Agenda of Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

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 Road Name Approval for a new road name in the Kaipara Development Holdings Limited subdivision at Carol Leon Avenue, Punganui 7

13 Road Name Approval for a new road name in the Totara Grove Investments Limited subdivision at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands 13

14 Road Name Approval for a new road name in the New Zealand Highland Development (Coatesville) Limited subdivision at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead 19

15 Road Name Approval for new road names in the Manunui Farm Park Limited subdivision at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri 25

16 Road Name Approval for new road names in the Northern Homes Developments Limited subdivision at McKinney Road, Warkworth 31

17 Road Name Approval for new road names in the Urumaraki Residential Limited subdivision at 177 Ruatawhiri Road, Helensville 37

18 Road Name Approval for a new road name in the 5D Investments Limited subdivision at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat 43

19 Road Name Approval for a new road name in the Traverse Limited subdivision at 62 Muriwai Road, Waimauku 49

20 Rodney Greenways; Priority Routes Requiring Feasibility Studies. 57

21 Auckland Transport Update to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee of the Rodney Local Board for November 2017 71

22 Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks 147

23 Amendments to the chairperson and deputy chairperson delegation post committee review 155

24 Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee Workshop Records 175

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

An apology from Member B Steele has 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 Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

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

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for a new road name in the Totara Grove Investments Limited subdivision at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands

File No.: CP2017/23138

Purpose

1. To approve a new road name, Rosalinda Road, in the Totara Grove Investments Limited subdivision at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council, a name for the new right of way within the subdivision.

3. The applicant has suggested Rosalinda Road for the subdivision at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands. The recommendation is to approve the proposed name.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road name of Rosalinda Road for the Totara Grove Investments Limited subdivision at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is Totara Grove Investments Limited, the four lot rural residential subdivision is at 292 Kaipara Flats Road, Streamlands, and council reference is R67284 and SUB60035401.

5. The subdivision will create four new lots and relocate the boundaries of eleven lots while protecting native bush and wetland.

6. The right of way will provide access for six properties so requires naming.

7. The developer has been using the name Rosalinda Road for the right of way for some years and now wishes to formalize the name

8. Rosalinda was originally suggested by the developer’s daughter as it was a name of a lady starring in a musical she enjoyed.

9. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed the acceptability of the proposed name.

10. Ngati Munuhiri, the local iwi, was asked for comment on the chosen names but no reply has been received.

11. The proposed name is deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road name.

Māori impact statement

13. Consultation has been attempted with Ngati Manuhiri but no comment has been received on the proposed name.

Implementation

14. If and when the name is approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rosalinda Road Locality Map	15
b ⇩	Rosalinda Road Scheme Plan	17

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for a new road name in the New Zealand Highland Development (Coatesville) Limited subdivision at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead

File No.: CP2017/23139

Purpose

1. To approve a new road name, Fruiter Lane, in the New Zealand Highland Development (Coatesville) Limited subdivision at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council, a name for the new jointly owned access lot within the subdivision.

3. The applicant has suggested Fruiter Lane for the subdivision at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead. The recommendation is to approve the proposed name.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road name of Fruiter Lane for the New Zealand Highland Development (Coatesville) Limited subdivision at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 as depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is New Zealand Highland Development (Coatesville) Limited, the thirteen lot rural residential subdivision is at 17 Wake Road, Riverhead, and council reference is R66544 and BUN20444793.

5. The subdivision is two kilometers north of the Riverhead township and is surrounded by farmland.

6. The jointly owned access lot will provide access for eight properties so requires naming.

7. The developer has found no obvious theme for the road names in the area so has chosen names that reflect the previous activity of strawberry growing.

8. The first choice is Fruiter Lane with alternatives of Strawberry Way and Fruitwood Lane.

9. The Land Information New Zealand database has confirmed the acceptability of the proposed names.

10. All local iwi were asked for comment on the chosen names and Ngati Manuhiri have responded saying they feel there is no need to give feedback in this instance.

11. The proposed name is deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road name.

Māori impact statement

13. Ngati Manuhiri was consulted and they have stated that they feel there is no need to give comment in this instance.

Implementation

14. If and when the name is approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Fruiter Lane Locality Map	21
b ⇩	Fruiter Lane Scheme Plan	23

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for new road names in the Manunui Farm Park Limited subdivision at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri

File No.: CP2017/23140

Purpose

1. To approve new road names of Manunui Road and Tiro Lane in the Manunui Farm Park Limited subdivision at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council, names for the new roads within the subdivision.

3. The applicant has suggested the names Manunui Road and Tiro Lane for the subdivision at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri. The recommendation is to approve the proposed name.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road names of Manunui Road and Tiro Lane, for the Manunui Farm Park Limited subdivision at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri., in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, and depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is Manunui Farm Park Limited, the fifteen lot Rural Residential subdivision is at 1085 Pakiri Road, Pakiri, and council reference is R58859.

5. The site is on Pakiri Road and is close to Pakiri Township.

6. Manunui Farm Park has been developed over many years and has some sites created and others are to be used for transferrable titles to be located elsewhere, in a Countryside Living Zone.

7. The development protects 160 hectares of significant native bush.

8. The roadway is a private road and all residents belong to a society to operate the maintenance of the road.

9. Ngati Manuhiri has been asked for comment on three proposed names (Manunui Road, Nikau Place and Kiri Lane) and has endorsed two (Manunui Road and Nikau Place) and rejected one (Kiri Lane). One of the two accepted names (Nikau Place) was not suitable as it is already in use.

10. The applicant came back with further suggested road names of Ngahere and Mirimiro but these were not suitable as they were already in use. The applicant subsequently submitted the road name of Tiro Lane for consideration.

11. The Land Information New Zealand database has confirmed that all road names are unique and acceptable.

12. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road names.

Māori impact statement

14. Consultation has been undertaken with Ngati Manuhiri who has agreed with one of the proposed names and suggested others.

Implementation

15. If and when the names are approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manunui Road Locality Map	27
b ⇩	Manunui Road Scheme Plan	29

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for new road names in the Northern Homes Developments Limited subdivision at McKinney Road, Warkworth

File No.: CP2017/23164

Purpose

1. To approve the new road names of Ella Anne Crescent, Harry Close and Stacey Close in the Northern Homes Developments Limited subdivision at McKinney Road, Warkworth.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council, names for the new roads within the subdivision.

3. The applicant has suggested Ella Anne Crescent, Harry Close and Stacey Close for the subdivision at McKinney Road, Warkworth. The recommendation is to approve the proposed names.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road names of Ella Anne Crescent, Harry Close and Stacey Close for the Northern Homes Developments Limited subdivision at McKinney Road, Warkworth, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is Northern Homes Developments Limited, the seventy-one lot residential subdivision is at McKinney Road, Warkworth, and council references are R68452 and SUB60036258.

5. The site is on the southern side of John Andrew Drive.

6. This report is for naming one road and two jointly owned access lots.

7. Alternative names are Charlie Close, Reader Way, Hadley Lane and Marley Lane.

8. Extensive research into the early history of Warkworth was undertaken and a list of nineteen possible names was compiled. This list was sent to Land Information New Zealand to check if the names were acceptable.

9. Land Information New Zealand rejected all of the names as those names were already in use or were too similar to existing road names.

10. The applicant then compiled another list of possible names and sent that to Land Information New Zealand to check for acceptability which resulted in the list of chosen and alternative names. The names proposed came out of a book of names that could potentially be used for road naming.

11. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that all road names on the latter list are unique and acceptable.

12. Ngati Manuhiri was asked for comment on the chosen names but no reply has been received.

13. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road names.

Māori impact statement

15. Consultation has been attempted with Ngati Manuhiri but they have not commented on the proposed names.

Implementation

16. If and when the names are approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ella Anne Crescent, Harry Close and Stacey Close Locality Map	33
b ⇩	Ella Anne Crescent, Harry Close and Stacey Close Scheme Plan	35

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for new road names in the Urumaraki Residential Limited subdivision at 177 Ruatawhiri Road, Helensville

File No.: CP2017/23165

Purpose

1. To approve new road names of Mahi Road, Urumaraki Avenue, Minerva Avenue and Turehu Road in the Urumaraki Residential Limited subdivision at 177 Ruatawhiri Road, Helensville.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council, names for the new roads within the subdivision.

3. The applicant has suggested Mahi Road, Urumaraki Avenue, Minerva Avenue and Turehu Road for the subdivision at 177 Rautawhiri Road, Helensville. Te recommendation is to approve the proposed names.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road names of Mahi Road, Urumaraki Avenue, Minerva Avenue and Turehu Road for the Urumaraki Residential Limited subdivision at 177 Ruatawhiri Road, Helensville, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is Urumaraki Residential Limited, the sixty three lot residential subdivision is at 177 Ruatawhiri Road, Helensville, and council reference is BUN60305724.

5. The site is on the fringe of the residential development in Helensville.

6. The names have been selected from researching the Helensville area history.

7. Mahi has a meaning of many houses

8. Urumaraki is the developer’s name and means view to the west, (which the site has).

9. Minerva was the name of an early Kaipara Harbour logging ship.

10. Turehu means pale skinned beings.

11. Alternative names are Nova Scotia Avenue, Kui Avenue and Rongomai Road.

12. Nova Scotia was where early European settlers John and Helen McLeod originated from. They called their house “Helensville”, which is where the town’s name came from.

13. Kui was the name of a significant Māori family in the Kaipara area.

14. Rongomai was the name of a significant early Māori family in the Kaipara area.

15. The Land Information New Zealand database has been checked and confirms that all road names are unique and acceptable.

16. The local iwi was asked for comment on the chosen names but to date no reply has been received.

17. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road names.

Māori impact statement

19. Consultation has been attempted with local iwi but to date they have not commented on the proposed names.

Implementation

20. If and when the names are approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mahi Road, Urumaraki Avenue, Minerva Avenue and Turehu Road Locality map	39
b ⇩	Mahi Road, Urumaraki Avenue, Minerva Avenue and Turehu Road Scheme Plan	41

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Road Name Approval for a new road name in the 5D Investments Limited subdivision at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat

File No.: CP2017/23166

Purpose

1. To approve a new road name, Karahiwi Lane, in the 5D Investments Limited subdivision at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat.

Executive summary

2. As the new access within the subdivision serves more than five lots the applicant was required to suggest to council a name for the right of way.

3. The applicant has suggested Karahiwi Lane for the subdivision at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat. The recommendation is to approve the proposed name.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the new road name of Karahiwi Lane for the 5D Investments Limited subdivision at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and depicted in the scheme plan shown in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

4. The applicant is 5D Investments Limited, the ten lot rural - residential subdivision is at 99 Tender Road, Dairy Flat, and council reference is R56776C.

5. The site is at the southern end of Tender Road.

6. Native bush and wetland is being protected and additional planting undertaken to gain the development rights.

7. The applicant was asked to complete the road naming nearly a year ago and had refused to do so, believing that a published name would mean that anybody would assume they had rights to enter the property. The developer wanted to keep access into the subdivision exclusively for the residents.

8. Purchasers were not able to get an address as without a name it did not conform to the addressing standard. Now the developer has agreed to complete the road naming process.

9. The development is named Karahiwi Country Estate. Karahiwi means the sloping spur of a hill and describes the topology of the site.

10. The road naming exercise has been of a protracted nature and the developer is keen to complete the process. Iwi were approached for comment and were supportive of the new name.

11. The Land Information New Zealand database has been checked and confirms that the road name is unique and acceptable.

12. The proposed name is deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road name.

Māori impact statement

14. Local iwi have been approached for comment on the proposed name and are supportive of the chosen name.

Implementation

15. If and when the name is approved the developer will be advised and they will be responsible for erecting the new road name signs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Karahiwi Lane Locality Map	45
b ⇩	Karahiwi Lane Scheme Plan	47

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering - Land Surveyor North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Rodney Greenways; Priority Routes Requiring Feasibility Studies

File No.: CP2017/22493

Purpose

1. To seek approval for identified priority routes, from within the adopted Rodney Greenways Plans, on which to undertake feasibility work. The Rodney Local Board has allocated $250,000 operational funding from their Locally Driven Initiative budget to deliver this work in partnership with the community.

Executive summary

2. The Rodney Local Board has adopted three Local Path (greenways) plans; one for Wellsford, another for Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead and most recently for Puhoi to Parkiri. Two additional plans are currently in development for areas in Rodney not covered by the existing plans.

3. The plans are based on engagement with the local communities to identify the aspirations for walking, cycle and bridle connections in their local areas. The plans show 44 routes that are priorities for communities in Rodney.

4. The Rodney Local Board intends to identify supporting communities to deliver projects in the local path plans as one of their key initiatives. A matrix has been developed to help decide which of the 44 routes should be the first to receive funding to undertake feasibility studies in partnership with local communities.

5. Four routes are being recommended by Auckland Council staff to receive funding from the $250,000 allocated by the Rodney Local Board to plan for the delivery of the adopted local path plans.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) approve the allocation of the $250,000 Locally Driven Initiative operational budget, entitled ‘Greenways Plans’, to undertake feasibility studies on the following proposed routes:

Plan	Priority route ID	Name
Wellsford	G2	Centennial Park Rd and Wellsford Centennial Park
Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead	6	Esplanade reserve, Kumeu River - Huapai to Kumeu Town Centre
Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead	8	Riverhead, Victoria Street (unformed road)
Puhoi to Pakiri	24	Omaha Wetlands Walk

b) request that the Rodney Strategic Broker work with the Auckland Council, Community Facilities Investigation and Design Team to:

i. Deliver the feasibility work.

ii. Identify potential community groups to partner with on this project.

c) request that Auckland Transport undertake feasibility work on the following priority routes:

Plan	Priority route ID	Name
Puhoi to Pakiri	10	Mahurangi College - The Grange - Eastern Suburbs
Puhoi to Pakiri	22	Matakana East Bridle & Cycle Loop

Comments

6. The local board has adopted three greenways plans, with a further two planned for 2017/2018 financial year. The adopted plans and the number of priority routes contained within each are as follows;

Title	Adopted	Priority routes
Wellsford Greenways	July 2015	5
Rodney Greenways, Local Paths Plan Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead	December 2016	11
Rodney Greenways, Paths and Trails Plan Pūhoi to Pakiri,	June 2017	28

7. The local board has allocated $250,000 towards progressing feasibility works required across the Rodney Greenways priority routes, in partnership with the community.

8. Overall there are a significant number of priority routes, 44 in total (Attachment A). Three of these are progressing to detailed feasibility work, leaving 41 for consideration. Given the significant number of priority routes identified, a detailed exercise has been undertaken to determine the routes where the $250,000 can provide the greatest benefit.

9. At the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee workshop on 3 August 2017, a set of criteria for prioritising Rodney Greenways priority routes was tabled for feedback from board members.

10. These criteria were used to develop a scoring matrix to prioritise the adopted greenways plan priorities for allocating budget towards detailed feasibility. During the development of the scoring matrix the opportunity presented itself to centralise all adopted greenways plan priority route information into one document – Rodney Greenways Priority Matrix (RGPM).

11. The matrix allowed for the consideration of a broader set of criteria and embedded links to priority route maps. The RGPM is a tool that can be utilised for tracking and future referencing by staff and local board members when prioritising future funding opportunities. The RGPM is intended to be a ‘living’ document that will be updated as and when feasibility or other information becomes available.

12. Attachment B identifies seven priority routes that have been identified by the RGPM, the scoring criteria and relevant scores.

13. Input has been sought from Auckland Council staff, experienced in delivering feasibility studies, to determine a realistic number of routes that are achievable within the available budget and timeframe. It is proposed that four of the seven routes identified by the RGPM be selected.

14. It is proposed that the Auckland Council, Community Facilities Investigation and Design team, in partnership with interested community groups that are identified with help of the Rodney Strategic Broker (Auckland Council’s Community Empowerment team), undertake detailed feasibility on the four routes identified below:

Plan	Priority route ID	Name
Wellsford	G2	Centennial Park Rd and Wellsford Centennial Park
Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead	6	Esplanade reserve, Kumeu River - Huapai to Kumeu Town Centre
Kumeu, Huapai, Waimauku and Riverhead	8	Riverhead, Victoria Street (unformed road)
Puhoi to Pakiri	24	Omaha Wetlands Walk

15. The following priority routes are being considered by Auckland Transport for funding to complete feasibility work;

Plan	Priority route ID	Name
Puhoi to Pakiri	10	Mahurangi College - The Grange - Eastern Suburbs
Puhoi to Pakiri	22	Matakana East Bridle & Cycle Loop

16. Given the degree of feasibility work already undertaken, the following route, at this stage, should not receive further funding for feasibility;

Plan	Priority route ID	Name
Puhoi to Pakiri	11	Warkworth Town Centre to Snells Beach

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The adopted greenways plans are developed through three steps of engagement:

i. Local board member, internal, external agency stakeholders and Iwi engagement;

ii. Targeted consultation with identified interested external stakeholders, including follow up investigation into viability;

iii. Wider/open consultation - a wider consultation exercise, extending beyond interested stakeholders; including follow up investigation into viability.

18. The process for identifying the four routes to receive funding was workshopped with the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on 3 August and 12 October 2017.

19. Feasibility work is one of a number of steps within the project framework and as a result the feasibility may identify that the project is not appropriate or feasible to progress any further.

20. There is an inherent risk in allocating budget to feasibility work when there is no confirmed source of capital funding identified. While feasibility is necessary to progress projects and significantly contributes to any future funding applications, it does not guarantee that a project can progress to the next stage or that further funding will be secured.

21. Once the feasibility studies have been completed projects will require detailed design, landowner approval and any regulatory and/or consenting requirements to be met before physical works can commence.

22. As various pathway projects progress through the stages of the project delivery framework, consideration needs to be given to the governance and ongoing management and maintenance of the path network. Furthermore, many paths will potentially cross land that is administered or owned by a number organisations or individuals.

23. To respond to the risks identified above, staff have proposed that a strategic document be developed in partnership with interested community organisations and other landowners to establish a governance framework for the path network. This would ensure a considered approach to prioritisation, funding applications, project delivery, path management and maintenance. Further discussion on a possible strategic document will be undertaken with the local board in the future. This document will not be developed in time to address the potential risks.

Māori impact statement

24. Environmental, cultural and social outcomes of Mana Whenua are aligned in the adopted greenways plans under Section 4.4.

25. Various iwi engagement sessions with representatives were held during the development of the plans, following initial research and GIS mapping, local board and internal and external agency stakeholder workshops. Iwi were also invited to participate through the proposed open consultation channels.

26. A commitment has been made by Auckland Council to ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua through the ‘Mana Whenua Northern Iwi Forum’ and liaison with iwi and local marae. This commitment is confirmed throughout the process; from aspirational projects to feasibility, detailed design and physical implementation. Iwi engagement will be achieved through the setting of work programme budgets and delivered through Auckland Council’s project framework.

27. Iwi will have the opportunity to determine the level of involvement they would like in the development of the feasibility work.

Implementation

28. The feasibility studies will be delivered by the Auckland Council; Community Facilities Investigation and Design Team, with support from the Rodney Strategic Broker and Auckland Council Community Empowerment Unit. This will ensure that local community groups are able to be involved at their preferred level, given the differing levels of time, skills and resources that are available within various community groups.

29. Members of the respective teams are aware of the process and have confirmed their ability to deliver these projects

30. Once the feasibility studies are complete it is envisaged that the studies will be used by communities to advocate for and leverage further funding from various sources to continue developing the projects.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rodney Greenways priority routes	63
b ⇩	Rodney Greenways Priority Matrix	69

Signatories

Authors

Jeff Lyford - Parks and Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Auckland Transport Update to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee of the Rodney Local Board for November 2017

File No.: CP2017/23521

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects, a summary of consultation material sent to the local board and information on transport-related matters of specific application and interest to the Rodney Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. This report provides updates and information on:

· The Rodney Local Board’s Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects;

· The Local Board’s Locally Driven Initiatives Footpaths;

· Consultations on regulatory processes;

· Traffic Control Committee results;

· Issues Raised;

· Quarterly Report Materials;

· Hill Street Intersection – Traffic Improvements;

· Sandspit Wharf;

· Te Uri o Hau Signage;

· A ‘Love Being a Local’ Campaign for Helensville;

· Auckland Transport’s New Chief Executive;

· AT’s Quarterly Report to Council;

· Road Safety Programme; and

· AT’s Safer Communities Future Programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) note the Auckland Transport Update for November 2017.

Comments

Update on Rodney Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) Projects

Rodney Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$1,347,808
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$601,560
Remaining Budget left	$746,248

3. The available funding shown above comprises $322,315 which must be spent before 30 June 2019 and $423,933 which may be spent before 30 June 2020.

4. The $601,560 committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction comprises funding allocated to Projects 399, Great North Road, Riverhead Footpath; 497, Pohutakawa to The Landing Footpath; and 538, Riverhead Area Kerbing Works.

5. Project 538, Riverhead Area Kerbing Works, is being completed as part of a joint project with Auckland Transport (AT), providing for the rehabilitation of the road pavement and the provision of kerb, channelling and footpaths.

6. The footpaths involved in the project are shown below:

7. Despite a number of complex stormwater issues requiring compromise and further discussion with Auckland Council’s consenting officers, the final design is almost complete and it is anticipated that the tender for the physical work will awarded before Christmas 2017.

8. Construction will take approximately four months and further details of this will be advised once the contract has been awarded.

9. At its meeting on 21 September 2017 the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee requested (RODTP/2017/39) that AT provide a rough order of costs for the construction of a footpath along Matakana Valley Road, and another for associated parking if appropriate, with a view to works coinciding with the improvements to swale drains being undertaken by Healthy Waters and the road rehabilitation being undertaken by AT.

10. Members met with staff from Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters and AT’s Road Corridor Delivery teams on 24 October 2017 to discuss aspects of the project and further discussions are scheduled for 23 November 2017. Information will be sought on potential costings at the conclusion of these discussions, once members have considered how the Rodney Local Board can add benefit to the project using its LBTCF.

Update on the Local Board’s Locally Driven Initiatives Footpaths

11. Over the past two years the local board has facilitated the construction of footpaths in the North (Kaspar and Hill Streets, and Falls Road) and the West (Tapu and Elliott Streets) using its Locally Driven Initiatives funding. Still to be delivered is the Princes Street, Riverhead, footpath.

12. At its meeting on 21 September 2017 the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee resolved to (RODTP/2017/39):

confirm its preferred option for the design and construction of a footpath on Princes Street, Riverhead, using its Locally Driven Initiatives funding as Option 3, 1.5m footpath, bollards and retaining wall, with no formalised sealed parking, $316,000.

13. The detailed design for the Princes Street footpath will be finalised by the end of November 2017 and the tender for the work will be awarded by mid-February 2018. Construction, which will take 5 – 6 weeks, will begin in March/April 2018.

Consultations on Regulatory Processes

14. Documentation describing a proposal to replace the existing kea crossing on Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead with a raised pedestrian crossing was forwarded to members on 12 October 2017. Support for the proposal was received from Member Pirrie. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

Traffic Control Committee Results

15. Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Rodney Local Board during September and October are listed below:

Street Name, Suburb	Report Type	Nature of Restriction	Decision
Commercial Road, Karaka Street, Rimu Street, Helensville	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Give-Way Control, Flush Median, Edge Line	Carried
Puhoi Road, Puhoi	Speed Limit Changes Report	80km/hr Permanent Speed	Carried

Issues Update

16. Attachment A lists those issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 1 November 2017.

Quarterly Report Materials

17. AT’s Quarterly Report Materials for the period July - September 2017 are attached, comprising:

· Attachment B – Report from AT departments on activities in the Rodney Local Board area over the past quarter.

· Attachment C – Report on TravelWise Schools activities.

Upcoming projects and activities of interest to the board

18. Hill Street intersection - traffic improvements

19. AT has completed its assessment of the safety improvements trial at the Hill Street/Elizabeth Street intersection in Warkworth, held in late November/early December 2016, and is now investigating interim safety improvements that can be implemented ahead of the permanent intersection upgrade.

20. The assessment of the trial indicated that the measures introduced were successful at improving traffic flow and reducing congestion at the Sandspit Road approach to the intersection, particularly in the morning peak.

21. The measures introduced from November to December 2016, were:

· Traffic travelling from SH1 and Hill Street was not permitted to turn into Elizabeth Street.

· Drivers travelling from SH1 entered Warkworth town centre from Whitaker Road (south of Hill Street).

· Drivers exiting Hill Street turned right onto SH1 and entered Warkworth town centre via Whitaker Road.

· Drivers exited Elizabeth Street freely.

· Give way rules on Sandspit Road no longer applied.

22. Following the trial, a number of options were assessed for their benefits in improving pedestrian safety and traffic movements and interim improvements will now be introduced in two stages.

23. Stage I will involve the installation of a traffic signal on the left slip lane from State Highway 1, reducing traffic conflict at the intersection and allowing full access to the town centre throughout the day. This will enable the installation of new pedestrian crossings at the intersection to provide both north-south and east-west connections and on the slip lane across Sandspit Road.

24. Stage 2 will be the installation of a time-controlled barrier to govern access to Elizabeth Street during the morning peak hours.

25. The following image shows the changes proposed:

hill-st-improvements-main-image

26. Physical works to enable these changes are expected to begin during the first quarter of 2018.

27. Further information, a recent presentation made to the local board about the options considered, and an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposed changes are available on AT’s website at: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/hill-street-intersection-traffic-improvements/

28. A separate investigation into a permanent solution for the Hill Street intersection is already underway and funding has been allocated to investigate possible design changes to the intersection.

Sandspit Wharf

29. Following a review of the concerns raised by the local board and members of the Sandspit and Kawau Island communities, AT has decided to defer strengthening and repair work on Sandspit wharf until after the summer season.

30. In the interim however, the movement of vehicles on the wharf will need to be managed and or/restricted until such time as the necessary maintenance works can be completed.

31. Options to manage vehicle movements and/or restrictions are being investigated and the project team will meet again with the local community mid-November to update them on the restrictions to be implemented. The restrictions will remain in place until the upgrade works can be completed.

32. AT staff will continue to monitor the condition of the wharf and further restrictions may be required until maintenance work can be carried out. AT also reserves the right to perform maintenance work or close the wharf at any time should it be deemed necessary to ensure its continued safe operation.

Te Uri o Hau Signage

33. The Auckland Plan, Unitary Plan, Long-term Plan and local board plans all articulate Auckland Council’s commitment and legal responsibility to Māori. They also state that the council is committed to meeting its broad legal obligations to Māori, together with its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi).

34. AT’s Responsiveness Plan outlines AT's commitment to meeting its legal and relationship responsibilities towards Māori and AT staff have recognised a unique opportunity to develop distinctive Māori signage for the Auckland region to showcase Māori identity and history.

35. Up to twenty signs are to be developed in partnership with mana whenua of the region, providing opportunities to showcase cultural and environmental heritage aspects of the region at strategic locations.

36. The Rodney Local Board approved the sign for Ngati Manuhiri now installed in Warkworth on the Mahurangi river bank in November 2016. More recently, comments were sought from members for signage for Te Uri o Hau to be installed in Wellsford. Both the local board chairperson and deputy chairperson provided comments in support of the proposal and no objections were received.

37. The location chosen for the signage after discussion with representatives of Te Uri o Hau is on Rodney St, opposite the Police Station, in the vicinity of the property at 108 Rodney Street.

38. Further discussions will be held with Te Uri o Hau with regard to an unveiling of the sign following its installation, to which members will be invited.

‘Love Being a Local’ Campaign for Helensville

39. AT has identified a speeding issue in the Helensville area and is initiating a ‘Love Being a Local’ campaign with the aim of encouraging local drivers and commuters to reconsider their speeds and slow down. All products used in this type of campaign include the road safety message ‘Slow Down’.

40. As part of previous ‘Love being a Local’ campaigns, communities have positioned billboards along prominent roads and used resources such as direct mail postcards to inform locals about the campaign. Well-known and respected residents have been selected to front each campaign, with their pictures being printed on these billboards and resources.

41. Initial engagement with the Helensville community ahead of the campaign, to enable discussion and explore other ideas suggested by the Helensville community, took place at an AT-facilitated a focus group on 2 November at the Helensville Primary School.

42. Further information about the Helensville campaign will be provided as this comes to hand.

Auckland Transport appoints new Chief Executive

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

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

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

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

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

AT’s Quarterly Report to Council

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

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

· Governance and planning frameworks;

· AT’s strategic and funding sources; and

· Local board satisfaction with AT.

50. Mr Morris’ section of the report discussed:

· AT’s achievements over the past year;

· Auckland’s growth;

· Delivery of operational and capital projects;

· Planning for the future;

· Working with local boards, iwi and manu whenua;

· Customer experience;

· Organisational development;

· The last year of the Long Term Plan; and

· Looking ahead.

Road Safety Programme

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

· how Auckland’s network is performing;

· why road trauma is increasing;

· what ‘Best Practice’ looks like;

· where investment is best prioritised; and

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

52. The full Road Safety Programme report presented is appended to this report as Attachment E.

Safer Communities Future Programme

53. In recent years Auckland has become a more challenging place for people getting around on foot. AT considers that people have the right to a safe walking environment so over the next three years will be working with communities around Papakura, Mt Roskill and Mangere Bridge on ways to make the areas better and safer for walking.

54. These three communities were selected for AT’s Safer Communities future programme through a thorough investigation process, with AT staff considering a range of factors including pedestrian crash rates and the number of existing good crossing facilities in communities around Auckland. It was a difficult task as there are many communities in need of this kind of investigation and attention, but these areas have not had any recent upgrades and there are currently no plans for other work that would mean changes could be made.

55. The aim of the project is to better understand the opportunities available to create an environment where more people want to walk as part of their daily journeys. AT is also working with community groups and other stakeholders such as NZ Police to help establish the issues and opportunities.

56. AT will return to each community during 2018 with a set of designs for possible physical changes based on their feedback, including new crossings and traffic calming devices to make it safer for pedestrians.

57. Funding will be sought from the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Council, with construction and physical changes set to take place in 2019/20. The plan is to invest approximately $16.5 million in these communities over three years.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

58. This report is for the local board’s information.

Māori impact statement

59. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rodney Issues	79
b ⇩	Information on local and regional issues	93
c ⇩	School Transport Information	105
d ⇩	Local Board Update	107
e ⇩	Road Safety Information	129

Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett - Elected Member Relationship Manager North, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/23247

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· update the Rodney 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 Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

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 with 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

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray – Policy and Planning Manager – Local Boards

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager, Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

16 November 2017

Amendments to the chairperson and deputy chairperson delegation post committee review

File No.: CP2017/23831

Purpose

1. To amend the delegations to the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee, in accordance with the recommendations of the Rodney Local Board review of committees.

Executive summary

2. On 5 October 2017, the Rodney Local Board members undertook a review of the structure of the local board committees, in accordance with the original decision to establish the committees on 15 December 2016 (resolution RD/2016/176).

3. The committee review recommended three substantive changes to the structure of the Rodney Local Board’s Parks and Recreation Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee. These recommendations are presented for the local board’s consideration and approval at its meeting on 16 November 2017. A copy of that agenda report is attached as Attachment A.

4. One of the recommendations of the review is that the current delegations to the chairperson and deputy chairperson which were approved at the meeting on 18 May 2017 (resolution RODTP/2017/20), should be amended to the chairperson only, but in consultation with the deputy chairperson.

5. As a consequence of the changes proposed to the committee structure, the Project Lead for Greenways will need to be transferred from the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee to the Parks and Recreation Committee.

6. In accordance with the report set out in Attachment A, the proposed changes to resolution RODTP/2017/20 are recommended with additions underlined and deletions struck through.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:

a) amend the delegations made in resolution RODTP/2017/20 on 18 May 2017 to the following:

“delegate the following responsibilities to the Chairperson of the committee: ~~and the Deputy Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Committee~~

i) to approve the variance of costs for approved Local Board Capital Transport Fund projects up to 20% of the original funding allocated to the project.

ii) all changes to the work programmes up to a value of $35,000 for existing projects that have already been approved through the annual work programme.

iii) the final approval of any informal feedback relating to matters delegated to this committee.

iv) to grant minor landowner approval for the use of any council owned land managed by a department relevant to this committee, provided that any requests that the chairperson and deputy chairperson consider are more than minor shall be referred to the committee for approval.

v) to grant landlord approval for any minor alterations or additions to council owned property that is leased to third parties, provided that any requests that the chairperson and deputy chairperson consider are more than minor shall be referred to the committee for approval.

b) note that the chairperson may consult with the deputy chairperson and any other local board members that the chairperson deems relevant, prior to exercising their delegation.

c) agree to the transfer of the Project Lead for Greenways to the Parks and Recreation Committee for future reporting and accountability.

Comments

7. On 15 December 2016 the Rodney Local Board resolved to establish a Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee and a Parks and Recreation Committee (resolution RD/2016/176).

8. The local board subsequently adopted the Terms of Reference of the two committees and acknowledged that the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee would on delegate the following responsibilities to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of this committee at its first business meeting (resolution RD/2017/23):

i) to approve the variance of costs for approved Local Board Capital Transport Fund projects up to 20% of the original funding allocated to the project,

ii) all changes to the work programmes up to a value of $35,000 for existing projects that have already been approved through the annual work programme.

iii) the final approval of any informal feedback relating to matters delegated to this committee,

9. The delegations to the chairperson and deputy chairperson were subsequently approved at the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee business meeting on 18 May 2017 (resolution RODTP/2017/20),

10. On 5 October 2017, the Rodney Local Board members undertook a review of the structure of the local board committees, in accordance with the original decision to establish the committees on 15 December 2016.

11. The committee review recommended three substantive changes to the structure of the Rodney Local Board’s Parks and Recreation Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee. These recommendations are presented for the local board’s consideration and approval at its meeting on 16 November 2017. A copy of that agenda report is attached as Attachment A.

12. One of the recommendations of the review is that the current delegations to the chairperson and deputy chairperson should be amended to the chairperson only, but in consultation with the deputy chairperson.

13. The reason for this change is that the sign-off of two members can be difficult to obtain in a timely fashion. Where the two members disagree this leaves the local board unable to provide feedback to staff. Additionally, vesting a delegation in two local board members may, in effect, be a de facto committee that brings with it additional administrative burden that was unintended when the committees were established and is not consistent with the intent of having responsive and efficient decision making. Shifting the delegation to the chairperson, who must act in consultation with the deputy chairperson, should alleviate these issues and speed up the process while still allowing for checks and balances in decision making

14. The revised committee terms of reference (as part of Attachment A) anticipate that the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee will amend the current delegations to chairperson and deputy chairperson in order to give effect to the recommendations of the review.

15. Additionally, as a consequence of the proposed changes, the Project Lead for Greenways will need to be transferred from the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee to the Parks and Recreation Committee to reflect that greenways has now moved to the Parks and Recreation Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. This report seeks the views of the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on the proposed delegations.

Māori impact statement

17. The Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee will continue to engage with iwi to ensure that effective decision-making takes into account the views of Māori.

Implementation

18. These new delegations of the committee will take effect once they have been approved and adopted.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rodney Local Board Terms of Reference report November 2017	159

Signatories

Authors

Jonathan Hope - Local Board Advisor - Rodney

Kathryn Martin - Senior Local Board Advisor - Rodney

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Cameron Brewer
Deputy Chairperson	Louise Johnston
Members	Brent Bailey
	Tessa Berger
	Beth Houlbrooke
	Phelan Pirrie
	Allison Roe, MBE
	Colin Smith
	Brenda Steele

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager