Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 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

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 5

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Notice of Motion - Support for the erection of the lit Star / Cross on Puketāpapa / Pukewiwi at Christmas and Easter 7

13 Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members Update 13

14 Chairperson's Report, November 2017 15

15 Board Member Reports 19

16 Auckland Transport November 2017 Report 29

17 Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018 Grant Applications 47

18 Renewal and variation of community lease to Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated, Keith Hay Park North, 55 Arundel Street, Mt Roskill 77

19 Renewal and variation of community lease to Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust, Mt Roskill War Memorial Park, 13 May Rd, Mt Roskill 85

20 Locally Driven Initiatives 2017/2018 funding allocation – Walmsley Park toilet construction 91

21 Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Puketāpapa Local Board for quarter one, 1 July - 30 September 2017 95

22 Feedback on draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 129

23 Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks 135

24 Governance Forward Work Calendar 143

25 Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Notes 147

26 Resolutions Pending Action Schedule 155

27 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 19 October 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

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) or Standing Order 1.9.1 (LBS 3.10.17) (revoke or alter a previous resolution) a Notice of Motion has been received from <Member Names> for consideration under item 12.

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Auckland Transport November 2017 Report

File No.: CP2017/23380

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, provides AT’s quarterly report to the Board and provides responses to Board resolutions from the October 2017 meeting.

Executive summary

2. This report notes the Board’s October 2017 resolution that delivering a Greenways route is its highest priority for its 2016-19 transport capital budget. It acknowledges that AT is now looking to provide the Board with advice in regard to four possible routes and provides an outline of current Board transport capital projects.

3. It notes that AT is working on providing the Board with rough order of costs for three smart stud applications in the Board’s area.

4. The report also responds to other resolutions from October 2017 and notes the decisions of AT’s Traffic Control Committee and public consultations that affect the Puketapapa Local Board’s area.

5. The report offers the attachments of AT’s Quarterly Report to the Puketapapa Board and AT’s programme in schools in the Board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report for November 2017.

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	$1,358,163
Remaining Budget left	$706,495

6. The Puketapapa Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects and the Board is now considering projects to proceed with in this political term.

7. The Board established in its October 2017 meeting that building a Greenway connection is its top priority for this term and has delayed moving ahead with other suggested projects until some cost projections for greenways projects are better understood.

Greenways Priority Project

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.

8. Some routes from that original plan have now been implemented, as well as others in the surrounding network. In light of this, the Board reviewed its Greenways network plan in 2017 to establish its new routes and priorities. This report has now been adopted by the Board.

9. At its October 2017 meeting, the Board resolved to request AT to provide further advice in relation to routes outlined in the 2017 Greenway plan before committing funding to any specific routes or to other projects. The Board requested advice on these routes:

· A connection between Monte Cecilia Park and One Tree Hill Domain

· A connection between Three Kings, Monte Cecilia Park and Mt Roskill Campus

· A connection from SH20 cycleway at Hillsborough Road to Monte Cecilia Park

· A connection to Mt Roskill Shops and Dominion Road future transport hub.

10. AT is now undertaking some investigation into these routes but would appreciate any additional direction the Board can give as to their request for advice.

Smart Studs at Zebra Crossings

11. Smart stud 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 is crossing. The studs are embedded in the road surface and are activated to flash as a pedestrian approaches and enters the crossing.

12. At its October 2017 meeting the Board asked AT to provide rough order of costs for the following locations:

· Sandringham Road Extension zebra (vicinity Gifford Avenue)

· Mt Albert Road zebra (vicinity Three Kings Plaza)

· Richardson Road zebra (vicinity McKinnon Street).

13. These costings are being investigated and will be reported back once they become available.

14. 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
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
Smart Studs	The Board has requested rough order of costs (RoCs) for smart studs at three locations in their area	RoCs being drafted.
Greenway Project	The Board has requested advice from AT in regard to four potential Greenways projects. These are routes C, D E and F in the 2017 revised Greenways report.	Further advice has been requested from AT.

Responses to Resolutions

2017/182 Cape Horn Road

15. At its October 2017 meeting the Board asked for an update in regard to the Cape Horn Road improvements. These works have now been approved by AT’s Traffic Control Committee and are out in the market for pricing.

16. It is anticipated that an indication of when these works may begin may be able to be provided at the November meeting.

2017/182 Pah Road T3 Lanes

17. An update was prepared for the 8 November 2017 transport update meeting with the Board.

2017/182 Griffen Park Road/Commodore Drive/Hillsborough Road intersection

18. The area engineer for the Puketapapa area has advised that this intersection has a reported history of 15 crashes in the past 5 years. This is of concern and AT will do some further investigation into additional measures to increase safety here. This will be reported back through the monthly transport update meeting.

Regional and Sub Regional Projects

Safer Communities Future Project

19. Mt Roskill is one of three communities selected to be part of a new programme to make areas better and safer for walking. The three communities were selected for the programme through a thorough investigation process. AT looked at a range of factors including pedestrian crash rates and the amount of current good crossing facilities in communities around Auckland.

20. Between now and the end of the year AT will be talking to people in each of the communities where people may have concerns about walking. The aim is to understand the opportunities available to create an environment where more people want to walk for their daily journeys. AT is also working with community groups and other stakeholders like Police to help establish the issues and opportunities.

21. Next year AT will go back to each community with a set of designs based on their feedback to make physical changes like introducing new crossings and physical changes to the road to slow traffic and make it safer to walk.

22. AT will seek funding from the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Council, with construction and physical changes set to take place in 2019/20.

Parking Improvements – Pay By Plate

23. Over the next few months, Auckland Transport will be upgrading all 810 pay-and-display parking machines to include ‘pay-by-plate’ technology.

24. The pay-by-plate technology enables customers to enter their registration plate into the machine without the need for a display ticket, making it a faster, more seamless customer experience.

25. The newly upgraded machines will also include paywave technology to further improve the customer experience. The Text-a-Park payment option will not be available as part of the new machines as AT Park phone app is considered to be a superior alternative for customers who want to use their phone.

26. The pay-by-plate payment solution is considered ‘best practice’ and has been implemented successfully in private car parks in Auckland and also for on-street parking in Tauranga and Christchurch.

27. Ponsonby is the first area to go live with Pay by Plate in October. Newmarket will follow in November, then Parnell, Kingsland, Remuera, in December. The CBD – January. Takapuna, Manukau – February, Eden Terrace - March.

Quarterly Reporting – July to September 2017

28. The following quarterly report material is attached to this monthly report:

· Attachment A – report from Auckland Transport departments on their activities in the Puketapapa Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter (July to September 2017).

· Attachment B – report on Travelwise Schools activities in the Puketapapa Local Board area over the last quarter.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

29. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Puketapapa Local Board area in October 2017.

Street/Area	Description	Work	Decision
Cape Horn Road/Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, bus stop and bus shelter, Removal Of No Stopping At All Times, Give-Way, Flush Median, Traffic Island, No Passing, Edge Line	Carried
Stoddard Road, Denny Avenue, Tory Street, Richardson Road, Sandringham Road Extension, Mt Roskill	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, P30, P60, P15, Loading Zone, Taxi Stand, Lane Arrows, No Passing, Flush Median, Edge Line, Traffic Island, Pedestrian Crossing, Stop Control, Traffic Signal Control	Carried

Consultation Items

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

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

Frederick Street

AT is proposing to install broken yellow lines on Frederick Street on the curve in the road outside number 49 and the bend and rise in the road between 62 and 70 including parking removal. These changes are required to improve driver visibility at the bend and blind corner. Cars parked in these locations are causing drivers to cross the centre line and the proposed changes aim to improve driver safety.

Circulated 9 October 2017

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

33. 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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport’s Quarterly Report - July to September 2017	35
b ⇩	Auckland Transport's School Report - July to September 2017	45

Signatories

Authors	Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018 Grant Applications

File No.: CP2017/22831

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018. 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. A total of $31,680 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018. A total of $40,320 remains to be allocated for one local grant and two quick response rounds.

6. In Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, five applications were received, requesting a total of $3,626. (see Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One, listed in Table One.

App ID	Applicant	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1815-102	Connect the Dots Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	To cover the costs of printing the complimentary postcards for “Make Moments”	$540.00	Eligible
QR1815-104	Active Transport Trust	Community	Towards the cost for training by “Next Bike” and registration with “Skills Active” for the Cycle Skills Instructor qualification.	$750.00	Eligible
QR1815-105	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards two employment skills training for supporting young people into employment	$838.00	Eligible
QR1815-106	Anirban Datta	Arts and culture	Towards workshop venue hire for public theatre productions held at the Three Kings Tennis Pavilion including a workshop for actors and technicans for the 2018/2019 season.	$748.00	Eligible
			Total	$3,626.00

Comments

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. It is recommended that the local board allocate up to $3,626 or 33% of the total budget, in this grant round.

13. A total of $31,680 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2108. A total of $40,320 remains to be allocated for one local grant and two quick response rounds.

14. In Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, five applications were received, requesting a total of $3,626 (Attachment B).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. 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.

16. 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.”

17. A summary of each application received through Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One is attached, see Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

18. 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 principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori. One organisation applying in this round has indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

20. Following the Puketāpapa Local Board allocating funding for round one quick response, 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	51
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	55

Signatories

Authors

Moumita Dutta - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Renewal and variation of community lease to Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated, Keith Hay Park North, 55 Arundel Street, Mt Roskill

File No.: CP2017/23324

Purpose

1. To seek approval to grant a renewal and variation of the community ground lease to Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated, at Keith Hay Park North, 55 Arundel Street, Mt Roskill.

Executive summary

2. Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated (the Club) holds a community ground lease with Auckland City Council which commenced 19 October 2007 with an initial term of five years to 18 October 2012. The lease contains three five year renewal terms and the first renewal term from 19 October 2012 to 18 October 2017 has been executed.

3. The Club gave written notice that it wishes to exercise its second renewal term of five years from 19 October 2017 to 18 October 2022. The Club owns the building and improvements.

4. Part Allotment 77 Section 13 Suburbs of Auckland is held in fee simple by the Auckland Council as an unclassified recreation reserve.

5. Community groups exercising a right of renewal are asked to consider having their community lease varied to include a community outcomes plan. The Club advised it wishes to include a community outcomes plan to its renewal of lease. The variation will also include a smoke free policy clause.

6. This report recommends a renewal and variation of community lease be granted to the Club for a further term of five years commencing 19 October 2017 to 18 October 2022, with a variation to add a community outcomes plan, to be reported against annually and a smoke free clause.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) grant a renewal and variation of the community ground lease to Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated, under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, for the land encompassing the building on Keith Hay Park, 55 Arundel Street, Mt Roskill, (outlined in red in Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – five years commencing 19 October 2017 to 18 October 2022;

ii) rent - $250 plus GST per annum;

iii) the inclusion of a Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan (Attachment B) as approved be attached to the renewal and variation document;

iv) the inclusion of a smoke free clause to the renewal and variation document.

b) note that all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Deed of Lease dated 29 April 2008.

Comments

7. The land at Keith Hay Park North, 55 Arundel Street, Mt. Roskill is described as part Allotment 77 Section 13 Suburbs of Auckland Part NA8D/230, is held by the Department of Conservation as an unclassified recreation reserve and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes. The lease renewal would be issued under section 54 (1)(b) of the Reserves Act ,1977.

8. The Club is a leading provider for gym sports programmes in New Zealand and operates out of a purpose-built facility which provides a comprehensive training venue.

9. The Club caters for athletes of all levels from pre-school children through to international gymnasts training for Commonwealth and Olympic games.

10. The Club provides an encouraging environment that is safe, exciting and rewarding for all those who attend the programmes.

11. The principle objectives of the Club are to:

- promote, develop and foster amateur gym sports for the recreation and enjoyment of the general public of New Zealand

- develop opportunities, programmes and pathways for all staff, members and associates to be the best they can in a safe, supportive and friendly gym sport environment

- affiliate and co-operate with kindred and other organisations, including Gymsports NZ Incorporated

- seek and promote membership of Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated.

12. The Club currently has 1,401 members with approximately 950 members under 13 years of age.

13. The Club currently shares its facility with Shotokan Karate, Renanisse School of Dance, All Stars Cheerleading, the YMCA and other casual hirers.

14. The Club is financially viable and audited accounts show proper accounting records have been kept.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Staff sought the views of Puketāpapa Local Board on 28 September 2017, the board indicated support for a renewal and variation of community lease to the Club.

Māori impact statement

16. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori.

17. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

18. The Club delivers school programmes to local Maori immersion schools whereby students receive a voucher for a free lesson to encourage them to join the Club.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated Site Plan	81
b ⇩	Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan	83

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Renewal and variation of community lease to Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust, Mt Roskill War Memorial Park, 13 May Rd, Mt Roskill

File No.: CP2017/23327

Purpose

1. To seek approval to grant a renewal and variation of the community lease to Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust Incorporated, at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park, 13 May Road, Mt Roskill.

Executive summary

2. The Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust (the Trust) holds a community lease with the legacy Auckland City Council which commenced 1 August 2007 and expired 31 July 2012. The lease has two five year renewal terms. The first renewal term from 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2017 has been executed.

3. The Trust gave written notice to Auckland Council that it wishes to exercise its second and final renewal term of five years from 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2022.

4. Part Lot 136 DP 42461 is held by the Department of Conservation as a classified recreation reserve and vested in Auckland Council, in Trust, for recreation purposes.

5. Community groups exercising a right of renewal are asked to consider having their community lease varied to include a community outcomes plan. The Trust advised it wishes to include a community outcomes plan to be approved and attached to its lease document. The renewal and variation document will also include a smoke free clause.

6. This report recommends a renewal and variation of community lease to be granted to the Trust for a further term of five years commencing 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2022.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) grant a renewal and variation of community lease to Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust, located on part of Mt Roskill War Memorial Park, Mt Roskill, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – five years commencing 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2022;

ii) rent - $500.00 plus GST per annum;

iii) the inclusion of a Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust Community Outcomes Plan (Attachment B) as approved be attached to the community lease document;

iv) the inclusion of a smoke free clause to the renewal and variation document.

b) all other terms and conditions are in accordance with the original deed of lease dated 11 January 2008.

Comments

7. The Trust support people of South Asian origin living in Auckland through various community welfare activities. The Trust fosters friendly relations among the community members by catering to their social and emotional needs.

8. The principle objectives of the Trust are:

· To work towards bringing together various community groups and associations of Indian origin from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Fiji and Nepal operating in New Zealand under one umbrella.

· To support and assist new migrants from India and other countries, mentioned in (a) above, in settling down in New Zealand and to ensure that these persons have full access to the mainstream social and health services required for a good quality of life.

· To ensure that people of Indian origin and the countries mentioned in (a) above are aware of the availability of the community based and residential care services and understand how to obtain these services.

9. The Trust has a total membership of 1,250 with 150 members under the age of 25 years and 1,100 members aged 25 years and over.

10. The Trust currently shares its facility with other casual hirers who provide computer classes, playgroups and senior networking programs to the community.

11. The Trust is financially viable and audited accounts show proper accounting records have been kept.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Auckland Council staff sought the views of the Puketapapa Local Board on the 2 February 2017. The board indicated informal support for a renewal and variation of community lease to the Trust.

Māori impact statement

13. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori.

14. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust Site Plan	87
b ⇩	Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust Community Outcomes Plan	89

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Locally Driven Initiatives 2017/2018 funding allocation – Walmsley Park toilet construction

File No.: CP2017/21883

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board to re-allocate funding from financial year 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative discretionary capital programme (LDI capital fund) from Freeland Reserve pathways to the construction of a toilet at Walmsley Park.

Executive summary

2. In 2014, a concept plan was developed by Auckland Council with the objective of providing a walkway through Freeland Reserve.

3. The Puketāpapa Local Board has allocated $205,000 capex funding financial year 2017/2018 towards the development of the pathways through Freeland Reserve (PKTPP/2016/169). This is included in the Puketāpapa Local Board 2017/18 work programme as ID 2987.

4. Housing New Zealand has recently engaged the Hobsonville Land Company (HLC) to re-develop the state housing stock surrounding the Freeland Reserve. Conversely, Auckland Council stormwater - Healthy Waters has an interest in this reserve as it provides storm water detention in high rainfall events.

5. These two projects would significantly impact on the function of Freeland Reserve and were not conceived in the original scope of the 2014 concept plan. Due to these proposed projects, the allocation of LDI funding for the pathways was no longer required as the project will be deferred.

6. Council staffs have workshopped the issues with the local board on 7 September 2017 and have proposed a number of alternative options for the allocation of the LDI capex funding.

7. A shortlist of priority projects for further investigation was reviewed and agreed on by the local board for the 2017/2018 financial year. These were :

· Walmsley Park toilet construction

· Waikowhai Reserve renewals top-up

· Monte Cecilia playground top-up

8. These proposed projects were presented to the local board at a workshop on 5 October 2017. The local board agreed that the construction of a toilet in Walmsley Park would be the preferred project to progress.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the reallocation of $200,000 of LDI capital funding to Walmsley Park toilet construction previously allocated by PKTPP/2016/169 on 28 July 2016 to the construction of pathways in Freeland Reserve.

Comments

9. In 2014, a Freeland Reserve concept plan was developed by Auckland Council with the objective of providing pathways through Freeland Reserve. The pathways design to follow well-travelled routes from all entrances that would provide all weather and all abilities access.

10. Housing New Zealand Corporation has engaged the Hobsonville Land Company (HLC) to re-develop the state housing stock surrounding the Freeland Reserve. HLC would like to continue consulting with Auckland Council on the proposed path network and the proposed changes to the Housing New Zealand properties adjoining it.

11. Auckland Council Storm water (Healthy Waters) also has an interest in this reserve as it provides storm water detention in high rainfall events.

12. The feasibility study found that:

· The HLC housing development will likely require significant earthworks and construction to increase the storm water detention capabilities in Freeland Reserve

· Upgrade of storm water infrastructure would require a significant rework of the planned path network/boardwalk.

· Any planned path network/board works should be deferred until after the completion of the proposed storm water detention construction

· Conversely any proposed infill planting and mass planting should be undertaken after any storm water upgrade has been completed

13. Based on these findings, council staff and the local board in a workshop on 7 September 2017 reviewed the issues and considered other priority projects to reallocate their Locally Driven Initiative capex funding to.

14. At the Puketāpapa Green Cluster meeting on 27 September 2017, a shortlist of priority projects was agreed on by board members for the 2017/2018 financial year for further investigation, these were :

· Walmsley Park Toilet Construction

· Waikowhai Renewals Top-up

· Monte Cecilia Playground.

Recommended Projects

Option A - Walmsley Park toilet construction (preferred option)

15. Healthy Waters are undertaking significant development of this park to daylight and restore the stream, while also improving the storm water catchment to enable growth in the area.

16. New assets identified in the concept planning for this project are currently unfunded, including a play space, BBQ facility, and toilets.

17. Installation of a toilet is considered the highest priority for the site, to complement the educational whare / shelter which is to be delivered by Healthy Waters. Public consultation undertaken by Healthy Waters has indicated that the shelter is unlikely to be used by school groups as designed unless a toilet is also available.

18. Both the Healthy Waters and Public Arts teams at council have indicated that they would be able to provide additional funding in order to create a more bespoke toilet, as per the designs.

19. Construction within the reserve is set to finish in financial year 2018/2019. Healthy Waters staffs have indicated that were funding to be allocated, the toilet could be installed simultaneously to the shelter, resulting in cost savings through efficiencies.

Option B - Waikowhai Park renewals top-up

20. The 2015 10 Year Parks Plan suggests that the playground at Waikowhai Park should be upgraded to better service this community. The playground is also due for partial renewal, with some component parts requiring renewal or repair in financial year 2018/2019.

21. The closed landfill team are planning to undertake significant works within the reserve in the next two years, with the bulk of construction works taking place in financial year 2017/2018. Details of the landfill remediation project have not yet been worked through in detail, though it is likely that at least some of the playground will be affected by this work.

22. A concept plan is currently being produced by Community Services which will help to direct future spending within the park and will include potential impacts / upgrades as a result of the landfill works.

23. An allocation of $200,000 capital funding would contribute to the full renewal and upgrade of the playground; however it is unlikely that this would be delivered until the landfill construction is underway in financial year 2017/2018. As such, it is recommended that this project should be funded with future Locally Driven Initiative capital funding.

Option C - Monte Cecilia playground

24. Development of a playground is a priority for the local board in order to provide adequate play provision for this area of Puketāpapa; a key initiative outlined in the master plan for the park.

25. A concept design for a destination playground at the site was produced by Community Facilities landscape design team in 2017 in accordance with the recently approved master plan. Construction of this playground is currently unfunded and will require significant investment in future years if the concept is to be realised.

26. An allocation of $200,000 capital funding could be used to progress this project into consultation, detailed design and consent phases. This level of funding would not be sufficient to fund the delivery of a destination style playground that meets the expectations of all park stakeholders, visitors from the wider region that responds to cultural / heritage expectations and is in keeping with the unique character of this park.

27. Raised public expectation as a result of the consultation will result in the need for increased funding in a timely manner to progress the project into its construction phase. As such, it is recommended that this project should be funded with future Locally Driven Initiative capital funding.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. The proposed projects in this report were discussed at the Puketāpapa Green Cluster meeting on 27 September 2017 and at the Puketāpapa Local Board workshop on 5 October 2017; the local board were in support of the proposed recommendation of Option A.

Māori impact statement

29. Where any aspects of the proposed projects are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Mana Whenua then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

30. There is no specific impact on Iwi from the reimbursement of this funding however any decision on the project chosen for reallocation will impact on the level of engagement with Iwi moving forward. Potential impacts are detailed on a case by case basis below.

A. Walmsley Park toilet construction: Iwi have been extensively involved in the development of the Te Auaunga Awa strategy. This project contributes to meeting outcomes outlined in the strategy including the restoration of the mauri of the waterway located in Freeland Reserve. There is already a Mana Whenua working group for the Healthy Waters project; any engagement would be via this group.

B. Waikowhai Park renewals top-ups: As a coastal reserve, Iwi will have an interest in this area and would be invited to be involved in the design process for the playground. Iwi are already engaged in the landfill project.

C. Monte Cecilia playground: The playground is located near to an historic pa site. Iwi have been involved in the development of the concept plan and have signalled their interest in engagement on the design process for the new playground. This engagement will be undertaken in the design stage and on-going throughout the delivery stage.

Implementation

31. The board can resolve to reallocate funding to one of the proposed projects above or return the Locally Driven Initiative capital funding for further consideration of these and other options.

32. Were option A to be selected, Locally Driven Initiative capital funds would be transferred to Healthy Waters who would deliver the project on behalf of Community Facilities during financial years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019.

33. Progress status updates would be reported quarterly to the local board by the Healthy Waters department.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Katrina Morgan - Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Puketāpapa Local Board for quarter one, 1 July - 30 September 2017

File No.: CP2017/23532

Purpose

1. To provide the Puketāpapa Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July to 30 September 2017.

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme.

3. Of significance this quarter:

· A new public artwork was installed and blessed in Fearon Park

· The opening of the Beagle Avenue Bridge was celebrated with a community bar-b-que.

· The local board approved the 2017 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan. This will be published in November and launched at the board’s monthly Community Forum on 6 December.

4. The snapshot (attachment A), indicates performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment B). All items are reported as ‘green’ status (on track) except for the following which have a [‘red’] status (behind delivery, significant risk)/[’amber’] status (some risk or issues, which are being managed):

ID	Name	Department	Status
2515	Belfast Reserve – renew structure and furniture	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber
2987	Freeland Reserve – install paths	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Red
3035	Keith Hay Park - renew car park – Noton Road	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber
2498	Roskill Youth Zone – replace washdown tank	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber
54	Manukau Harbour Forum – Puketāpapa Local Board	I&ES	Amber
1614	Scout Association of NZ – Royal Oak Scout	CF: Leases	Amber
1615	Scout Association of NZ – Waikowhai	CF: Leases	Amber
1619	Mt Roskill Tennis Club Inc	CF: Leases	Amber

6. Overall, the net financial performance of the Puketāpapa Local Board is over budget to date with operating expenditure above budget by (7%) due to higher parks maintenance than planned and operating revenue exceeding budget due to increased community facility hire. Capital expenditure was (69%) under budget. The bulk of the capital spend in the quarter to September was mainly in parks renewals at Keith Hay park (sand carpet) and Mt Roskill War Memorial Car Park renewal. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

7. The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery that is meeting the indicators, with the exceptions being; Community Services and Environmental Management. These are explained further in detail in the report. Attachment D contains further detailed financial information.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Comments

8. The Puketāpapa Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 15 June 2017

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 18 May 2017

· Libraries and Information; approved on 8 June 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 8 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 8 June 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 18 May 2017

· Local Economic Development; approved on 8 June 2017

Key achievements for quarter one

9. The Puketāpapa Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter one period, which include:

· A new public artwork was installed and blessed in Fearon Park

· The opening of the Beagle Avenue Bridge was celebrated with a community
bar-b-que.

· The local board approved the 2017 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan in September. This will be published in November and launched at the board’s monthly Community Forum on 6 December.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

10. The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· 2514 - Harold Long and Fearon Reserve, Keith Hay Park (Noton Road) park upgrade– the majority of Stage One physical works have been completed. Professional services, to enable Stage Two work, is complete

· 3100 - Monte Cecilia Park playground concept development – a concept for a destination playground is complete. Funding is yet to be secured

· 3240 - Waikowhai Coastal Walkway Stage Two – professional services underway and application for resource consent will be lodge in Quarter Two.

· 73 - Bus subsidies for participation in education for sustainability – this opportunity was promoted to all decile 1-5 schools in Puketāpapa.

Risks identified in the 2017/2018 work programme

11. The following are risks that have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been set to ‘red’ – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes/’amber’ status – some risk or issues, which are being managed.

ID	Name	Department	Status	Explanation
2515	Belfast Reserve – renew structure and furniture	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber	Renewal scope exceeds budget allocated, due to labour costs associated with limited site access
2987	Freeland Reserve – install paths	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Red	This work may be put on hold until the Housing NZ development plans for the area surrounding the reserve are finalised
3035	Keith Hay Park - renew car park – Noton Road	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber	Potential budget shortage as the renewals component is insufficient for like for like replacement
2498	Roskill Youth Zone – replace washdown tank	CF: Build, Maintain, Renew	Amber	Investigations showed that this work is not required
54	Manukau Harbour Forum – Puketāpapa Local Board	I&ES	Amber	The forum’s work programme was not signed of in Quarter One
1614	Scout Association of NZ – Royal Oak Scout	CF: Leases	Amber	Unable to secure a meeting with the leasee
1615	Scout Association of NZ – Waikowhai	CF: Leases	Amber	Unable to secure a meeting with the leasee
1619	Mt Roskill Tennis Club Inc	CF: Leases	Amber	The lease renewal is pending the finalised concept plan for Arthur Faulkner Reserve

Financial performance

12. Operating expenditure is 7% over budget. The majority is in the Parks activity due to higher than anticipated parks maintenance. The new maintenance contract is still bedding in and fluctuations are expected over the year.

13. Operating revenue has exceeded budget in community facility hire due to greater utilisation of Wesley Community centre and Fickling Convention centre.

14. Overall capital spend is below budget by $892k mainly as a result of sportsfield improvements at tender stage and car parking improvements at Harold Long and Fearon Reserve delayed due to by inclement weather.

15. The Puketāpapa Local Board Financial performance report is in Appendix C.

Key performance indicators

16. The local board agreements include level of service statements and associated performance measures to guide and monitor the delivery of local services. This report provides information on the performance measure year-end outlook for Puketāpapa Local Board’s measures, showing how we are tracking after the first quarter of FY18.

17. The year-end outlook is that 44 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

18. Currently all performance measures are being reviewed as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

19. For the first and second quarter we will be providing the year-end outlook based on the results of 2016/17 or for any changes to the outlook based on results available. In the third quarter we will be in a better position to accurately project the year-end outlook for all measures. This is because the frequency of most measures is annual as data is collected through surveys.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. This report informs the Puketāpapa Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Māori impact statement

21. As part of the development of the 2017 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan, the board met with a representative from Te Whakakitenga o Waikato-Tainui to discuss how they could work together to achieve mutual outcomes

22. Included in the libraries programme is Celebrating Te Ao Maori and strengthening responsiveness to Maori. This quarter a senior librarian spoke to the Roskill Community Network about Maori services at Auckland Libraries

Implementation

23. The Local Board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter 2, December 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work Programme Snapshot	99
b ⇩	Work Programme Update	101
c ⇩	Financial Performance	121
d ⇩	Key Performance Indicators	127

Signatories

Authors	Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Feedback on draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

File No.: CP2017/21159

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:

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 the Puketāpapa Local Board at its 26 October 2017 workshop 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. 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:

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:

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

b) addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

o construction and demolition waste

o organic waste, and

o plastic waste.

c) 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:

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

e) rates funding, and

f)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. A workshop was held with the Puketāpapa Local Board on 26 October 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. Feedback provided at this workshop will be summarised and tabled at the meeting.

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

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 November 2017

Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks

File No.: CP2017/23246

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· update the Puketāpapa Local Board on the changes to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw; and

· propose a nine week time restriction on public election sign sites.

Executive summary

2. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) which removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs. This change came about due to concerns that the time restrictions may limit the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”).

3. Due to the Bylaw amendment, public sites, including those in local parks and reserves, can now be used for election signs for longer than nine weeks. Signs must relate to a specific election, and must be removed prior to the day of the election. However, there is no limit on the length of time that they can be erected prior to the election.

4. Under section 14 (freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Under section 5 (justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

5. Local boards must balance the need to provide adequate advertising locations to allow the democratic process to run smoothly, while ensuring that parks and reserves are not overly encumbered with election signage.

6. Election signs restrict the public use of parks, have an impact on amenity and create potential safety issues. Increasing the amount of time that election signs can be erected for will lead to additional compliance and maintenance costs.

7. Staff recommend that local boards limit the time period for election signs on parks and reserves to a nine week period. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

8. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) amend landowner approvals for election signs to provide a nine week time restriction on local parks and reserves identified in the List of Election Sign Sites.

b) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee provide a nine week time restriction for election signs on road reserve to provide a consistency for public sites across Auckland.

c) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee consider updating their List of Election Sign Sites to reflect these time restrictions in accordance with clause 6 of the Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

Comments

Background

9. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”). This amendment, among other things, removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs.

10. During the 2016 local body election, a private citizen requested the Minister of Transport to disallow the Bylaw under the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998. This was due to the time restrictions on the display of election signs, the Bylaw breached the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”). The Minister took no action at the time, but required Auckland Transport to review the time restriction in 2017.

11. Prior to the amendment, Auckland Transport consulted with the public and stakeholders. Of the 51 submissions received, 40 disagreed with the proposed removal of the time restriction. They raised concerns over visual pollution issues (loss of amenity if signs remained longer than a nine-week period) and increased safety risk associated with the lack of maintenance and the temporary nature of such signage and supporting structures.

12. Auckland Transport specifies which public sites are suitable for the display of election signs. The report to the Auckland Transport Board (1 August 2017) concluded that time restrictions could be imposed through this process (by only permitting public sites to be used for limited periods of time). This was thought sufficient to address concerns raised by submitters on this issue. Auckland Transport will be seeking feedback from local boards on signage sites prior to the 2019 local body elections. The Auckland Transport website provides a list of the current election sign sites (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/bylaws/election-signs-bylaw/#v).

13. Local Boards have the jurisdiction of local parks and reserves. Prior to the 2016 local body elections, Auckland Transport sought feedback from local boards about the use of local parks and reserves for the use of temporary election signs. Auckland Transport updated the List of Election Sign Sites (located on the Auckland Transport website) following consideration of local board feedback. Due to the Bylaw amendment, these sites, including those in local reserves, can now be used for election signs for periods longer than nine weeks, and this needs review.

Existing issues caused by election signs

14. During the run up to the 2017 general election (1 July 2017 to 29 Sep 2017), council received 131 complaints about election signs. Of those complaints received 63 were about signs being placed in the wrong location, 20 were about oversized signs, 17 raised maintenance issues and 11 complaints were about early placement. There were also a small number of complaints about signs being erected on private property without permission, multiple signs being located on one site and safety hazards. Twenty percent of the complaints were associated with signs on parks and reserves. Community Facilities noted that existing issues with election signs relate to broken signs, which are often abandoned and become an eyesore or hazard.

15. Council staff anticipate that if election signs are erected for a period longer than nine weeks, there will be additional issues with amenity and safety. Safety concerns include risks associated signs collapsing or blowing down and broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges.

16. There will also be additional complaints and increased council costs associated with compliance and park maintenance.

Freedom of expression

17. The following analysis of considerations under BoRA has been prepared by council’s Legal and Risk Department.

18. Under section 14 (Freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Restricting the time period that parties and candidates for election can erect signs promoting their election campaigns restricts the freedom of expression.

19. Under section 5 (Justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

20. The section 5 inquiry has been summarised in a leading Supreme Court case (R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7) as follows:

(a) does the limiting measure serve a purpose sufficiently important to justify some limitation of the right or freedom?

(b) If so, then:

(i) is the limit rationally connected with the objective?

(ii) does the limit impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of the objective?

(iii) is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective?

21. In considering the approach to determining whether a limiting measure impairs a right "no more than is reasonably necessary", the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] 3 NZLR 456 endorsed the following approach from a Canadian case:

"The law must be carefully tailored so that rights are impaired no more than necessary. The tailoring process seldom admits of perfection and the courts must accord some leeway to the legislator. If the law falls within a range of reasonable alternatives, the courts will not find it overbroad merely because they can conceive of an alternative which might better tailor objective to infringement. On the other hand, if the government fails to explain why a significantly less intrusive and equally effective measure was not chosen, the law may fail."

22. The Court of Appeal agreed that if there is an alternative option that will have less impact, it does not follow that the option adopted is necessarily outside the range of reasonable alternatives.

Purpose of restriction

23. The purposes of the proposed time restriction on public sites are set out above and can be summarised as:

· minimising the risk to public safety (e.g. signs collapsing or blowing down, broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges);

· allowing the public to have access and use of public reserves with minimal disruption;

· maintaining visual amenity in public places; and

· limiting the amount of public expenditure that must be spent on compliance monitoring and enforcement, and the maintenance of parks and reserves.

24. These are legitimate concerns that justify some limitation on the freedom of expression.

Connection with objective

25. The proposed time restrictions are rationally connected with the achievement of these purposes. Limiting the amount of time that an election sign may be displayed (and therefore limiting expression on such signs) is intended to promote and protect public safety and/or amenity, protect access to public parks and reserves, and minimise expenditure on compliance and maintenance.

Restriction no more than reasonably necessary

26. The proposed nine week restriction is a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression for signs in public places. The restriction applies only to signs on the designated public sites. Elections signs may be displayed without time restriction on any private property (including commercial billboards and poster board sites). Further, the election signs to which the restriction applies are located in public places, where there is no general right to have the structure in any event - the bylaw therefore effectively authorises the sign (and the expression) when it would not otherwise be allowed.

27. Election signs are only one means of advertising a candidate or party in an election. Other options open to candidates include the internet (e.g. social media advertising), radio or television advertising, pamphlets, letterbox drops, public meetings, and advertising on vehicles.

28. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

29. Given the wide range of advertising and promotional opportunities open to candidates, the proposed restriction on public parks and reserves does not restrict the freedom of expression more than reasonably necessary.

Proportionality

30. Overall, the proposed time restriction is not considered to be a disproportionate limit on freedom of expression, given the importance of the objectives. Ensuring the public safety of park users is a matter of very high importance, and there is also a high amenity value in regulating the proliferation of election signage that occurs prior to every election. A reasonably high level of interference with freedom of expression might therefore be justifiable. In fact, however, the time restriction involves only a reasonably modest limit on freedom of expression. It is a measured response, far from being a blanket ban, and candidates can still promote or otherwise express themselves using other means. The proposed restriction is consistent with community expectations and the Electoral Act, and many other councils around New Zealand similarly restrict election signage, suggesting the proposal is not out of step with what is considered reasonable regulation of election signs that are in or visible from public places.

31. The proposed time restriction is therefore not considered to be inconsistent with the BoRA. Such limits as there are on freedom of expression are reasonable and "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", in terms of section 5 of that Act.

Options

32. Local boards have the following options available to them, which are discussed in more detail below:

· continue without a time limit on public election signs;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period to nine weeks prior to an election;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks; or

· revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves.

33. The pros and cons of each approach are provided in Table 1.

Option 1 - Continue without a time limit on public election signs

34. Under the do nothing option, local boards would continue to allow use of the parks and reserves as provided for in the List of Election Sign Sites. There would be no time limit on how long the signs could remain on parks and reserves. Staff do not recommend this option.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

35. Under this option, election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period of nine weeks before the election date. This would be consistent with the timeframes that local boards agreed to when Auckland Transport sought feedback on the sites in the List of Election Sign Sites. It is also consistent with the time limitations imposed during the general elections. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations (as the nine week time period has been past practice).

36. If this option was selected, local boards would need to request that Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

37. Staff recommend that the Local Board adopt this option.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

38. Under this option election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period, with the length determined by the local board. The key disadvantage of this proposal is that if different sites have different time limits, this could lead to confusion for candidates and the public and lead to inadvertent non-compliance, therefore it is not recommended

39. As with option two, local boards would need to instruct Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

40. Under this option, landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves would be revoked. While this option would remove the impacts of election signs on parks and reserves, it would also reduce the available locations for election signs, therefore it is not recommended.

Table 1 – Pros and cons of options for election signs on parks and reserves

Pros

Cons

Option 1 – Continue without a time limit on public election signs

· Consistent administration of the Bylaw across local boards

· Opportunity to update time limits is provided when Auckland Transport undertakes a review of public election sign sites.

· Provides the opportunity for candidates to erect signs at any time, and retain them there until the day prior to the election.

· Potential to “privatise” parks and reserves where signage is located over extended periods of time.

· Potential to increase maintenance costs (e.g. mowing around signage).

· Potential to increase the compliance costs of administering signage under the Bylaw.

· Increased risk to safety due to the temporary nature of signage and decay of signs over time.

· Increased opportunity to progressively impact on amenity, where signs become scruffy from prolonged exposure to the elements.

· Increased chance of public dissatisfaction and complaints.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

· Continues the status quo (prior to the Bylaw change), and is consistent with community expectation.

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a nine week timeframes.

· Consistent with the nine week Electoral Act timeframe.

· Small loss of amenity and use of parks and reserves due to election signage over a short period of time.

· Needs Auckland Transport to also impose a nine week time limit on road reserve to ensure consistency.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a short timeframe.

· Inconsistent timeframe across local board areas would be confusing for candidates, the public and council staff.

· If the timeframes are shortened significantly, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

· Removes any effects caused by election signs on parks and reserves.

· The number of public places for election signs is decreased across the Auckland region.

· If there are very limited election sign locations, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

41. Option 2 is the preferred option because it continues to provide for election signs on parks and reserves and is consistent with what local boards have previously agreed when making previous decisions on placement of election signs.

42. The inclusion of a nine week time limit provides some consistency with the Electoral Act. During the nine weeks before polling day the display of election advertisements are not subject to prohibitions imposed in other enactments or in bylaws imposed by local authorities.

43. Staff also consider that a consistent approach to time limits across all local board areas is important. This is because it will provide consistent rules and messaging across the region for candidates, the public and council staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. This report seeks direction from the local board on whether or not to impose a timeframe on election signs in parks and reserves under the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013. All local boards are considering the report to ensure there is a consistent set of rules for election signs across Auckland.

Māori impact statement

45. The impacts associated with election signs are considered to have a similar impact on Māori compared to the general population. There has been no specific engagement with iwi or mana whenua as part of this report.

Implementation

46. Information provided to candidates for the upcoming February 2018 by-elections will include the location of public election sign sites and time restrictions agreed by local boards and Auckland Transport.

47. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Carole Stewart – Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy & Planning Manager - Local Boards

Carole McKenzie-Rex - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager