Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 September 2017, as a true and correct.

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 Puketāpapa 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.

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

Puketāpapa Local Grants Round One 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/21867

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to consider two applications for Puketāpapa Local Grants Round One 2017/2018 deferred from the 21 September 2017 meeting. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 16 March 2017. The document sets application guidelines for community contestable grants.

3. The local board is required to allocate grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city.

4. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

5. In local grant round one, twenty one applications were received, requesting a total of $76,711.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Local Grant Round One, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1815-101	The Parenting Place - Attitude Youth Division	Towards delivering 18 mental health presentations to four schools in the Puketāpapa local board, including providing 914 handbooks from January to November 2018.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-102	5Tunz Communications Ltd T/A HummFM	Towards the delivery of Holi - Festival of Colours 2018 on 3 March 2018, specifically the cost of port-a-loos, waste management, park permit, security and marquees.	$5,000.00	Eligible
Total			$8,000.00

Comments

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

7. 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.

8. The Puketāpapa Local Board will operate four quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

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

10. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

11. It is recommended that the local board allocate up to $30,000 (41.6% of the total budget) in this grant round.

12. In local grant round one, twenty one applications were received, requesting a total of $76,711.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

14. The 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.”

15. A summary of the two applications deferred from the 21 September 2017 meeting are attached, see Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

16. 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 community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori. One applicant has identified their organisation as Māori and three organisations have indicated their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Implementation

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

18. Following the Puketāpapa Local Board allocating funding for Local Grant Round One, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	33
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Grant Round One 2017/2018 application information	37

Signatories

Authors

Moumita Dutta - Community Grants Coordinator

Sara Chin - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

2017/18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme

File No.: CP2017/21901

Purpose

1. To approve the proposed 2017/18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme.

Executive summary

2. This report seeks the approval of the Local Board for the proposed 2017/18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme.

3. The 2017/18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme aims to increase the level of local board engagement with local businesses, encourage networking among local businesses and increase local business capability through running development seminars. In order to do this it is recommended that a targeted approach is used to establish four local business user groups, in Stoddard Road East, Mt Roskill Shops, White Swan Road and Stoddard Road West.

4. An external organiser will be recruited to lead the 2017/18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme.

5. The proposed budget for the Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme is $20,000. This includes the following costs: contractor costs of $10,000, two public seminars costs of $3,000, printing, marketing, collateral and local user group establishment costs $7,000.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the 2017/2018 18 Puketāpapa Business Engagement Programme

Comments

Background

6. The local board allocated $20,000 in its Annual Plan for the delivery of local economic development initiatives in the 2017/18 financial year (PKTPP/2017/92).

7. In order to utilise this budget allocation, staff presented the idea of conducting a business engagement programme as one of the local economic development initiatives at the local board workshop on 14^th September 2017.

8. As part of the development of the programme the local board requested staff further explore the option of contracting an external organiser to develop a business engagement programme in 2017/18.

2017/18 Business Engagement Programme Description

9. The proposed 2017/18 Business Engagement Programme aims to increase the level of engagement with local businesses through a targeted approach, and link in local businesses through to the local board’s existing initiatives such as the Taste of Puketapapa, a culinary event promoting local eateries.

10. The proposed programme consists of establishing local business user groups in Stoddard Road East, Mt Roskill Shops, White Swan Road and Stoddard Road West, and provision of business capability development seminars.

11. The local business user group will be represented by local businesses in one particular business area. The function of the local business users group is to provide an opportunity for networking amongst local businesses and enable contacts and relationships to be formed on an informal basis.

12. It is envisaged that local businesses will see each other as part of a connected business community through these local business users groups, which may then empower them to form into a local business association. To work together to develop a strategy to address any issues while promoting Puketāpapa and attract more customers to the area.

13. A contractor with local business connections will be recruited to lead the engagement with local businesses and establish local businesses users groups.

14. The total cost of the programme is estimated to be $20,000. This covers the cost of employing a contractor to lead the establishment of local business user group ($10,000), delivering two business capability seminars ($3,000), and marketing, printing and establishment cost ($7,000).

Establish Local Business User Groups/ Implementation Plan

15. Eight local business areas have been identified for establishing local business groups. The areas include Stoddard Road East, Carr Road, Three Kings, Mt Roskill Shops, Lynfield/Hillsborough, White Swan Road, Roskill South and Stoddard Road West.

16. The Research and Monitoring Unit at Auckland Council have extracted the local employment numbers for each business area from the 2013 New Zealand Census. They also advised that this is the most recent local employment data available for these areas. The eight local business areas have been put into four tiers based on their number of employees.

Tier	Business Area	Number of Employees (2013)
Tier 1	Stoddard Road East	2,012
Tier 1	Carr Road	925
Tier 2	Three Kings	601
Tier 2	Mt Roskill Shops	574
Tier 3	Lynfield/Hillsborough	220
Tier 3	White Swan Road	124
Tier 4	Roskill South	85
Tier 4	Stoddard Road West	Data not available

17. The resource required for establishing a local business users group will vary in different business areas. Based on staff’s observations, there are more businesses located in tier 1 areas compared to other areas (tier 2, 3 and 4). Therefore the time and effort required for engaging local businesses in tier 1 areas such as Carr Road will be higher than tier 4 areas such as Roskill South.

18. Staff recommend that the local board consider a two phased approach to establishing the local business user groups. Each phase will include establishing one local business users group in each four tiers to space out the workload.

19. Phase 1 will cover the areas including Stoddard Road East, Mt Roskill Shops, White Swan Road and Stoddard Road West in 2017/18. Phase 2 will cover the areas including Carr Road, Three Kings, Lynfield/Hillsborough and Roskill South in 2018/19. This approach will allow the contractor to concentrate resources, build a robust process, and allow for lessons learned in the first phase to be incorporated into the second phase.

20. The following table provides a timeline for the two phased approach.

Phase 1 - Establishing Local Business Users groups in 2017/18	Phase 2 – Establishing Local Business Users groups in 2018/19
Stoddard Road East	Carr Road
Mt Roskill Shops	Three Kings
White Swan Road	Lynfield/Hillsborough
Stoddard Road West	Roskill South

21. The proposed implementation timeline is set out below:

Phase 1	Scope	Date
Project team formation	· Appointment of a contractor · An initial project planning meeting with local board · Re-confirm all contact details in the existing business database · Agreement on project timeline and communication materials	Nov to Dec 2017
Local Business Users Group Setups	· One on one interviews with prospective businesses in each business area · Co-ordination and facilitation of local group meeting on an agreed date including distribution of agenda and minutes	Jan to Jun 2018
On-going support to the local business users group	· Once a local users group is in place, the contractor will hand over the organiser’s role to the group. · Ongoing support to the local business users group meeting	May to Jun 2018
Presentation to local board	· Meeting with the local board to review the project, provide an update on local business users group status and present recommendations for how the local board can continue to build the relationships with the local business user groups.	Jun 2018

Two Business Capability Seminars

22. The local economic development advisor at ATEED will be responsible for arranging business capability seminars with support from the contractor.

23. The topics of the seminars will include social media/marketing and retail strategy. These topics were identified by local businesses as their areas of interests in the 2016 Puketapapa Business Survey.

24. The local economic development advisor will work with the appointed contractor to determine when the seminars will be held. It is suggested the first seminar will be held in March 2018 and the second seminar in June 2018. The seminars could be held early morning before working hours to make it easier for business owners to attend (particularly those in retail). Specialist consultants will be invited to present at the seminars.

25. If there is sufficient interest from local businesses, additional seminars can be arranged in the following year 2018/19. The cost of $3,000 will cover presenter fees, venue hire (if required) and advertising costs to promote the seminars if required.

26. Staff recommend that the local board approves the proposed programme as outlined above. The potential benefits that could result from the programme include:

- Increased collaboration between local businesses to work together through local business users groups.

- Encourage local businesses to network among each other.

- Aid the formation of a future business association in Puketāpapa.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. The local economic advisor from ATEED discussed the proposed business engagement programme with local board in the workshop on 14September and at the board’s community cluster on 4 October.

28. The Local Economic Development Advisor at ATEED will manage the relationship with the contractor, and will be responsible for coordinating with the contractor to deliver the programme.

Māori impact statement

29. Staff are not aware any direct impact on Māori.

Implementation

30. Once the local board has approved the proposed project, ATEED staff will seek proposals from service providers through a tender process. The proposals will be presented to the local board for approval in December 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Luo Lei - Local Economic Development Advisor - ATEED

Authorisers

John Norman- Strategic Planner - ATEED

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

Auckland Transport October 2017 Report

File No.: CP2017/17973

Purpose

1. This report seeks to update the Puketapapa Local Board (the Board) on Auckland Transport’s (AT) activities in the Board area over the last month, recommends that the Board request rough order of costs for several transport capital projects and advises of progress on other Local Board’s capital fund projects.

Executive summary

2. This report recommends that the Board resolve to allocate funds for an investigation of how to deliver its highest priority Greenway project. This priority was established in September 2017 as “Connections to Mt Roskill Shops and Dominion Road Transport Hub”.

3. In addition, the report recommends that the Board request Auckland Transport to provide rough order of costs for bus shelters and smart stud application to zebra crossings in the Board area.

4. After advice from Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters, the report also recommends that the Board allocate $30,000 from its transport capital fund for the installation of tetra traps in the May Road, Denny and Gifford Avenue area.

5. An update is given on the Gilletta Road traffic calming project and other Board transport capital fund projects.

6. Noted is the current status of the Dominion Road bus lane and village upgrade project and the recent decisions of the Traffic Control Committee and a consultation sent to the Board for comment.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the October 2017 Auckland Transport Report.

b) allocate $30,000 from its transport capital fund for further investigation of the “Connections to Mt Roskill Shops and proposed Dominion Road Transport Hub” cycling project in order for Auckland Transport make recommendations to the Board on the best options for delivering this project.

c) advise Auckland Transport which bus shelter locations (or all), it wishes to supply from the Board’s transport capital fund):

· 49 and 64 Boundary Road (2 x1500 Met Shelters, rough order of costs $70,000)

· 93 White Swan Road (1x1500 Met Shelter, rough order of costs $35,000)

· Pah Road, vicinity Seymour Park (1 x1500 Met Shelter, rough order of costs $35,000)

· 30 and 106 Carlton Street (2 x1500 Met Shelters, rough order of costs $70,000)

d) request Auckland Transport to provide rough order of costs for the provision of smart studs at the following zebra crossings:

· Sandringham Road Extension zebra (vicinity Gifford Avenue)

· Mt Albert Road zebra (vicinity Three Kings Plaza)

· Richardson Road zebra (vicinity McKinnon Street).

e) request Auckland Transport to allocate $30,000 from its transport capital fund to allow Healthy Waters to install tetra traps in the May Road, Denny Avenue and Gifford Avenue area.

Comments

Transport Capital Fund Update

Financial Summary

Puketapapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,064,658
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,353,825
Remaining Budget left	$710,833

7. The Puketapapa Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects and the Board is now considering what projects to proceed with in this political term. The projects outlined below were considered at a Board workshop in September.

Greenways Priority Project – Connections to Mt Roskill Shops and Dominion Road Transport Hub

8. In 2012, the Puketapapa Local Board began development of a Greenways Plan that would provide a pleasant series of paths for the community to use to encourage active transport. That plan was a great success and has encouraged other local boards to also implement Greenways Plans.

9. Some routes from that original plan have now been implemented, as well as others in the surrounding network. In light of this, the Board decided in 2017 to review its Greenways network plan to establish its new routes and priorities.

10. At its August 2017 meeting, the Board resolved that AT provide a costing for its highest priority Greenways project. However, at that time, the 2017 Greenways review had not been considered formally by the Board.

11. At its September 2017 meeting, the Board adopted the 2017 Greenways review and established that the pathways known as “Connections to Mt Roskill Shops and Dominion Road Transport Hub” was a priority route as it provides links from the Mt Roskill Safe Routes scheme to a proposed transport hub (likely to be established on Dominion Road).

12. The final costs of this project depend on the treatment selected for the road and it may be possible to stage the project for delivery as the Board’s budget allows.

13. AT recommends that the Board resolve to allocate money from its transport capital fund to provide an investigation of this route and to enable AT to provide the Board with recommendations on best to deliver this project.

14. Due to the complexity of matters to be considered when delivering cycling projects, including consultation, it is possible that this project may not be ready for construction in this electoral term. It may be prudent for the Board to allocate money for the investigation and if necessary, rely on its next tranche of capital fund money in the following political term for the construction.

Bus Shelter Provision

15. The new network for the west has been implemented in the Board area and the new network for the central area is due for delivery mid-2018. To support these changes, AT is rolling out improvements in bus infrastructure as fast as its budget will allow.

16. The Board requested AT to provide them with information on the roll-out of bus shelters in their area and to indicate where gaps in the network will exist that AT is not able to fund currently.

17. This information was provided at the September transport workshop. The following shelter locations were recommended:

· Location	· New Asset	· Approx. Cost
49 and 64 Boundary Rd	· Two 1500 Metshelters	$70,000
93 White Swan Rd	· One 1500 Metshelter	$35,000
Pah Rd (Seymour Park)	· One 1500 Metshelter	$35,000
30 and 106 Carlton St	· Two 1500 Metshelters	$70,000
Total		$210,000

18. The Board did not nominate any priority locations for funding at the workshop or indicate a budget amount. Therefore, all the locations have been put forward for possible funding. The Board may wish to allocate priority at its October meeting through resolution.

Smart Studs at Zebra Crossings

19. Smart studs lighting is a device that can be installed on zebra crossings to improve safety for pedestrians by alerting motorists that a pedestrian is about to cross or crossing. The studs are embedded in the road surface and are activated to flash as a pedestrian approaches and enters the crossing.

20. The Board asked Auckland Transport to recommend some sites in their board area that would be suitable for the installation of these devices. Auckland Transport has put forward the following locations for the consideration of the Board:

· Sandringham Road Extension zebra (vicinity Gifford Avenue)

· Mt Albert Road zebra (vicinity Three Kings Plaza)

· Richardson Road zebra (vicinity McKinnon Street).

· Dominion Road Extension/Richardson Road zebra roundabout.

21. At the Board workshop in September, the Board established that the zebra at the Dominion Road roundabout was not a priority for funding at this stage. Therefore, the recommendations for this report ask the Board to consider the first three locations for funding.

Tetra Traps in the Puketapapa Area

22. Tetra traps provide physical barriers within catchpits to prevent floatable pollutants such as plastic bags and bottles from entering the receiving environment.

23. Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board installed these devices in the Onehunga Bay catchment area that fell within their jurisdiction and invited the Puketapapa Local Board to complete their section of this catchment.

24. Puketapapa Local Board sought the advice of the Healthy Waters team of the Auckland Council. They recommended with the amount of budget that the Board was considering for tetra traps, it would be best to target an area in Mt Roskill rather than the Onehunga Bay catchment.

25. As cost efficiencies for tetra traps may be gained through bulk buying and installation the recommendation was that the Board support funding of $30,000 for an installation of tetra traps along May Road, Denny Avenue and Gifford Avenue.

26. These streets were considered suitable locations as:

· they are adjacent to high-use public areas such as the Mt Roskill Memorial Park, Wesley Intermediate School and the Wesley market.

· Runoff from catchpits in these streets discharges into the Oakley Stream

· Installation of tetra traps at these locations may provide incidental benefits including an opportunity to raise awareness for school children and the community about floatable contaminants entering the water network.

27. Auckland Transport recommends that Healthy Waters delivers this project for the board in order to capitalise on some of the benefits mentioned above. A memo to the Board from Healthy Waters is appended to this report as Attachment A.

Strategic Alignment

28. The projects put forward to Auckland Transport for rough order of costing have all been assessed against the criteria agreed by the Board for allocating money from the Board’s Transport Capital fund. The projects were assessed by members on how they aligned with the Outcomes in the draft 2016- 19 Puketapapa Local Board plan and how they achieved other outcomes agreed by the Board.

29. The analysis sheet was used by the Board as a basis for allocating strategic priority to transport capital fund projects was compiled into a mastersheet based on the Board discussions and is appended to this report as Attachment B.

30. Submissions made to the Puketapapa draft plan 2016-19 were also taken into account when allocating priorities for transport funding.

31. During the prioritisation process, the project that achieved the most alignment with the Outcomes in the Puketapapa LB Plan was the priority greenway link and other measures that supported active transport such as bus shelters and pedestrian improvements.

32. The Board is also proposing to invest in a stormwater project to improve Oakley Stream and its environs with the installation of tetra traps. Making improvements in this catchment area supports the Board’s aim to enhance the natural environment by improving water quality and the receiving environment. This therefore aligned well with the Puketapapa Local Board Plan outcomes.

Update on Existing Transport Capital Projects

Gilletta Road Speed Calming

33. In June 2017, the Board instructed AT to deliver traffic calming proposals along Gilletta Road to a budget of $36,500. At that time, it was not possible to include the speed control device near 68/69 Gilletta Road due to the cost of the extra lighting at this location.

34. Residents along the street expressed some disappointment that the extra speed device was unable to be installed due to the high cost of the light pole installation.

35. Since then, a light pole has been installed and the cost was covered by AT’s infill lighting budget. This has meant that the extra speed control device was able to be installed at 68/69 Gilletta Road as per the Board’s May 2017 resolution within the allocated funding. This extra device has been approved by the Chair.

36. This project is now complete.

37. The Board’s current Local Board projects are summarised in the table below:

Project	Description	Status	Projected Cost
Fearon Park Pathway	A shared path to be constructed through Fearon Park.	This is being managed by Auckland Council Parks. First stage of the greenway path is complete and the second section of the pathway by the playground will be completed by June 2018.	$190,000
Gilletta Road Safety Improvements	Adding traffic calming devices to curb speeding and burnouts in the street.	Completed	$36,500
Richardson Road carpark realignment and Lighting project	A project to shift parking in the carpark to facilitate the construction of a shared path past the kindergarten. This will complete the missing link in the Mt Roskill safe route scheme.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in August 2017. This project will be managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities.	$220,000
Keith Hay Park Lighting – Southern Section	Continuing the lighting project from the northern section to the southern end of the park past Noton Road carpark to Richardson Road.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in August 2017. This project will be managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities.	$350,000

Regional and Sub Regional Projects

Dominion Road Bus Lane Improvement Project Progress

38. Some optimisation of bus stop locations has taken place to ensure a good fit with shelters and to fit into the sidewalk space. Consultation materials are being developed for issue to local residents and businesses. Feedback from internal departments has been received and is being worked through.

39. The double decker verandah trimming works will be jointly delivered with the bus works to reduce disruption to business and the community.

40. Designs for the village upgrades is continuing and will be reported back to the community liaison group in late October 2017.

Double Decker Buses on Manukau Road

41. The Manukau Road double decker operational Route 30 is due to go live in April 2018, with one part in the CBD open for operation in January 2018. The route only travels 120 metres through the Puketapapa ward, down Manukau Road, between Greenfield Road and Chandler Avenue.

42. AT Metro is planning mitigation measures along the road corridor to ensure the clearance parameters for double decker buses on routes and at bus stops are met. As a result, AT metro have proposed physical changes at a number of locations along the route to meet these requirements.

43. Tree issues form a significant part in the mitigation measures required for double decker bus operation. Along the route there are 236 trees which have been identified as affected and only nine trees have been identified as needing minor pruning in the Puketapapa Local Board area.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

44. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Puketapapa Local Board area in August and September 2017.

Street	Area	Work	Decision
Commodore Drive	Lynfield	No Stopping At All Times	Carried
Glass Road / Gerbic Place	Mt Roskill	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Give-Way control and Road Hump	Carried
Camellia Place, Oakdale Road, Arundale Street, Sylvester Avenue, Locke Avenue, Noton Road	Mt Roskill	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	NSAATt, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Give-Way Control, Edge Line, Removal Of Bus Stop
Warren Avenue, Hayr Road, Mt Albert Road	Three Kings	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Lane Arrows, Traffic Signal Control, Stop Control, Flush Median, Edge Line

Consultation Items

45. Auckland Transport provides the Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in its Local Board Area.

46. In this reporting period, one consultation was sent to the Board.

Selwyn St/Pah Rd intersection

Auckland Transport is seeking feedback on a proposal to upgrade the intersection of Pah Road and Selwyn Road in Epsom.

AT is proposing to upgrade the intersection of Pah Road and Selwyn Road in Epsom. AT is responding to local requests to address the safety and efficiency of right turn movements at this intersection. We propose to install traffic signals, pedestrian crossings and cycle stop box facilities that will improve the intersection for all modes of travel.

Changes include:

· installing traffic lights and signalised pedestrian crossings.

· Installing pram crossings and tactile pavers on footpaths leading to the intersection

· Marking new on-roadcycle stop boxes.

· Modifying the southbound T3 lane on Pah Rd.

· Removing the raised traffic island on Selwyn Rd.

· Trimming trees where necessary to improve visibility of new traffic signals

Circulated 14 August 2017.

Kingsway and Queensway Pedestrian improvements

AT is proposing to upgrade pedestrian crossing facilities at the Kingsway / Queensway intersection to improve pedestrian safety.

Currently, school children are crossing the road here without proper facilities.

The proposed changes will provide a safer crossing environment for pedestrians, and the installation of broken yellow lines will provide the required visibility for the crossing.

Circulated 4 October 2017

Consideration

Local board views and implications

47. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

48. 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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memo from Healthy Waters dated 8/9/17 re Tetra trap installation	57
b ⇩	Benefit Analysis Scoresheet	61

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

Approval for a new road name within the subdivision at 14 - 16 Lowery Avenue and 3 - 7 Bristol Rd, Mount Roskill

File No.: CP2017/20583

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board, for road names for one new private road within a subdivision development at 14 – 16 Lowery Avenue and 3 – 7 Bristol Road, Mount Roskill.

Executive summary

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

3. The Applicant, Housing New Zealand Corporation Ltd, have submitted the following road names in order of preference :

Road No.	Type	Preferred	Alternate 1	Alternate 2
Lot 13	Lane	Matomato	Huawhenua	Kame

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the road name for the new private road within the subdivision development at 14–16 Lowery Avenue and 3–7 Bristol Road, Mount Roskill.

Comments

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

6. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

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

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

Lots serviced are:

Lane	Lots Serviced	Adjacent Named Roads
Lot 13	2 - 8	Bristol Road

8. Maps showing the road and surrounding lots with existing property addresses are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

9. The Applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below, in order of preference. All names meet the criteria through supporting a Māori identity.

Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Matomato Lane (Preferred)	The Māori name for green foliage, to grow vigorously, flourish, lush greens. There will be veggie planter boxes in the gardens of the new homes. Matomato would fit nicely with this development in relation to encouraging veggies planted to grow well and is our preferred choice.
Huawhenua Lane	Vegetable. A plant raised for edible use.
Kame Lane	To eat. Again this fits well with the planting of food for our tenants to eat.

10. The road naming criteria suggests that the road types could be referred to as Lane – a narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway. The applicant preferred type is Lane.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

12. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

13. Local iwi, including Ngati Whatua o Orakei were consulted by the applicant and no comments were received.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Map	67
b ⇩	Site Map	69

Signatories

Authors	Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor
Authorisers	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

Review of representation arrangements - process

File No.: CP2017/21863

Purpose

1. To provide comments to the Governing Body on the proposed process (in Attachment B to the agenda report) 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 them 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:

i. Whether members are elected at-large or by ward or a combination

ii. 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:

i. The number of members

ii. Whether local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large

iii. If by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision boundaries and names

iv. The local board name.

6. It is not possible to review the number of governing body members. This is set in the Auckland Council legislation. 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.

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

13. 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.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements – report to Governing Body meeting on 28 September 2017	73
b ⇩	Process to conduct a review of representation arrangements – resolution of Governing Body	81

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton, Principal Advisor Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson – Governance Director

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

Public alerting framework for Auckland

File No.: CP2017/19605

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 Puketāpapa 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 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 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.

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 (see Appendix 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. (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

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 Appendix 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 Maori 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

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	89
b ⇩	GNS Science report	99

Signatories

Authors

Celia Wilson, Project Manager

Authorisers

Craig Glover, Head of Strategy and Planning

John Dragicevich, Civil Defence Emergency Management Director

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 October 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/21864

Purpose

1. To seek feedback from the 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 Puketāpapa 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:

- construction and demolition waste

- organic waste and

- 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 Puketāpapa 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:

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

- 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:

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

- addressing three priority commercial waste streams;

- construction and demolition waste,

- organic waste, and

- plastic waste

- 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;

- construction and demolition waste

- organic waste, and

- 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

Victoria Villaraza - 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	Harry Doig
Deputy Chairperson	Julie Fairey
Members	Anne-Marie Coury
	David Holm
	Shail Kaushal
	Ella Kumar, JP

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager