demolition of the existing Centre and complete re-build. Includes work on driveway.	Basic refurbishment of the Centre to allow to be used as a basic shelter for volunteer activity. NB: This option involves the permanent relocation of offices and meeting spaces to a different location e.g. 134/136 Birkdale Road	This option would involve the move of the entire, Kaipatiki Project operation, offices and nursery, to Chelsea Estate Heritage Park.
Alignment with Community Facilities Network Plan	Low	Medium	Low	Low
Alignment with other strategic documents	Medium	Medium	High	Medium
Group preference	Medium	Medium/ High	Low	Not known at the time of writing this report
Impact of change on staff, customers, community	Minimal to moderate, mostly temporary	Moderate - positive	Moderate to significant - some positive some negative	Moderate
Need for temporary accommodation	Yes, maximum 7 months · volunteer shelter · office and meeting and course space	Yes, maximum 12 months · Volunteer shelter · Offices and Meeting/course space	Yes, approx. 3 months · For volunteer shelter, · Minimal for staff location whilst hall being set up	Yes, approx. 3 months · Lead in time, as the house is currently tenanted. · Time needed to put relevant infrastructure for plants in place. · Temporary infrastructure needed for group during winter and during transition.
Cost estimate	$250,000	$650,000	$150,000	Not known at the time of writing this report
Timeframes	4-6 months	12-24 months	2-3 months	Anticipated 3 months
Expected outcome	• Healthy and more functional centre • Minimally better fit for purpose • Minimal provision for growth	• Healthy, more functional and flexible centre • Significantly better fit for purpose • Improved site layout • Some provision for growth	• Healthy shelter, healthy office, but at separate sites • Not groups’ preference • Better strategic alignment • Visible • Co-located	• Healthy environment. • Lots more space • Facility not fit for purpose/ functional as an environment centre.

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Options for Highbury economic impact assessment

File No.: CP2017/21427

Purpose

1. This report seeks direction from the Kaipātiki Local Board (the local board) on how it wishes to proceed with a proposed economic impact assessment (EIA) of public realm investment in the Highbury town centre.

Executive summary

2. This report updates the Kaipātiki Local Board on a proposed economic impact assessment (EIA) of public realm investment in the Highbury town centre comprising:

· Kaimataara o Wai Manawa viewing platform;

· Birkenhead Mainstreet Upgrade Stage 1, including:

o Rawene Road carpark upgrade;

o Western Gateway;

o Mokoia Road bus stop extension; and

o Le Roys Bush track gateway.

· Birkenhead Mainstreet Upgrade Stage 2, including:

o Highbury Corner upgrade.

3. The assessment forms part of the local board’s 2017/18 local economic development work programme carried over from last year due to delays in implementation of the relevant projects.

4. Its purpose was to provide information on the contribution to the Highbury town centre’s economic development from the local board’s public realm investments. This information is desirable to help guide future public realm investments and potentially to provide support for a future Long-term Plan (LTP) capital bid for the other town centres in the Kaipātiki area.

5. Direction is sought from the local board on how it wishes to proceed with the initiative in light of further delays in the completion of physical works.

6. The project has a budget of $15,000 (deferred from 2016/17).

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) review the options presented in Attachment A to the agenda report for progressing the economic impact assessment, including:

i. proceed with an economic impact assessment now;

ii. delay an economic impact assessment until completion of the outstanding project; or

iii. abandon the economic impact assessment altogether.

b) agree to proceeding with the economic impact assessment as funded ad carried over from the boards 2016/2017 local economic development work programme now.

Comments

Project overview and update

7. Over the last few years the Kaipātiki Local Board has undertaken a number of projects in the Highbury town centre aimed, in part, at increasing economic activity. An objective of the 2014 Local Board Plan under the outcome: ‘vibrant town and village centres and a thriving local economy’ states:

Birkenhead town centre develops to meet local and visitor needs with a key initiative of; “improve the main street and develop a bush gateway and lookout on Birkenhead Avenue.

8. The Kaipatiki Local Board 2017/18 local economic development work programme includes an action to conduct an EIA of three projects undertaken within the Highbury town centre, namely:

· Kaimataara o Wai Manawa viewing platform ($5,504,794);

· Birkenhead Mainstreet Upgrade Stage 1 ($2,782,452), including:

o Rawene Road carpark upgrade;

o Western Gateway;

o Mokoia Road bus stop extension; and

o Le Roys Bush track gateway.

· Birkenhead Mainstreet Upgrade Stage 2 ($1,585,000), including:

o Highbury Corner upgrade.

9. The projects were to be treated as a single investment for the purposes of the EIA.

10. Delayed completion of the projects resulted in a local board decision to defer the EIA to the current year’s work programme to allow sufficient time for the anticipated economic benefits from the projects to materialise.

11. However, only two of the three projects have been completed to date. Unexpectedly, the outstanding project Highbury Corner upgrade, will now not be completed until around September 2018. Critically, this project entails the second largest investment of the overall programme (approximately $1.5 million). As such, it might fairly be expected to have a significant impact on the EIA outcomes, relative to the other projects.

12. As a rule of thumb, an EIA should not be undertaken for at least six to twelve months after project completion. Based on the above timeline, this would mean waiting until roughly mid-2019 before the conducting the proposed assessment. Such an outcome would require further deferral of the project funding or new budget allocation in 2018/19. In the event the local board still wished to proceed with the EIA, a decision on how it should be funded is required.

Options analysis

13. Delayed completion of the full complement of Highbury projects raises questions about how to proceed with the proposed EIA. The three options available to the board include:

i. proceed with an EIA now, irrespective of the incomplete projects;

ii. delay the EIA until completion of the final project; or

iii. abandon the project altogether.

14. Analysis of each option is presented in Attachment A.

15. If the local board chooses to delay the EIA until 2018/19, council’s Finance department allocating new funding from the 2018/19 budget. The existing funding ($15,000), already deferred from 2016/17, can be either relinquished or re-purposed for other economic development activity in the current year.

16. If repurposed, the local board will wish to identify an alternative economic development project or projects for the current work programme.

17. Based on the circumstances outlined, it is recommended that the local board agrees to undertaking an EIA within the current financial year, as originally envisaged.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. This report has been prepared to enable a local board decision on this issue.

Māori impact statement

19. There are no specific Māori impact considerations arising.

Implementation

20. ATEED will action the local board’s decision arising from the contents of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Economic Impact Assessment Options Analysis	35

Signatories

Authors

Anthony Gibbons - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

John Norman - Manager Local Economic Development (ATEED)

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

New community lease to Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated at Elliott Reserve, 36 Elliott Avenue, Bayview.

File No.: CP2017/18380

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board to grant a new community lease to the Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated for part of Elliott Reserve, 36 Elliott Avenue, Bayview.

Executive summary

2. The Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated holds a community lease for the site at Elliott Reserve that expired on 31 August 2016. The lease is still operative on a month-by-month basis.

3. The club has applied for a new community lease. The building and improvements on the site are owned by the club.

4. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 provide that groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve a new community lease to the Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated for Part Lot 1 DP 92391 and Part Lot 38 DP 46696 held in fee simple by the Auckland Council under the Reserves Act 1977 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report - Glenfield Tennis Club Inc. Site Map) subject to the following conditions:

i. term – 10 years commencing 1 October 2017 with one 10 years right of renewal;

ii. rent - $1.00 plus Goods and Services Tax per annum if requested; and

iii. attachment of the Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan as approved to the lease document (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report - Glenfield Tennis Club Inc. Community Outcomes Plan).

b) approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

5. The land occupied and used by the Glenfield Tennis Club Incorporated comprises Part Lot 1 DP 92391 and Part Lot 38 DP 46696 held in fee simple by the Auckland Council under the Reserves Act 1977 (refer Attachment A Glenfield Tennis Club Inc. Site Map).

6. Glenfield Tennis Club was incorporated on 29 October 1962 and has occupied the site on Elliott Reserve since 1969.

7. The buildings and improvements are owned by the club. All six courts are artificial turf with ongoing maintenance and upgrade plans in place. The three back courts were resurfaced approximately four years ago and plans are underway to resurface the front three courts.

8. The club has approximately 164 members, which include mainly seniors aged 51 years or older, and children between five to thirteen years old.

9. The Glenfield Tennis Club employs a club tennis coach who provides coaching to its members of all ages as well as non-members at the club. The club funds junior coaching as part of the junior membership to ensure the development of kids in mastering the basics of the game, which allows them to move onto competitive matches as part of interclub teams.

10. The coaching programmes include supporting local schools in partnership with Tennis Northern offering programmes such as Hot Shots (a national starter tennis programme for New Zealand children) Tennis Xpress (which caters for beginner adults) and Cardio Tennis (a fun, social, group tennis-fitness programme for people of all ages and abilities).

11. As well as interclub tennis, the club organises tennis practices, annual club championships and social activities throughout the year, such as Trivial Pursuit evenings.

12. The club is always looking to develop relationships with other organisations in the area, and has a desire to work with other groups that may want to use its facilities.

13. The club has previously had a team participate in the Chelsea Cup, the premier North Shore tennis competition and continues to field competitive teams across many grades of the Tennis Northern interclub competition. The club has won numerous interclub competitions across the different grades. The Glenfield Tennis Club also had members that participated in the 2017 World Masters Games held in Auckland.

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

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

16. Council staff have negotiated and gained agreement with the club for a Community Outcomes Plan which, if approved by the Kaipātiki Local Board, will be appended as a schedule to the community lease.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated decision-making authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

18. The recommendations support the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2014 outcome: community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities' needs.

Māori impact statement

19. Auckland Council is committed to meeting to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. Auckland Council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

20. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes is detailed in Te Toa Takitini, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to improve access to facilities for Māori living in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Implementation

21. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

22. There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Glenfield Tennis Club Inc. Site Map	41
b ⇩	Glenfield Tennis Club Inc. Community Outcomes Plan	43

Signatories

Authors

Elena Malkova - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Renewal of the community lease to North Shore Women’s Centre for premises at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield

File No.: CP2017/18390

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board for the renewal of the community lease to the North Shore Women’s Centre at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield.

Executive summary

2. The North Shore Women’s Centre has a community lease that commenced on 1 August 2016 for a one year term. The lease allows for one right of renewal for a further one year term. The centre has notified of its intention to exercise the right of renewal for the period 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018.

3. The centre currently occupies rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 18 in the Mayfield Centre (refer Attachment A).

4. The building and improvements on the site are owned by Auckland Council.

5. This report recommends that the Kaipātiki Local Board grant the renewal of the community lease to the North Shore Women’s Centre for a further term of one year commencing 1 August 2017 for premises in the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) grant the renewal of the community lease to North Shore Women’s Centre for the 108 m² premises (outlined red in Attachment A to the agenda report) at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield subject to the following:

i. term – one year commencing 1 August 2017 with no further right of renewal;

ii. rent – $1.00 plus Goods and Services Tax per annum if requested; and

iii. operational charge (including utilities) – $2,700 per annum plus Goods and Services Tax.

b) approve all other terms and conditions as contained in the existing lease dated 1 August 2016 and in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

6. The North Shore Women’s Centre is a registered charitable trust that has occupied the premises at the Mayfield Centre since 2003.

7. The centre provides support, advice, counselling and legal clinics to women and their families from all areas of the North Shore (refer Attachment B). The centre is open during the day, Monday to Friday with evening and weekend clinics as required. The counsellors and social work staff at the Women’s Centre have many years’ of experience and are all registered with national bodies in their respective fields. The centre staff advise on a range of issues including family violence, employment, budgeting and housing.

8. The centre currently operates at capacity. The centre works collaboratively and has an excellent relationship with Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated and Shakti Community Council who also occupy space at the Mayfield Centre. Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated and Shakti Community Council both support this application.

9. The North Shore Women’s Centre has complied with all the conditions of the current lease agreement. The financial accounts provided indicate that its funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

10. The centre holds all necessary insurance including current public liability cover.

11. The Mayfield Centre sits on land that is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and is classified as local purpose (community buildings) reserve. The land status permits the proposed activity.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated decision-making authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

13. The recommendations also support the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcome: community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities' needs.

Māori impact statement

14. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

15. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes is detailed in Te Toa Takitini, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally it seeks to improve access to facilities for Māori living in the Kaipatiki Local Board area.

Implementation

16. There are no cost implications for the local board if the renewal of community lease is granted to the North Shore Women’s Centre.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Leased Area NSWC	49
b ⇩	North Shore Women's Centre Activities	51

Signatories

Authors

Elena Malkova - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Review of representation arrangements - process

File No.: CP2017/21732

Purpose

1. To provide comments to the governing body on the proposed process (in Attachment B) for the review of representation arrangements.

Executive summary

2. All local authorities are required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years in order to determine the arrangements for the following elections.

3. Auckland Council was established in 2010 and was not required to undertake a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, but is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections. The review will take place during 2018.

4. It is possible to review the following for the governing body:

· whether members are elected at-large or by ward or a combination; and

· if elected by ward, the number of members in each ward, the ward boundaries and ward names.

5. It is possible to review the following for each local board:

· the number of members;

· whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large;

· if by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision boundaries and names; and

· the local board name.

6. It is not possible to review the number of governing body members. This is set in the legislation which created Auckland Council (Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Other councils are able to review the number of members.

7. It is also not possible to review the boundaries, or number, of local boards. A reorganisation process is required to do this. This is a separate process under the legislation.

8. With a governing body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex arrangements than other councils and an efficient and effective process for undertaking the review needs to be determined.

9. The report attached as Attachment A was considered by the Governing Body on 28 September 2017. The report sets out the background and context to the review and a proposed process for conducting the review.

10. The Governing Body resolved a proposed process on 28 September 2017, as set out in Attachment B, and is now seeking the views of local boards on this process.

11. In December, the Governing Body will resolve the final process for conducting the review, following feedback from local boards on the proposed process.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the proposed process for conducting the review of representation arrangements.

Local board views and implications

19. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposed process as set out in Attachment B, for conducting the review of representation arrangements.

Māori impact statement

20. Representation by way of establishing one or more Māori wards is being considered separately by the governing body. There is not a similar provision for Māori seats on local boards.

Implementation

21. Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Governing Body meeting on 14 December 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of representation arrangements - process	55
b ⇩	Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements	63

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Carol McKenzie-Rex - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Public alerting framework for Auckland

File No.: CP2017/19607

Purpose

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

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

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

Comments

Tsunami risk for Auckland

7. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon consisting of a series of waves generated when a large volume of water in the sea, or in a lake, is rapidly displaced^{^[1]}. Tsunami threats pose a risk to New Zealand and to Auckland. Occurrence rates of tsunami are higher in the Pacific than for other oceans because of the "Ring of Fire".^{^[2]} Tsunami waves are most commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. In addition, these events have the potential to cause multiple other hazards including but not limited to; fire, fault line ruptures, coastal inundation, landslides, lifeline utility failures and serious health issues.^{^[3]}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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. Auckland Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as such, has allocated funds from the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 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.

10. 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

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

12. 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. (refer Figure 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology please refer Attachment B.

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

Results

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

Next steps

14. 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

15. 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.

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

Māori impact statement

17. 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 ubiquitous.

Implementation

18. 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 (Under Separate Cover)
b	GNS Science report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Celia Wilson, Project Manager

Authorisers

Craig Glover, Head of Strategy and Planning

John Dragicevich, Civil Defence Emergency Management Director

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 March to 31 August 2017

File No.: CP2017/19234

Purpose

1. To give the Kaipātiki Local Board an overview of Panuku Development Auckland activities within the local board area for the six months 1 March to 31 August 2017.

Background

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) note the Panuku Development Auckland Kaipatiki Local Board update 1 March 2017 to 31 August 2017.

Local Activities

Unlock Northcote

5. Unlock priority locations are areas where Auckland Council is not necessarily the major land holder and have been identified as requiring Panuku to be the facilitator by using its relationships to break down barriers and influencing others including council family organisations to create development opportunities.

6. Northcote was chosen as an Unlock location as the result of a council-led assessment across the region’s urban centres. These were chosen based on development potential including scale and impact, key land holdings, commercial viability, partnership opportunities, the ability to leverage off previous investment and proximity to public transport.

7. Northcote is a vibrant, multi-cultural town centre with a great choice of food outlets and established community facilities. Local residents have told Auckland Council that the town centre needs to be revitalised, and that they want to see housing and commercial developments which strengthen the community and reinforce the local character.

8. Unlock Northcote was approved for development by the Auckland Development Committee (now Planning Committee) in December 2015. In March 2016 Panuku was given the mandate to progress with the planning for the development. A Framework Plan for the Unlock Northcote area was published in November 2016, and forms the basis for current planning and design work.

9. A programme business case was presented to the Panuku Board in March 2017, and a ‘full transformation’ option was approved by the Board, subject to securing the necessary funding for implementation.

10. Town centre masterplan: development of an updated masterplan for the town centre area has been underway for the past three months, and is nearing completion. The masterplan has been developed in consultation with key partners and stakeholders.

11. Awataha Greenway: a ‘design guide’ and reference design has been underway for the past three months, and is nearing completion. This has also included input from a wide range of partners and stakeholders.

12. Panuku continues to work closely with Housing New Zealand (HNZ) and Homes Land Community (HLC) to ensure that the two developments are well integrated. The Awataha Greenway project is a jointly-funded and developed project by HLC, HNZ and Panuku.

13. Progress on the amenity upgrading of Lake Road has been put on hold, pending funding availability, which will be sought through the 2018 Long-term Plan (LTP) process.

14. Panuku will continue to work with the local board and project partners to actively engage and socialise proposed plans with the community, with particular focus initially on the green way that will provide connections via a network of open spaces through the town centre. A number of placemaking initiatives are also being explored with project partners, local champions and schools.

Portfolio Management

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

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

17. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2017 was above budget, with a net surplus to Auckland Council and AT shareholders of $1.1 million ahead of budget.

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

Properties managed in the Kaipātiki Local Board area

19. Panuku currently manages 49 commercial and residential properties within the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Commercial properties	41
Residential properties	8
Total properties managed	49

Business interests

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

21. There are currently no such managed business interests in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

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

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

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

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

Performance

25. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

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

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

27. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60 million disposal recommendations	$20.7 million as at 31 August 2017

Process

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

Under review

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

Property

Details

R25 Alfred Street, Northcote Point

Formed as an informal open space known as Rosie Boult Reserve, the site was originally acquired for the purpose of water infrastructure purposes and a road extension.

The subject site was rationalised after it was assessed as not required for open space purposes and served no transport function.

No alternate service uses for the subject site were identified during the internal consultation.

Panuku consulted with the Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson in August regarding the rationalisation process and will further engage with the board in October 2017.

Acquisitions and disposals

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

Acquisitions

31. 22 properties have had purchase agreements signed in financial year ending 30 June 2017 for open space purposes around the region at a value of $48.6 million, and seven properties have been purchased for storm water purposes at a value of $19.4million.

32. In July-August 2017, two properties have been purchased for open space purposes around the region at a value of $6.2 million, and one property has been purchased for storm water purposes at a value of $3.15 million.

33. No properties were purchased in the Kaipātiki Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

34. For the period to the end of August 2017 the Panuku disposals team has sold two properties realising $0.8 million of unconditional net sales proceeds. The team’s 2017/18 disposals target is $8.0 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis. The team achieved $22.92 million of net sale proceeds in the 2016/17 financial year.

35. No properties were sold in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Housing for Older People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. The following HfOP villages are located within the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Lancaster Court	90 Lancaster Road, Beach Haven	51
Hillcrest Court	19 Hillcrest Avenue, Hillcrest	15
Birkdale Court	2 Gatman Street, Birkdale	19
Piringa Court	140 Lake Road, Northcote	20
Greenslade Court	27-31 Greenslade Crescent, Northcote	12
Bentley Court	86 Bentley Avenue, Glenfield	21
Shepherds Park Village	2 John Bracken Way, Beach Haven	10

Regional Activities

Highlights

45. Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results in its priority development locations. Panuku categorises three types of priority locations:

46. Transform locations – Panuku ‘Transforms’ locations by creating change through urban regeneration. Panuku leads the transformation of select parts of the region; working alongside others and using its custodianship of land and planning expertise. The catalytic work Waterfront Auckland led at Wynyard Quarter is a great example of the transformation of urban locations.

47. Unlock locations – Panuku also ‘Unlocks’ development potential for others. By acting as a facilitator; using relationships to break down barriers and influence others, including the wider council family, to create development opportunities.

48. Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘Support’ role to ensure council is making the most of what it already has. Intensification is a key driver in the Auckland Plan. Panuku will support housing demands by enabling development of council-owned land.

Transform locations

49. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week, while regeneration is just beginning in Manukau and Onehunga.

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

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

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

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

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

51. Plans to Transform Onehunga, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, were approved in March 2017. These plans were completed involving significant consultation with communities. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with central government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The Board of Inquiry relating to the East West link is currently going through a hearing process. A draft decision is expected to be made in October and will be finalised in November. This will contain numerous conditions of consent. Once the decision is known, Panuku can advance planning on the Onehunga wharf and foreshore precinct.

Unlock locations

52. In Takapuna, Auckland Council owns nearly four hectares of land focused around the Anzac Street carpark and the Gasometer site, consultation on redevelopment of these sites has started.

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

54. Hobsonville 20 hectare Airfields site - stage one of construction of 102 standalone and terrace homes is underway. Avanda Group have been announced as the developers that will deliver more than 500 homes in stage two, of which a minimum of 10 per cent will be affordable housing.

55. The council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the mall, a 2.5 hectare block of land, which will see the area opened up with a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded carpark and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

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

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

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

Support locations

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

60. This report is for the Kaipātiki Local Board’s information.

61. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz.

Māori impact statement

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

63. Māori make up 12 per cent of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50 per cent of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5 per cent of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.

64. There are 19 iwi in the region, with 14 having indicated an interest in Panuku led activities within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

65. Māori make up 8 per cent of the Kaipātiki Local Board population, and there are two marae located within the local board area.

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

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

Implementation

68. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Team Leader Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 October 2017

Northart 360 strategic review

File No.: CP2017/17415

Purpose

1. To provide a summary of the findings of the Northart 360 strategic review.

Executive summary

2. On 13 July 2016 the Kaipātiki Local Board approved the Arts. Community and Events 2016/2017 Work Programme (resolution number KT/2016/77), which included $15,000 to complete a 360 strategic review of the Northart gallery.

3. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the gallery is fit for purpose and what may be required for the gallery to deliver value for its members and the wider community.

4. There were five key findings of report, which were presented at a local board workshop on 24 May 2017:

· Governance and strategic planning: Northarts Committee of Management has not consistently demonstrated sufficient governance authority to lead Northart with a strong strategic orientation. The appointment of a new chairperson had provided the committee with an opportunity to build its strategic leadership.

 Business model: While Northart presents itself as a local art gallery, it is also a member and supporters-based organisation and a social enterprise.

 Current capacity for growth: Northart is operating at capacity. Increasing Northart’s services and activities would require increased core staff levels and investment in specific project roles.

 Local community interest: Northart is situated in a town centre precinct and members of the public are curious about the gallery. However, this interest is not always proactively encouraged.

 Northart working in isolation: Northart primarily works independently. While this may be due to constrained time and resources, this affects Northart’s:

o position in the local and wider community;

o ability to develop services for and with the community’s interest;

o capacity to leverage resources and networks for existing and new opportunities; and

o ability to grow its audience.

5. Since the completion of the 360 strategic review, staff have met with the Northart chairperson Jacqueline Aust to discuss the findings. Northart has already taken steps to address the major issues identified in the review, including conducting a strategic review of the organization. Council staff are planning a series of governance training workshops for members of Northart’s Committee of Management.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) note the Northart 360 strategic review as approved by the local board as part of its Arts, Community and Events 2016/2017 Work Programme..

Comments

Background

6. On 13 July 2016 the Kaipātiki Local Board approved its Arts, Community and Events (ACE) 2016/2017 Work Programme (resolution number KT/2016/77) which included $15,000 to undertake a 360 strategic review of the Northart gallery.

7. Staff discussed the terms of reference with elected members at the local board’s arts and culture portfolio meeting on 14 July 2016. The scope of the review was also discussed with the Northart Committee of Management on 27 July 2016.

8. Staff posted a request for expressions of interest (EOI) online and, after conducting interviews and assessing project proposals, selected Elisabeth Vaneveld of The Big Idea as the preferred candidate. She commenced the review in September 2016.

9. The purpose of the strategic review was to assess whether the Northart gallery is fit for purpose and what may be needed for the gallery to deliver value for its members and the wider community.

10. Elisabeth Vaneveld presented her report to the local board at a workshop on 24 May 2017.

Key findings

11. The full report is resented as Attachment A. The following were the five key findings of the report:

Governance and strategic planning

12. The Committee of Management has not consistently demonstrated sufficient governance authority to lead Northart with a strong strategic orientation. The appointment of a new chairperson has provided the committee with an opportunity to build the committee’s strategic leadership capabilities.

13. There are a number of known challenges facing Northart imminently. Northart is based at Norman King Square, Northcote. The proposed redevelopment of the Northcote town centre would mean relocating the gallery to another site.

14. The Northart chairperson Jacqueline Aust is leading a full strategic review to identify what the goals and priorities for Northart should or could be for the next three to five years, including succession planning in the event that the current gallery manager retires.

15. As an initial step to get this underway, Northart should undertake a governance review to:

a. identify the skills and experience of current committee members;

b. identify what the experience gaps are within the current committee and how to recruit for those gaps;

c. decide how to establish a strategic action plan and business to guide Northart’s next phase of development;

d. identify what governance training may be required and how that will be delivered;

e. consider what succession planning is required in the areas of governance and staffing, how this will be undertaken and over what time period; and

f. consider how to develop and grow Northart as a social enterprise, including new revenue generation streams.

Business model

16. Northart is a vision-driven and consistently well-managed operation that has been running for 19 years.

17. While Northart presents as a local art gallery, it is member and supporters-based. Northart focusses on showcasing, promoting and selling visual art, however it is not commercially motivated.

18. From a business point of view, Northart is best described as a social enterprise offering a range of services that focus on the curation, presentation and programming of the visual arts. However, Northart does not perceive itself as a social enterprise, contributing to some confusion about Northart’s business objectives and retail services.

Current capacity for growth

19. Northart is operating at capacity. Further growth of its services and activities would require increasing core staff levels and investment in project roles.

Local community interest

20. Northart is situated in a busy town centre precinct. Members of the public are curious about Northart and visit the gallery out of curiosity, knowledge about an existing exhibition or through an invitation. However, this interest is not always proactively encouraged.

21. There is a large Chinese community residing and/or working in the Northcote area. Northart should consider how to promote Northart through networks in that community. This could include creative ways of extending invitations to individuals and families, and portraying the gallery as a positive environment for learning and for children to appreciate art.

Northart working in isolation

22. Northart primarily works independently within its community and the broader arts ecology. This may be due to constrained time and resources, but independence that morphs into isolation is likely to have had a limiting effect on:

a. Northart’s positioning in the local and wider ecology;

b. the development of services for and with its community’s interest;

c. leveraging resources and networks for existing and new opportunities; and

d. growing the Northart audience.

23. The 360 strategic review finds that Northart is delivering on its stated purpose and to the objectives of their funding agreement with the local board. Northart would need increased core staff levels and further investment in additional project activity roles to grow its services and activities.

24. The principal finding of the review is that it is essential for Northart to conduct a full strategic review, including a governance review.

Actions taken based on the findings of the 360 review

25. Since the completion of the 360 strategic review, staff have met with the Northart chairperson Jacqueline Aust to discuss the findings. Northart has already taken steps to address the issues identified in the review.

Strategic review

26. In September 2017 Northart began this process under the guidance of Dr David Rees of Synergia Ltd. Northart has begun to recruit a small advisory group to support the development of the organisation’s strategy. Northart aims to complete its strategic review before the end of 2017 and will present their new strategic plan to the local board in early 2018.

Governance training

27. The local board allocated $20,000 in their 2017/2018 Arts, Community and Events Work Programme for building governance capacity for trustees and board members of community groups. Council staff are currently planning a series of training workshops from October 2017 to June 2018, and Northart will be invited to participate in this training.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. Northart is aligned with the 2017- 2020 Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcome area: ‘Our community facilities and infrastructure is high quality and well managed’ which states that the board will ensure that its community facilities will continue to meet community needs.

29. Northart is also aligned with the Local Board Plan outcome area: ‘Services are well managed and meet community’ in which the board commits to ensuring communities celebrate events, the arts, heritage and culture through programmes and arts space.

Māori impact statement

30. Māori were interviewed as part of the community engagement process.

31. Northart’s key performance indicators (KPIs) require it to programme activity that includes Māori values, kaupapa Māori or matauranga Māori considerations. This ensures Northart’s activity or programme has direct outcomes for Māori, increases the public’s experience of Māori traditions and world views, and encourages Māori to participate in Northart’s activities and programmes.

Implementation

32. There are no implementation issues or matters to be considered in association with this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Northart Final Report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

David Hebenton - Arts and Culture Advisor (Central)

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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

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

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

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

Chairperson	Danielle Grant
Deputy Chairperson	John Gillon
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Kay McIntyre, QSM
	Anne-Elise Smithson
	Adrian Tyler
	Lindsay Waugh

Authors	Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers