I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Thursday, 19
October 2017
2.00pm
Council
Chamber
Orewa Service Centre
50 Centreway Road
Orewa
|
|
Rodney Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Beth Houlbrooke
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Phelan Pirrie
|
|
|
Members
|
Brent Bailey
|
|
|
|
Tessa Berger
|
|
|
|
Cameron Brewer
|
|
|
|
Louise Johnston
|
|
|
|
Allison Roe, MBE
|
|
|
|
Colin Smith
|
|
|
|
Brenda Steele
|
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
|
Raewyn Morrison
Local Board Democracy Advisor
13 October 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3399
Email: raewyn.morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
|
Board Member
|
Organisation
|
Position
|
|
Brent Bailey
|
Royal NZ Yacht Squadron
Kaipara College Board of Trustees
Gumboots Early Learning Centre
|
Member
Parent Representative
Director
|
|
Tessa Berger
|
Mahurangi Action Incorporated
Mahurangi Coastal Trail Trust
The Merchandise Collective
Friends of Regional Parks
Matakana Coast Trail Trust
|
President
Chairperson
Founder/Director
Committee Member
Member Forum representative
|
|
Cameron Brewer
|
Riverhead Residents & Ratepayers
Association
Passchendaele Society Inc.
New Zealand National Party
Cameron Brewer Communications Limited
Spire Investments Limited
|
Member
Member
Member
Director
Shareholder
|
|
Beth Houlbrooke
|
Sweet Adelines New Zealand (Charitable
Trust)
Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Assn.
Kawau Island Boat Club
|
Member
Member
Member
|
|
Louise Johnston
|
Blackbridge Environmental Protection
Society
|
Treasurer
|
|
Phelan Pirrie
|
Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade
Best Berries (NZ) Ltd
|
Officer in Charge
Director/Shareholder
|
|
Allison Roe
|
Waitemata District Health Board
Matakana Coast Trail Trust
New Zealander of the Year Awards
|
Elected Member
Chairperson
Chief Category Judge/Community
|
|
Colin Smith
|
-
|
|
|
Brenda Steele
|
Te Uri o Hau
Ngati Whatua o Kaipara
Kaipara Cruising Club
|
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Member
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation
of Minutes 5
5 Leave
of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
8.1 Punganui Station - Greenways, Village Green
Project 5
8.2 Kaipara RSA - proposal for township
enhancement Helensville 6
9 Public
Forum 6
10 Extraordinary Business 6
11 Notices of Motion 7
12 Huapai Hub stage 1B
funding allocation 9
13 Community Grant - The
Charitable Trust of Henderson Rotary Club Incorporated 17
14 Public alerting framework
for Auckland 31
15 Feedback on the proposed
direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 103
16 Review of representation
arrangements - process 109
17 Ward Councillor Update 121
18 Rodney Local Board
Chairperson's Report 123
19 Governance Forward Work
Programme 127
20 Deputation/Public Forum
Update 131
21 Rodney Local Board
Workshop Records 135
22 Consideration
of Extraordinary Items
2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration
of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from
decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private
or other external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Rodney Local Board:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 21 September 2017, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been
received.
7 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been
received.
8 Deputations
Standing
Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are
required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications
are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that
details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total
speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
|
8.1 Punganui
Station - Greenways, Village Green Project
|
|
Purpose
1. Anthony
Woodward will be in attendance to give an update on the progress of a
feasibility study funded by the local board for a greenways, village green
project at Punganui Station near Kaukapakapa.
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) thank
Anthony Woodward for his presentation on the proposal for a greenways and
village green project at Punganui Station, near Kaukapakapa.
|
|
8.2 Kaipara
RSA - proposal for township enhancement Helensville
|
|
Purpose
1. Representatives
from Kaipara RSA will be in attendance to outline a proposal for main street
town centre improvements and enhancements in Helensville.
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) thank
the representatives from Kaipara RSA for their proposal for main street town
centre improvements and enhancements in Helensville.
|
9 Public Forum
A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been
received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt
with at that meeting if-
(a) The
local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The
presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public,-
(i) The reason why
the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item
may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That
item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority;
and
(ii) the
presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is
open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no
resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item
except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for
further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
There were no
notices of motion.
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Huapai Hub
stage 1B funding allocation
File No.: CP2017/21401
Purpose
1. To
obtain approval for the allocation of $130,000 to design and complete stage 1B
of the Huapai Hub project.
Executive
summary
2. The Rodney Local Board allocated $100,000 from its 2016/2017 Locally
Driven Initiative budget for stage 1A of the Huapai Hub project in December
2016. Work on the construction of stage 1A is about to commence.
3. Stage
1B of the Huapai Hub project will comprise the adjacent decking, shelter,
seating and landscaping that will provide the central focal point for the new
community space. This is estimated to cost $130,000 including design, consents
and construction.
4. It
would be more cost efficient, timely and coherent if both stages 1A and 1B were
able to be built together.
5. Adequate
staff resourcing and support is essential to the success of this project and
this will continue to be made available by the relevant departments.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) allocate $130,000 from the 2017/2018 financial year Locally Driven
Initiatives capex budget for Town Centre Improvements to complete the design,
consent and build of stage 1B of the Huapai Hub project.
|
Comments
6. The
Huapai Hub project is creating a multi-use community gathering space in the
area behind the Kumeu Arts Centre in Kumeu-Huapai. It is being developed using
an innovative community-led process with support from council staff.
7. The
design work for the Huapai Hub was contracted to Resilio Studio Limited who
worked with the local community to develop an overall framework plan for the
Huapai Hub consisting of a number of different elements.
8. An
overview of the project was presented to the local board by the Huapai Hub
Community Convening group and Resilio Ltd on 17 August 2017. This presentation
outlined the progress to date and explained the different elements and stages.
9. In
December 2016, the Rodney Local Board agreed to allocate $100,000 to the Huapai
Project (RD/2017/174). This funding will be used to complete the design and
build of the area marked 1A on the attached plan (Attachment A). Construction
is about to commence on this area.
10. The
adjacent area, marked 1B on the attached plan consists of the central
performance space, seating and storage. A 3D image of the space can be seen in
Attachment B. It includes the decking platform and shelter, a large storage
container, landscaping and terracing surrounding the deck and platform.
11. The
updated estimated cost for stage 1B, of $130,000, is more than the original
estimated cost for two reasons. The original layout worked around the existing
water tanks and the proposed Arts Centre extension. The Convening Group has
been informed that the tanks will be moved next year, necessitating the
platform and container design to allow for interactions from the park side as
well as the Arts Centre side. It also appears that the Arts Centre extension
design is likely to take time to confirm, so the design and installation of
that part of the space in stage 1B needs to be more flexible than was
originally designed.
Estimated budget breakdown for these
elements:
Deck platform and shelter $60,000
Converted shipping container $25,000
Landscaping and terracing $25,000
Design and consenting $20,000
Total $130,000
12. In
many respects the elements contained within 1B are at the heart of the Huapai
Hub project. They will provide a central focus point in the context of the
attractive, newly landscaped wider area. They have interesting design and
architectural features and will convey a strong new sense of place.
13. It
would be advantageous to be able to build both stages 1A and 1B of the Huapai
Hub project together. It would be more cost effective and it would mean that
the whole of stage 1 of the project could be completed in a more timely and
coherent manner.
14. The Huapai Hub has also been identified as a key project in the
newly developed Kumeu-Huapai Centre Plan. It would lend significant credibility
to the centre plan if it were followed up with a substantial practical project
like this one that is widely supported by the local community.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
15. The
local board has already allocated funding to the initial stages of the Huapai
Hub project and has recently indicated that this is a priority project for the
local board.
Māori
impact statement
16. The
Convening Group has made efforts to engage local iwi, Ngati Whatua, throughout
the design and consultation process. The group plans to invite members of
interested iwi to the proposed ground breaking ceremony, working bee and
celebration in November. There are also opportunities in future stages and pieces
of work in the space, for iwi to be involved.
Implementation
17. Resilio Studio Ltd has been selected to provide the design and
landscape architectural services from project inception through to detailed
design. This has been completed for stage 1A. Once a developed design for stage
1B is approved by all parties, Sarah Jones, Principal Project Manager Park
Amenities will oversee the construction and installation of the project. This
will include approval of the design and location of any structures and
equipment. This initiative and the associated community
engagement are considered feasible with the support of all staff concerned.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Huapai Hub Stage 1B Plan
|
13
|
|
b⇩ 
|
Hupai Hub Image
|
15
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Sarah Jones - Principal Project Manager –
Park Amenities
|
|
Authorisers
|
Cherie Veza – Stakeholder Advisor
Kathryn Martin - Acting Relationship Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Community Grant - The Charitable Trust of Henderson
Rotary Club Incorporated
File No.: CP2017/20927
Purpose
1. When
considering applications for round two of the Rodney Local Grants 2016/2017 at
the 15 June 2017 business meeting a late multi-board application from The
Charitable Trust of the Henderson Rotary Club Incorporated was overlooked. This
report seeks resolution from the Rodney Local Board to accept this late
application and agree to fund, part-fund or decline this project.
Executive
summary
2. On
15 June 2017 the local board considered round two of the Rodney Local Grants 2016/2017.
Due to an administrative oversight a late multi-board application from The
Charitable Trust of Henderson was overlooked and there was no decision made on
accepting the late application for consideration and whether to fund, part-fund
or decline the application.
3. The
application was for the following:
|
LG1721-214
|
The
Charitable Trust of the Henderson Rotary Club Incorporated
|
Community
|
For
the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness (RYDA) programme
towards the cost of the facilitators (instructors) who deliver the programme
|
$936.00
|
4. The
original report for the June business meeting is attached at Attachment A to
the agenda report which shows recommendation c), the application from The
Charitable Trust of the Henderson Rotary Club which was overlooked in the final
resolution in the minutes. Also attached at Attachment B to the agenda report
is the application itself.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) accept
a late multi-board community grants application and agree to fund, part-fund
or decline the application below:
|
LG1721-214
|
The Charitable Trust of the Henderson
Rotary Club Incorporated
|
Community
|
For
the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness (RYDA) programme
towards the cost of the facilitators (instructors) who deliver the programme
|
$ $936.00
|
|
|
Comments
5. A
total of $146,690.00 was
allocated under quick response round one, two and three and local grants round
one, leaving a balance of $122,310.00.
6. At
the May Rodney Local Board business meeting the local board resolved to
reallocate the 2016/2017 Local Discretionary Initiatives Community Response
Fund budget of $46,000 to the community grants fund (RD/2017/85).
7. Therefore,
a total of $168,310 remained be allocated to the remaining round of local
grants for 2016/2017.
8. At
the June business meeting the local board allocated all its available funding
in its community grants budget, totalling $168,310. It was noted at a local
board workshop prior to the business meeting that the multi-board application
from The Charitable Trust of the Henderson Rotary Club was out of the local
board area.
9. The
local board have no community grants funding available in the 2017/2018
financial year and would need to reallocate from other existing opex budgets if
the application was to be funded.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
10. The local
board discussed the applications for community grants at a workshop prior to
the business meeting and noted the application from The Charitable Trust of the
Henderson Rotary Club was outside the local board area.
Māori
impact statement
11. 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 Maori. As a guide for
decision-making in the allocation of community grants, the new Community Grants
Policy supports the principles of delivering positive outcomes for Māori.
Implementation
12. Following the
decision on the application from The Charitable Trust of the Henderson Rotary
Club, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicant of the local
board’s decision.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Report from 15 June 2017 business meeting
|
19
|
|
b⇩
|
Application from The Charitable Trust of the Henderson
Rotary Club
|
27
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October 2017
|
|
Public alerting framework for Auckland
File No.: CP2017/22217
Purpose
1. To
provide information on the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland. The
report also provides the results of an analysis carried out by GNS Science,
identifying communities at risk from tsunami across Auckland.
2. In
addition, the report seeks in-principle support for the proposed enhancement of
Auckland’s tsunami siren network.
Executive summary
3. In
February 2017, the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group
Committee endorsed the draft Public Alerting Framework for Auckland.
4. Following
on from this, crown research agency, GNS Science was commissioned to provide an
analysis of those communities most at risk from tsunami within the orange and
red tsunami evacuation zones.
5.
The GNS report and the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland was presented to
local boards in workshop sessions. Auckland Emergency Management is asking
local boards for in principle support for the Public Alerting Framework and for
an enhanced tsunami siren network.
6. Next
steps involve procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage. Further
information will be presented to local boards in due course.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) note
the approach to public alerting as outlined in the Public Alerting Framework
for Auckland (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 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 one hour as well as locally
generated tsunami. Tsunami can be categorised as local, regional or distant
based on their travel time or distance to the Auckland coastline.
· Local source – less than one hour travel time. These tsunamis
can be generated by offshore faults, underwater landslide or volcanic activity.
· Regional source – Earthquakes in and around the Pacific
Islands and the Tonga-Kermadec Trench one to three hours travel time to
Auckland
· Distant source – Commonly generated by a large earthquake from
any location around the Pacific Rim including but not limited to South America,
Japan, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The travel time to Auckland will be three
hours or greater. [4]
Figure 1. This map shows the position of
New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean within an area of intense seismic activity
called the ‘Ring of Fire’. Source: GNS Science
Tsunami
sirens
8. Currently,
Auckland has 44 fixed tsunami warning sirens across nine sites in legacy Rodney
and Waitakere. These sirens were installed in 2008 and 2010 and do not meet
current government technical standards[5]
for tsunami warning sirens. All new and existing siren installations will need
to meet these standards by June 2020.
9. Auckland Emergency Management
is currently investigating the upgrading of its existing siren network from
‘tone-only’ sirens to those with PA/voiceover loudspeaker
capability. The sirens have a strong immediate effect and can prompt immediate
action to seek further information. There are valuable benefits in using
tsunami sirens, in particular, sirens can be used when other communications
(e.g. cell phones and radio broadcasting) may not have the maximum reach or be
as effective. It is commonly accepted across the emergency management sector
that effective public alerting systems are those that take a holistic view.
This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned, understood, and in
conjunction with effective public education information and campaigns. This is
imperative for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting that
communities can use and understand.
10. The limited locations of the present
tsunami siren systems have been identified as a gap in the public alerting
capabilities of Auckland region. Presently, Auckland is not well represented by
tsunami sirens with the estimated reach of Auckland’s current sirens
being only eight per cent of the ‘at-risk’ population.
Auckland’s tsunami siren network is currently being considered for
enhancement and expansion through the delivery of the Public Alerting Framework
Public Alerting Framework
11. Auckland Council has recognised the need
for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting through the adoption of
the Public Alerting Framework. The Framework, which was approved for
consultation with local boards in February 2017, has been designed to:
· explain what public alerting in a Civil Defence and Emergency
Management (CDEM) sense is, what it can and cannot do;
· give detail on the range of channels for public alerting currently
available in Auckland;
· highlight the advances being taken with regards to public alerting
at a national level;
· provide some commentary on tsunami sirens, their uses and
limitations; and
· assist with decisions taken by the Auckland CDEM Group Committee,
local boards and partners and stakeholders with regards to the prioritisation
of budgets and options for enhancing public alerting across the Auckland
region.
12. Auckland
Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as
such, has allocated funds from the Long-term plan for this venture. This
funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of
Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.
13. It
is important to understand that no one public alerting system is without fault.
The Public Alerting Framework focusses on the use of multi-platforms,
understanding that a holistic approach is one that maximises the reach of
public alerting in an emergency or hazard event. Through this project,
prioritised public education is critical. Without effective public education
and engagement activities, sirens alone are not considered a standalone
approach to public alerting.
GNS Science
report
Introduction
and methodology
14. Following
the endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, crown research agency GNS
Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (see Appendix B) of
those communities most at-risk of tsunami.
15. A
GIS based analysis was used to calculate the number of exposed residents in
communities. The analysis used 2013 census population data to identify
the number of residents located in the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones.
(see Figure 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology
please see Appendix B.
Figure 2. Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used
in the GNS Science analysis
Results
16. The
results of the analysis carried out by GNS Science identified 217 communities
at-risk from tsunami. For all 217 communities modelled, there are a total of 49,853
people at-risk from tsunami in the orange and red evacuation zones. For
detailed information on the results of this analysis including detail on those
communities at risk of tsunami please refer to the report from GNS Science at
Appendix B.
Next steps
17. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region in
order to share the results of the GNS Science report and the intention to
implement an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network. This report
seeks in-principle support for this enhanced and expanded network. More
information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will
be reported in due course
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
18. Workshops
on tsunami risk were held with local boards in 2016. Following the
development of the Public Alerting Framework further information on tsunami
risk, including the results of the GNS Science report, were shared with local
boards between July and October 2017. Local boards were told that
in-principle support for the enhanced and expanded tsunami siren network would
be sought at formal business meetings of local boards.
19. As
key decision makers representing local communities, local board input into this
important project will continue.
Māori impact statement
20. There
are no particular impacts on Māori communities which are different from the general population
arising from this report. The Public Alerting Framework for Auckland
notes the importance of community resilience, of reaching all members of the
community and of having systems in place to ensure that public alert messages
are understood and ubiversal.
Implementation
21. Once in-principle support has been achieved, procurement and design
of tsunami siren and signage will be undertaken.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Public Alerting Framework
|
37
|
|
b⇩
|
GNS Science report
|
47
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Celia Wilson, Project Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Craig Glover, Head of Strategy and
Planning
John Dragicevich, Civil Defence
Emergency Management Director
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan
File No.: CP2017/21681
Purpose
1. To
seek feedback from the Rodney Local Board on the proposed direction of the
draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review.
Executive
summary
2. Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of its Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan. This plan is prepared under the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008, and is part of council’s responsibility to promote
effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.
3. This report seeks feedback from the Rodney Local Board on the
revised proposed approach to waste management and minimisation. In particular:
· advocating
to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship
· addressing
three priority commercial waste streams:
o construction
and demolition waste
o organic
waste, and
o plastic
waste
· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled
organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and
demolition waste.
4. These
points were initially discussed with local boards during September and
October workshops on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
5. The
proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be presented to the
Environment and Community Committee in December 2017, seeking approval to
publicly notify the draft plan. Formal feedback from all local boards will be
included as a part of this report.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) provide
feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan.
|
Comments
Legislative context
6. Under
the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, Auckland Council is required to adopt a Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan, as part of its responsibility to promote
effective and efficient waste management.
7. The
first Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted by council in
2012. It set an aspirational vision of achieving zero waste to landfill by
2040. It placed initial priority on waste reduction within the waste services
that are more directly managed by council, which account for approximately 20
per cent of all waste to landfill in the region.
8. Council
is required to review the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan every
six years. This includes conducting a Waste Assessment to review progress, to
forecast future demand for waste services, and to identify options to meet
future demand. This assessment was completed in mid-2017, and the findings have
been outlined below.
Findings of the Waste
Assessment: progress and challenges
9. Under the first Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, seven
separate council-managed waste services to households are being merged into one
standardised region-wide service. This has included:
· introducing
a new inorganic collection service
· introducing
large bins for recycling across the region
· introducing
bins for refuse in areas that had bag collections
· establishing
five community recycling centres in Waiuku, Helensville, Devonport, Henderson
and Whangaparaoa, with another seven to be established by 2024.
10. Some service
changes agreed under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 are still
to be introduced to standardise the approach across the whole Auckland region,
most notably, a food waste collection in urban areas and pay-as-you-throw
charge for kerbside refuse collections.
11. Whilst the
council-managed services have achieved waste minimisation, the total amount of
waste to landfill has increased by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2016. This is
due to the increased amounts of commercial waste being generated, particularly
construction and demolition waste. The amount of waste sent to landfill is
projected to continue to grow unless a concerted effort is made to intervene to
address this trend.
12. Barriers to
waste minimisation in Auckland include the low cost of sending waste to
landfill compared to diverting waste to other productive uses, the lack of
financial incentives to divert waste from landfill, the lack of council
influence over the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed, and rapid
population growth.
Options
analysis
13. The Waste
Assessment identified and evaluated three options to guide the direction of the
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018, as follows below.
14. Option one:
status quo involving full implementation of the Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan 2012. Undertaking the actions agreed in 2012 will focus
interventions on 20 per cent of waste within council’s direct control.
Although this option could be implemented within council’s waste budget
envelope it would not meet council’s responsibilities under the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in Auckland.
15. Option two:
expanded focus. Full implementation of the Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan 2012 and a focus on three priority commercial waste streams
identified in the Waste Assessment - construction and demolition waste, organic
waste and plastic waste. This option addresses the 80 per cent of waste outside
of council’s direct control and could be implemented within the current
waste budget, with some reprioritisation.
16. Option three:
significant investment in residual waste treatment technologies. This option
requires development of residual waste treatment facilities, with energy from
waste (mass-burn incineration facilities) likely to achieve the best diversion.
Significant investment is needed from both the private and public sector to
develop these technologies, and there would be reputational risks associated
with disposal of waste by incineration.
17. It is
proposed the council adopts option two, which has the potential to
significantly reduce total waste to landfill, and can be undertaken within the
current funding envelope.
Proposed
updates to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012
18. It is
proposed that the new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will continue the
direction of the 2012 Plan, and extend the focus of council activity from the
20 per cent of waste that is directly managed by council and its contractors,
to the other 80 per cent that is commercially managed.
19. The proposed
vision of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is ‘Auckland
aspires to be zero waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment,
and turning waste into resources’.
20. It is proposed
that zero waste is maintained as an aspirational target. Achieving high
diversion rates in Auckland (in the order of 80 per cent as achieved by an
exemplar city, San Francisco) is considered to be a successful response to such
an aspirational target.
21. To achieve
the zero waste vision, three goals are proposed: minimise waste generation,
maximise opportunities for resource recovery, and reduce harm from residual
waste.
22. Three updated
targets are proposed:
· total
waste; reduce by 30 per cent by 2027 (no change from the current waste plan)
· domestic
waste: reduce by 30 per cent by 2020/2021 (extension of date from 2018 to align
with the roll-out of the food waste kerbside collection service; a new target
will be set once this is achieved)
· council’s
own waste;
o reduce
office waste by 60 per cent by 2040 (target doubled from current waste plan)
o work
across council to set a baseline for operational waste (generated as a result
of council activities such as property maintenance, construction and
demolition, and events, and implement these baseline targets by 2019.
23. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan identifies
the actions that will be undertaken over the next six years. The priority actions
that will have the biggest impact on waste reduction include:
· continued
delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, including the
transition to consistent kerbside services (including introduction of a
kerbside organic collection in urban areas and the standardisation of
pay-as-you throw kerbside refuse collection across the region), and
establishment of the resource recovery network
· a
focus on addressing the 80 per cent of waste that council does not directly
influence, by;
o advocating
to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship
o addressing
three priority commercial waste streams;
- construction
and demolition waste,
- organic
waste, and
- plastic
waste
o addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled
organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and
demolition waste.
24. The draft
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will put emphasis on partnership and
engagement with other sectors that are relevant to the priority action areas.
Council recognises that it cannot achieve its waste minimisation
responsibilities by acting alone.
25. It is
important to note that council has limited tools to address commercially
managed waste. Achieving policy changes at central government level will be
essential to achieving waste to landfill reductions in Auckland. If council is
unsuccessful in its advocacy, targets will not be met.
Request for
local board feedback
26. Local boards
are being asked whether they support the proposed approach taken in the draft
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and in particular the focus on:
· advocating
to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship
· addressing
three priority commercial waste streams;
o construction
and demolition waste
o organic
waste, and
o plastic
waste
· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled
organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and
demolition waste.
Financial implications
27. The actions
proposed in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be achieved within
existing waste funding. Funding will be obtained through a combination of:
· pay-as-you-throw
domestic refuse collections, which will be progressively introduced across the
region
· rates
funding, and
· revenue
from the waste levy (from the $10 per tonne waste levy that is administered by
the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to
councils, amounting to $6.1 million for Auckland Council in 2016).
28. Infrastructure
to enable commercial resource recovery will require investment from external
sources such as government and the private sector.
29. The budget
for implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be considered
through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
30. Workshops
were held with all local boards in September and October 2017 to discuss the
proposals set out in this report. This report seeks formal feedback from local
boards.
Māori
impact statement
31. Mana whenua
and mātāwaka have been actively engaged in implementing the Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. A number of initiatives have enabled waste minimisation from a te ao Māori context. Through
Para Kore ki Tāmaki, marae in the Auckland region are able to foster
kaitiakitanga practices and affirm their connections with the natural
world. More than 2,000 whānau participate in the programme annually, and
over 50 Para Kore zero waste events have been held since the programme rolled
out in 2014. The programme provides a catalyst for taking the kaitiakitanga
message from the marae into homes and the community. Protecting
Papatūānuku, connecting with traditions and showing respect for
customs has become a priority for whānau through this programme.
32. The proposed
draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan seeks to present a stronger mana
whenua and mātāwaka perspective, recognising the close alignment
between te ao Māori and zero waste. Two mana whenua hui and one
mātāwaka hui held in June 2017 have identified mana whenua and
matāwaka principles and priorities, for direct inclusion into the draft
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
Implementation
33. The draft
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will have financial implications, as the
targeted rate for food waste must be costed and included in consultation on the
draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. It is proposed that this be
aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This will ensure
that any budget implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Parul Sood, General Manager Waste Solutions (Acting)
Julie Dickinson, Waste Planning Manager (Acting)
|
|
Authorisers
|
Barry Potter, Director Infrastructure and
Environmental Services
Carol McKenzie-Rex Acting General Manager Local Board
Services
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Review of representation arrangements - process
File No.: CP2017/21778
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 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:
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 Rodney 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
|
111
|
|
b⇩
|
Process to conduct a review of representation
arrangements – resolution of Governing Body
|
119
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Warwick McNaughton, Principal Advisor
Democracy Services
|
|
Authorisers
|
Phil Wilson – Governance Director
Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board
Services
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Ward Councillor Update
File No.:
CP2017/00046
Purpose
1. The
Rodney Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillor, Cr Greg
Sayers, to update them on the activities of the Governing Body.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) thank
Cr Sayers for his update to the Rodney Local Board on the activities of the
Governing Body.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Raewyn Morrison - Local Board
Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship
Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Rodney Local Board Chairperson's Report
File No.: CP2017/21361
Purpose
1. Attached
for members’ information is an update from the Rodney Local Board
chairperson.
Executive
summary
2. The
Rodney Local Board chairperson has provided a report on recent activities for
the information of the members.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) note
the chairperson’s report.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Chairperson's Report October 2017
|
125
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Beth Houlbrooke - Rodney Local Board Chairperson
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Governance Forward Work Programme
File No.: CP2017/21357
Purpose
1. To
present to the local board with a governance forward work calendar. The
document was not available at the time of the agenda going to print and will be
tabled on the day.
Executive
Summary
2. This
report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that
will come before the local board at business meetings and workshops over the
coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work
calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A.
3. The
calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on
agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice
is required and when
· clarifying the
rationale for reports.
4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be
reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff.
It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local
board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) note
the governance forward work calendar.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Governance Forward Work Programme
|
129
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jonathan Hope - Local Board Advisor - Rodney
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Deputation/Public Forum Update
File No.:
CP2017/21358
Purpose
1. As
part of its business meetings Rodney Local Board has a period of time set aside
for Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum during which time members of the
public can address the local board on matters within its delegated authority.
Executive Summary
2. Under
Standing Orders there is provision for Deputations/Presentations to the local
board. Applications for Deputations/Presentations must be in writing setting
forth the subject and be received by the Relationship Manager at least seven
working days before the meeting concerned, and subsequently have been approved
by the Chairperson. Unless the meeting determines otherwise in any
particular case, a limit of ten minutes is placed on the speaker making the
presentation.
3. Standing
Orders allows three minutes for speakers in Public Forum.
4. Requests,
matters arising and actions from the Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum
are recorded and updated accordingly. The Rodney Local Board
Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum Update is attached as Attachment A.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) note
the Deputation/Public Forum Update for the Rodney Local Board.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Deputation/Public Forum Update
|
133
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Raewyn Morrison - Local Board
Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship
Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
Rodney Local Board Workshop Records
File No.:
CP2017/21359
Purpose
1. Attached
is the Rodney Local Board workshop record for Thursday, 14 and 28 September,
and 5 October 2017.
Executive Summary
2. The
Rodney Local Board holds regular workshops.
3. Attached
for information is the record of the most recent workshop meeting of the Rodney
Local Board.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) note
the workshop record for Thursday, 14 and 28 September, and 5 October 2017.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
14 September workshop record
|
137
|
|
b⇩
|
28 September workshop record
|
139
|
|
c⇩ 
|
5 October workshop record
|
141
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Raewyn Morrison - Local Board
Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kathryn Martin – Acting Relationship
Manager
|
|
Rodney Local
Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
|
Rodney Local Board
19 October
2017
|
|
