Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

Upper Harbour 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 6

8.1 Brickworks Committee - Linear Park toilets, Hobsonville Point 6

8.2 Business North Harbour - results of survey 6

8.3 Albany CoCo Trust Incorporated operational concerns 7

9 Public Forum 7

9.1 Willem Mandemaker - Linear Park toilets, Hobsonville Point 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held, Thursday 19 October 2017 9

13 Auckland Transport monthly report - November 2017 23

14 Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications 27

15 Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services 71

16 Adoption of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres 139

17 Feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 145

18 Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks 151

19 Linear Park toilet, Hobsonville Point 171

20 Approval for two new road names within the subdivisions at 87 - 95 and 227 - 235 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point 179

21 Approval for 15 new road names within the subdivisions at 2 - 68 and 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point 187

22 Venue relocation for Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting of 14 December 2017 195

23 Governance forward work calendar - December 2017 to November 2018 197

24 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 12 October, 19 October, 26 October, and 2 November 2017 201

25 Board Members' reports - November 2017 211

26 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 19 October 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Brickworks Committee - Linear Park toilets, Hobsonville Point

Purpose

1. For representatives from the Brickworks Committee to discuss their concerns about the location of the new toilets in Linear Park, Hobsonville Point.

Executive summary

2. Cherry Kingsley-Smith from the Brickworks Committee, will be in attendance to highlight the concerns of local residents about the change in location of the new toilet block in Linear Park without consultation.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Cherry Kingsley-Smith from the Brickworks Committee, and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

8.2 Business North Harbour - results of survey

Purpose

1. To address the Upper Harbour Local Board and present the findings of the Albany Village Business Association survey.

Executive summary

2. Janine Brinsdon, General Manager of Business North Harbour, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to present the findings of the survey in support of and to clarify the details of their grant application towards a traffic management report.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Janine Brinsdon, from Business North Harbour, and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Business North Harbour report............................................................ 215

b Business North Harbour - Albany village survey invitation.................. 219

c Business North Harbour - Albany Village survey invitation (maxpop). 221

d Business North Harbour - Albany village survey results...................... 223

8.3 Albany CoCo Trust Incorporated operational concerns

Purpose

1. To address the Upper Harbour Local Board to discuss operational concerns.

Executive summary

2. Mark Moffitt, Chairperson, and Jenny Bassett, Deputy Chairperson, of Albany CoCo Trust Incorporated will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board to highlight issues and discuss operational concerns at the community house.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Mark Moffitt and Jenny Bassett of Albany CoCo Trust Incorporated, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

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.

9.1 Willem Mandemaker - Linear Park toilets, Hobsonville Point

Purpose

1. To address the Upper Harbour Local Board to raise concerns about the location of the Linear Park toilets in Hobsonville Point.

Executive summary

2. Mr Willem Mandemaker and other residents of De Havilland Road, will be in attendance to discuss matters of concern relating to the Linear Park toilets.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the public forum item from Willem Mandemaker, and thank him for his attendance.

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.

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Auckland Transport monthly report - November 2017

File No.: CP2017/22790

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 Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

· provide a summary of consultation material sent to the local board

· provide transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

· progress reports on the board’s advocacy initiatives in creating well-connected and easily accessible public transport networks, improvements to the road network, access to walkways and cycleways, and connecting Westgate to the North Shore

· the announcement that funding has been approved for new road projects in Albany:

o a new link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road

o a new link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue

o an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway between Stevenson Crescent and Gills Road

o an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway intersection with The Avenue and Lucas Creek Bridge

· implementation of the New Public Transport Network enhanced timetables on both the Hobsonville and Beach Haven routes

· Auckland Transport (AT) has improved the road network and access to walkways and cycleways through the completion of the upgrade of the Albany Highway, and its associated footpaths and cycleways

· progress on the Gills Road pedestrian bridge and a gravel footpath with a structural timber boardwalk.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update for November 2017.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $355,167 per annum and will have an adjustment for inflation added in future years. The following tables note previous decisions, progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments:

Project

Description

Current status

Gills Road

footpath

To construct a footpath along Gills Road, between the Living Stream intersection and the one-way bridge

Footpath and boardwalks:

· October / December 2017 – lodgement and processing of the building and resource consent application

· January 2018 – construction contract to be awarded

· February 2018 – physical works commence

· June 2018 – construction complete.

Gills Road

pedestrian bridge

To construct a footbridge adjacent to the road bridge

Footbridge:

· Mid-November 2017 – construction contract to be awarded and karakia (pre-dawn blessing)

· Late November 2017 – physical works commence

· April 2018 – construction of the bridge complete.

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,835,080
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$297,222
Remaining budget	$1,537,858

Upcoming projects and activities

Austin Road – request for caution signs

4. As there is no footpath on Austin Road, the local board has been asked to install caution signs in the road corridor to warn motorists when members of the public are walking on the road.

Update

5. AT is investigating this request and will report back once completed.

Maintenance contract complaints

6. The local board has received many complaints about the way maintenance contracts are carried out in relation to road berms.

Update

7. AT is investigating this request and will report back once completed.

Albany Highway driveway safety

8. The local board has received a complaint from a resident at 389 Albany Highway who is having difficulty entering and leaving their property since the upgrade of Albany Highway.

Update

9. AT is investigating this request and will report back once completed.

Kyle Road Park and Kyle Road damaged footpath

10. AT needs more time to investigate this request.

Oscar Road footpath

11. AT is investigating interim safety measures to make the footpath safer and will continue to work with the council to find a permanent solution for this issue.

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

12. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for its feedback. The material below is included for general information purposes only:

· proposed road (Road 1) as part of the Te Uru subdivision area in Hobsonville

· minor cycling improvements in Murrays Bay

· Albany Highway / Rothwell Avenue pedestrian and cyclist crossing signalisation

· parking restrictions on Vega Place, Atlas Place, Ascension Place and Whetu Place in Rosedale.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

13. Decisions of the TCC over the month of October 2017, affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area, are shown in the following table:

Albany Highway, Schnapper Rock Road, Oakway Drive, Appleby Road, Oak Manor Drive, Kristin Gate, Bass Road, Summerfield Lane, Wharf Road, Settlers Albany Retirement, Library Lane, Rothwell Avenue, Knights Road, Rosedale Road, Wentworth Park, Princeton Parade

Albany

No stopping at all times (NSAAT), transit lane, ambulance service, cycle lane, cycle path, bus stop, bus shelter, lane arrow markings, keep clear, traffic island, flush median, road hump, traffic signal control, give-way control

Scott Road, Craigs Way, Roa Avenue, Turret Lane, Kokowai Parade, Aviation Drive, Observation Green, Habitat Place, Kota Lane, Tai Crescent, Kano Way, Kearns Drive

Hobsonville

Cycle lane, NSAAT, cycle path, angle parking, parking 180, bus stop, bus shelter, mobility parking, traffic island, road hump, give-way control, flush median, edge line, shoulder marking

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The views of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

15. 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

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/23009

Purpose

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for the Upper Harbour Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board allocated $49,252 in the Upper Harbour Local Grant, Round One 2017/2018. The local board also approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group (resolution number UH/2017/127) from the community grants budget. A total of $105,148 remains to be allocated for three quick response rounds.

3. Nine applications were received in this round and one application was deferred from Local Grants, Round One, with a total requested amount of $30,294.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each of the Quick Response, Round One applications listed in the table below:

Application	Organisation name	Project	Total requested
QR1817-109	Action Education	Towards Spoken Word workshops and performances for schools within the Upper Harbour area	$2,000
QR1817-103	Canterbury and New Zealand Business Association	Towards venue hire, petrol vouchers, printing and phone expenses for the Migrant Legal Clinic at Meadowood Community House from December 2017 to June 2018	$4,000
QR1817-105	Albany CoCo Incorporated	Towards venue hire for Albany House, and towards purchasing sewing machines, thread, screen printing and coordinator wages for Boomerang Bags	$5,118
QR1817-106	Bays Youth Community Trust	Towards internet and website costs from February to September 2018	$1,000
QR1817-111	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards catering, resources, administration and youth worker wages to deliver two barista training workshops	$1,676
QR1817-102	Meadowood House	Towards the BBQ, music, entertainment, community activities, smoothie bike and Santa photographer for the ‘Carols at Meadowood 2017’ event	$1,500
QR1817-107	East Coast Bays and District Cricket Club Incorporated	Towards the annual contribution for expenses for the Windsor Park Facility	$6,000
QR1817-108	Badminton North Harbour Incorporated	Towards shuttlecocks and trophies for the Badminton North Harbour International Badminton Tournament	$2,000
QR1817-110	North Harbour Softball Association	Towards purchasing equipment to enable schools to participate in the ‘T‑Ball programme	$2,000
LG1817-120 deferred from Local Grants Round One 2017/2018	Business North Harbour Incorporated	Towards a traffic management report to monitor the impact of growth on economic development	$5,000
		Total amount requested	$30,294

Comments

4. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board in adopting a grants programme (see Attachment A).

5. 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.

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board will operate one local grant round and three quick response rounds in this financial year. The Upper Harbour Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, closed on 13 October 2017.

7. 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.

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

9. At the August 2017 meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group in the following resolution (number UH/2017/127):

b) approve funding of $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group from the local board discretionary community grants fund to enable the establishment of the herb garden, and note that as this project provides improvement to a reserve, and in order to take advantage of the planting season, the board is considering this now, rather than through the contestable grants process.

10. A further $49,252 was allocated in the Upper Harbour Local Grants, Round One.

11. This leaves a total of $105,148 in the community grants budget to be allocated. It is recommended that the local board consider allocating up to 33 per cent of the remaining budget in this grant round.

12. Nine applications were received in this round and one application was deferred from the Local Grants, Round One, with a total requested amount of $30,294.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

14. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states:

‘We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.’

15. A summary of each application is attached (see Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

16. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, and activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Grants Programme 2017/2018	31
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	35

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Teh - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/20841

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) services in Auckland following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3. The review will determine the appropriate level of Auckland Council support for CABx services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4. Thirty-one CABx operate in the Auckland region.

5. Auckland Council funds Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) $1.839 million a year, which then distributes the funds to bureaux.

6. Local boards have provided input to the review on the local relationships, services and funding. Staff have developed draft options to address the issues and opportunities raised. The options are in the table below:

Option 1: Enhanced status quo	Enhancements are a refined funding model, reporting improvements and strengthened local relationships
Option 2: Locally driven	Transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards
Option 3: Regional service provision	Collective review of funding levels and number and location of service sites

7. Staff consider Option 3 to be the best option to achieve consistent regional service delivery. If CABx and Citizens Advice Bureaux New Zealand (CABNZ) do not agree with Option 3, then Option 1 provides for greater consistency of service delivery than Option 2.

8. Staff will incorporate feedback from local boards on the draft options, into the review findings to be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities by 1 December 2017.

Comments

Background

9. On 7 April 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

‘seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland’ (resolution number REG/2016/22).

10. The review scope includes:

· alignment to council policy, strategic priorities, and local board plans

· equitable service provision – Aucklanders having access to the services they need across the region, responding to growth and change in Auckland’s communities

· equity of funding for bureaux across Auckland – the basis for how funding is distributed

· how Auckland Council interacts and engages with bureaux across Auckland

· communicating the impact and value of Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services

· council’s governance needs and role with regard to reporting and accountability.

11. Since 2013, ACABx (a board made up of representatives from across Auckland bureau) has been distributing council funding to bureaux using a population-based funding model. This replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

12. ACABx received $1.839 million for the 2017/2018 financial year, which includes an annual inflation provision. This expenditure is included in the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

13. Some local boards provide funding to their local bureaux in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx. Local boards provide support to CAB through accommodation as the majority of bureaux are located in council facilities.

14. ACABx distributes funds to local CAB so that communities are provided with access to information, advice, referral services and client advocacy services.

Current Auckland CAB services and alignment with local board plans and council strategies

15. Currently, there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 18 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum. Seventy-five per cent of the service is delivered face-to-face.

16. Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

· local board plan outcomes, such as connected communities, employment and housing

· Auckland Plan (strategic direction one): to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders

· Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whānau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions.

17. The first annual review of the Auckland Council-ACABx Strategic Relationship Agreement (2016-2018) was finalised on 28 August 2017, and noted the following achievements and issues:

· agreed relationship principles, established a governing group and secured CABNZ involvement to support the relationship

· work is still in progress to improve analysis of information to measure the impact of CABx in the community, and the subsequent reporting practices

· both parties acknowledged that the current arrangements limit the collective ability to achieve regional level change, including closure, rationalisation or new sites and influencing local service provision

· currently, ACABx will not address the overall number and location of service sites operated by member bureaux, which is based on legacy council models. They will not consider opening new sites unless there is an increase in the overall funding envelope. Based on current information shared by CAB, it is difficult to determine the value of the service in order for the council to review its funding commitment.

The review of CAB Services in Auckland

18. Local boards provided input to the review during July and August 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided to resource and support their input. The full summary of local board input is provided in Attachment A.

19. Feedback from boards highlighted what is working well:

· most boards consider the services are of high value to the community

· leveraging of council funding as services are delivered by well trained, approachable, multi-lingual and knowledgeable volunteers

· connecting people with information and services otherwise out of reach, especially for migrants, older people, international students and lower socioe-conomic groups.

20. The review has identified a number of issues, including:

· inequity in funding of bureaux and service provision across the region – service needs to be responsive to growth and community need

· the need for better connections between local boards and bureaux to support improved two-way communication

· the need for bureau data and information on trends and emerging issues at regional and site level

· future service sustainability, including awareness of service and better outreach to targeted groups that currently are under-represented as users (e.g. Māori, some migrant groups, young people, rural communities).

21. Some local boards have raised deprivation as a factor that should be taken into account in allocating funding to bureaux. These boards consider that areas of high deprivation should get more funding as there is increased and more complex need. Further investigation is needed and staff are seeking evidence from CAB on what they deliver and from which sites, and where their clients live, before deprivation can be considered within the funding model.

Draft options for feedback

22. Three draft options have been developed that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and the review of the Strategic Relationship Agreement (refer to Attachment B).

23. Overall, ‘Option 3: Regional service provision’ provides the most likelihood of achieving regional consistency of service delivery to meet changing community need and for this reason staff consider this to be the best option. However, without the agreement of the CABx and CABNZ, Option 3 is not achievable. Discussions between council staff, the ACABx board and CABNZ are still ongoing.

24. If Option 3 is not achievable, ‘Option 1: Enhanced status quo’ will provide for greater consistency of service delivery than ‘Option 2: Locally driven’.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Local boards have detailed knowledge of both local bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs. Boards have provided input to the review on their relationship with the local bureau, services and funding, indicating that for most boards there is good alignment of the CAB services with local board plan outcomes.

26. Staff have developed draft options that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and are seeking feedback on these options.

27. Under ‘Option 1: Enhanced status quo’, the funding model is reviewed and an improved local relationship framework would be available to support reporting and discussions between boards and bureaux. Under ‘Option 2: Locally driven’, boards would take on responsibility for funding local bureaux. Under ‘Option 3: Regional service provision’, a fuller assessment would be undertaken, with local board involvement to determine a new approach for future CAB service provision across the region.

Māori impact statement

28. For 2016/2017, Māori users of CAB services comprised between 2.5 per cent of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster, to 13.2 per cent in south/east Auckland cluster (Source: ACABx Accountability Report to Auckland Council July 2016-June 2017).

29. Options 2 and 3 are more likely to improve Māori engagement with CAB services as they would support more responsive local service provision.

Implementation

30. Staff request local boards provide feedback on the draft options by 1 December 2017. Staff will incorporate this feedback in to the review findings, which will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of CAB services - summary of local board input	75
b ⇩	Review of CAB services - draft options	135

Signatories

Authors

Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex – Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

PDF Creator

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Adoption of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres

File No.: CP2017/23653

Purpose

1. To endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres, and approve new membership prices for Albany Stadium Pool.

Executive summary

2. The Active Recreation team have developed a strategic ‘Game Plan’ to support the vision of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan – inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often – and to achieve local board priorities.

3. Deploying a single, consolidated operating system across all council operated leisure facilities is a key project in this work programme. The new system supports improved operational and business processes. It also enables Auckland Council to offer a new range of affordable and accessible memberships across all council operated leisure centres.

4. A new membership structure was piloted in three leisure centres in June:

· Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa

· Stanmore Bay

· East Coast Bays (Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories).

5. The recommended membership model will provide more choice and membership features, improved benefits, and allow full members access to more activities in more centres throughout the region. It will also provide lower cost options for people that predominantly enjoy one activity at their home centre.

6. Albany Stadium Pool will become a silver centre. New ‘Get Into It’ (full) members will gain access to all functions at Albany and at 14 other silver and bronze centres across Auckland. Alternatively, members can now choose from two new single function memberships for activities at Albany only:

· Gym It (gym access)

· Swim It (swimming).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across council operated pools and leisure centres.

b) approve revised membership prices for Albany Stadium Pool for the 2017/2018 financial year:

i. ‘Get Into It’ silver membership, at $19.50 per week

ii. ‘Swim It’ or ‘Gym It’ memberships at $16.00 per week.

Comments

Impact in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

7. Albany Stadium Pool will become a silver centre. New members will pay $19.50 per week for full membership and access to all functions at Albany, and at 14 silver and bronze centres across Auckland. Currently, approved membership for 2017/2018 is $18.70 per week and access is available to four other North Shore facilities.

8. Alternatively, members can now choose from two new single function memberships at Albany:

· ‘Gym It’ (gym access) - $16.00 per week

· ‘Swim It’ (swimming) - $16.00 per week.

9. Concessions for seniors, students, families, disabled persons, community services card holders and green prescription will apply to these prices.

10. Existing members are welcome to retain their memberships until:

· their current fixed term membership period ends, at which time they will be offered one of the new fixed or open-term memberships, or

· they choose to upgrade or cancel their open-term direct debit membership.

11. These changes only apply to membership-based products and services. There will be no impact on the cost, features or availability of other activities, including pool entry, learn-to-swim, spa/sauna/steam access or casual fitness.

Background – enabling more Aucklanders to be more active, more often

12. Council manages 44 aquatic, leisure and early childhood education (ECE) facilities across the Auckland region. Nineteen pools and leisure centres are operated under contract or lease agreements by third parties. The remainder are managed and operated by council’s Active Recreation team.

13. The Active Recreation ‘Game Plan’ is a three year transformation programme designed to achieve outcomes aligned to the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP):

· inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often

· enabling our children, young people and whanau to reach their potential

· delivering quality experiences through an operationally, cost-neutral leisure network.

14. Active Recreation has developed a range of new initiatives to improve engagement with ‘insufficiently active’ Aucklanders, based on extensive sector insights, market research, pilot testing and customer feedback. These include:

· offering flexibility and variety in council’s membership offering, including regional access to Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres (a new membership structure)

· providing consistently high-quality and engaging member services, that encourage and support regular activity for a wide variety of Aucklanders (a new customer promise).

15. Auckland Council’s new leisure consolidated operating system (LCOS) will be deployed across all council operated leisure facilities by March 2018. The new system will support improvements in operational processes and business practices, including point-of-sale, processing entries and payments, managing memberships, running programmes and courses, and allocating staff.

New Auckland-wide leisure membership

16. One significant advantage of the consolidated operation system, for both customers and council, is the ability to simplify and standardise products (memberships), services (courses and programmes) and prices across the leisure network.

17. It will also enable council to offer a new range of affordable and accessible ‘Get Active Your Way’ memberships that include access to many more council operated leisure centres and activities. It has been ensured that within each membership tier, there is a mix of services including pool, gym and group fitness programmes for customers with ‘Get into it’ membership and that all prices are attuned to the local community.

18. If members want access to centres or services that do not fall within their home centre’s tier, they are welcome to purchase a membership for a tier above.

19.

Screenshot%202017-09-27%2020

Active Recreation has also introduced a new single function (swimming, fitness, group fitness) membership at each centre to offer a cheaper, more targeted alternative.

20. ‘Get Active Your Way’ membership structure is outlined below:

21. The table below outlines the proposed changes to individual membership:

Type of membership	Description	Replaces	What’s the change?
Get Into It	Full membership, offers access to all activities within each centre and to other council operated centres across the region, according to three tier groupings: Gold (17 centres, including silver and bronze) Silver (15 centres, including bronze) Bronze (10 centres)	Over 50 different full access memberships, offered in single or small clusters of centres across the region. Currently prices, services, terms and benefits vary across the region and from centre to centre. Full membership = $18.70/week	Simplicity, clarity and consistency of prices, services and benefits. Access to a much wider range of Auckland Council operated leisure centres. Improved range and quality of services offered. Silver ‘Get Into It’ membership = $19.50/week
Gym It Swim It Move It	Activity based membership option Offers access to a specific activity at the local centre: Gym It – gym/fitness centre Swim It – pool/spa/sauna Move It – group fitness	Off-peak and restricted single-centre memberships. N/A	This is a new, cheaper membership category meeting the demands of customers who only wish to use the gym, pool or group fitness. Gym It/Swim It memberships = $16.00/week
Concessions	Senior, disabled, student, youth and green prescription concessions are available for all membership types	Existing concession offers	Membership concessions will be carried forward. Both new and current offers will be applied more consistently.

Membership pilot and positive feedback

22. The membership framework has been extensively researched, developed and tested prior to piloting in three sites (Stanmore Bay, East Coast Bays and Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa) in June and July 2017. Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories. These sites represent a diverse range of customers, services and functions. This allowed Active Recreation to test the membership model across a range of local communities, functions and facilities.

23. Feedback from new members who signed up during the pilot period was overwhelmingly positive (e.g. over 90 per cent opted for the ‘Get Into It’ full access bronze membership at Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa).

24. All three pilot centres experienced similar benefit from the new membership structure and have continued with the new membership offering past the end of the period. This has allowed Active Recreation to continue to evaluate the new membership model against the existing membership offering in other centres.

25. Customer and staff experience measures have improved and results remain positive with sales increasing in all pilot centres:

Membership Totals	30 May 2016	30 May 2017	Membership Pilot Begins	30 June 2017	30 July 2017	27 Aug 2017
MNAK Total members	956	985		988	1039	1062
Get Into It members	na	0		+59	+143	+210
ECB Total members	553	571		597	590	576
Get Into It members	na	0		+83	+106	+128
Stanmore Bay Total	1784	2095		2126	2115	2148
Get Into It members	na	0		+117	+191	+260

Customer feedback on the recommended changes

26. Active Recreation performs regular customer research, using Net Promoter Score (NPS) surveys, which provide a quantitative measurement of customer satisfaction. This benchmarks the quality of our customer engagement and service standards.

27. NPS results suggest that, along with other improvements to the service and support offering, the new membership framework has been received very positively by customers.

28. The following table shows customer experience results at pilot sites:

Average NPS Scores	3 months, March to May 2017	3 months, June to Sept 2017
Pilot centres	43.6	48.7
Auckland Council Pools & Leisure	28.9	27.4

29. The survey also enquires about the key attributes that customers valued. The top attributes across the pilot sites are:

· programme suitability

· good instructors/teachers

· friendliness

· value for money.

30. These are all benefits associated with the new membership services, which reinforces the positive feedback received from staff and through customer interactions.

Inclusion of contracted pools and leisure centres

31. These new membership options will only apply to council operated facilities at this time, with one exception. Staff have an agreement, in principle, with Community Leisure Management (CLM), one of our three contracted operators, that Auckland Council membership will also include Otahuhu Pool and Leisure Centre (Toia) as a bronze centre.

Impact on existing members of the recommended changes

32. One of the key principles of the change process is that existing members, particularly concession holders, are not disadvantaged by the changes. All current membership types will either be continued for active members and access will not change, or the current membership will be matched to an equivalent new membership (and any cost difference discounted). If the new cost is lower in price, existing members will pay the lesser amount. New members will sign up to one of the new membership types at the new prices.

33. Active Recreation are confident that the new ‘Get Active Your Way’ membership model, coupled with improvements to the service offering and a more integrated network of pools and leisure centres, will provide Auckland residents with better access to quality facilities, expert staff and engaging recreation opportunities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. Hibiscus and Bays and Mangere-Otahuhu local boards were notified before piloting and updated in July, in workshops after the pilot.

35. The new membership structure and prices were presented and discussed in a workshop to the Upper Harbour Local Board on 5 October 2017.

36. The Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards have approved the new membership prices.

37. To date, this has also been presented in workshops to Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Orakei and Waitemata Local Boards. These boards have all expressed their support for the new membership model and reports have been submitted for their approval.

38. The pools and leisure network is a regional asset-based service, so the recommendation carries no financial risk to the local board.

Māori impact statement

39. The Active Recreation Game Plan and the membership model have been presented to the Northwest iwi hui. The iwi representatives were very supportive of these initiatives.

40. Recreation, leisure and aquatics programmes, provided for local communities through pools, leisure centres and recreation teams, contribute to improving wellbeing among Māori communities. Some programmes, such as free swimming for under 16s, are intended to benefit local Māori as a targeted population.

Implementation

41. The membership model and changes to access are being presented to local boards for approval from September through November. Meanwhile the Active Recreation support team are developing and delivering staff training to support the new membership structure and customer activation process. Communications for existing members and marketing materials for the new memberships are being created. Active Recreation is aiming, with local board approval, to introduce these membership options in November.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Garth Dawson - Leisure Business Manager

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/21679

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 the council’s responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.

3. This report seeks feedback from the Upper Harbour 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

o plastic waste

· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

4. These points were initially discussed with local boards during September and October 2017 workshops on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2017, seeking approval to publicly notify the draft plan. Formal feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this report.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour 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 the 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 the council. This accounts for approximately 20 per cent of all waste to landfill in the region.

8. The 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 are 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 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. This includes a food waste collection in urban areas and pay-as-you-throw charge for kerbside refuse collections.

11. While 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

· 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 detailed below:

· 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 the council’s direct control. Although this option could be implemented within the council’s waste budget envelope, it would not meet the council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in Auckland.

· 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 the council’s direct control and could be implemented within the current waste budget, with some reprioritisation.

· 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 means of incineration.

14. It is proposed that council adopts option two, which has the potential to significantly reduce the total waste to landfill, and can be undertaken within the current funding envelope.

Proposed updates to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012

15. It is proposed that the new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will continue the direction of the 2012 Plan. This should 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.

16. 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’.

17. 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.

18. To achieve the zero waste vision, three goals are proposed: minimise waste generation, maximise opportunities for resource recovery, and reduce harm from residual waste.

19. 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.

20. 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

- plastic waste

o addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

21. 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. The council recognises that it cannot achieve its waste minimisation responsibilities by acting alone.

22. It is important to note that the 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 the council is unsuccessful in its advocacy, targets will not be met.

Request for local board feedback

23. Local boards are being asked whether they support the proposed approach taken in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and in particular the focus on:

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

· addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

o construction and demolition waste

o organic waste

o plastic waste

· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisations’ operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

Financial implications

24. The actions proposed in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be achieved within existing waste funding. Funding will be obtained through a combination of:

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

· rates funding

· 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).

25. Infrastructure to enable commercial resource recovery will require investment from external sources such as government and the private sector.

26. 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

27. Workshops were held with all local boards in September and October 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards.

Māori impact statement

28. 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.

29. 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

30. The draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will have financial implications, as the targeted rate for food waste must be costed and included in the 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 – Acting General Manager Waste Solutions

Julie Dickinson – Acting Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/23251

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· update the Upper Harbour Local Board on the changes to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw

· 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 Upper Harbour 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, as outlined within Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee provide a nine week time restriction for election signs on road reserves, 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 on 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 allocated decision-making over 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.

14. The List of Election Sign Sites relevant for the Upper Harbour Local Board has been taken from the Auckland Transport website and is provided at Attachment A for the board’s reference.

Existing issues caused by election signs

15. 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 per cent 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.

16. 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.

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

Freedom of expression

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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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?

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

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

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

Connection with objective

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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

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

34. The pros and cons of each approach are provided in the table below.

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

35. 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

36. 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).

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

38. Staff recommend that the local boards adopt this option.

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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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.

42. The following table lists 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

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Elections sign locations in Upper Harbour	159

Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Linear Park toilet, Hobsonville Point

File No.: CP2017/23832

Purpose

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with reviewed options in relation to the positioning of the public toilet block in Linear Park in Hobsonville Point, and request local board approval for positioning of the toilet.

Executive summary

2. In June 2016, in response to requests from the community, the Upper Harbour Local Board commenced the planning and consultation process to determine a suitable site for a public toilet in Linear Park, in Hobsonville Point.

3. The local board agreed to the most appropriate placement of the toilet block in December 2016 in a workshop. The board considered the following factors when determining the location of the toilet block within Linear Park:

· Proximity to utilities (including power and wastewater):
Although it was envisaged that the public toilet would have been constructed closer to the playground, on investigation it was found that none of the utilities required to service the public toilet were located in the immediate vicinity of the playground.

· Location:
The public toilet needed to be centrally located for ease of access for all park users, not only children utilising the playground.

· Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED):
It is council’s responsibility to ensure that CPTED principles are considered, especially when constructing a public facility. This includes a direct line of sight, owing for passive surveillance and a good degree of capable guardianship, in other words, in open view of pedestrian and road users.

· Visual impact:
At the time of the design, consideration was given to try and minimalise the visual impact on residential properties. Therefore, the rear of the toilet block is to be vertically recessed, and the roof treatment will complement the surrounding footpath and paving to ensure that the visual impact from above is minimal and blends into the surroundings.

· High service provision:
High service provision potential for all users of the facility, particularly physically impaired users, was also an important contributing factor. Enhanced service provision for non-park users, such as passing pedestrian traffic, was also taken into consideration.

4. Immediately prior to construction, it was discovered that wastewater infrastructure lay directly below the originally intended placement site and the toilet block needed to be moved to ensure that the infrastructure was not compromised.

5. In learning of the proposed relocation of the toilet block, the local board requested that revised options for location within the immediate vicinity of the originally intended location be investigated and reported back for consideration and approval.

6. The following quotes and alternative location options are detailed below:

· Option 1 – re-locate the toilet block in the closest proximity to the wastewater pipe. This option would require shortening of the existing pipe and the construction of a new manhole, so as not to compromise the structural integrity of the wastewater pipe. The toilet block is indicated in Attachment A in a red outline and the section of wastewater pipe to be shortened is depicted with a dashed line.

· Option 2 – re-locate the toilet block directly above the wastewater pipe. This option would require bridging the pipe – the toilet block is indicated in Attachment A in a red outline and the wastewater pipe, which is depicted with a dashed line, would require a bridging along the length of the pipe to ensure its structural integrity is maintained and to meet Watercare compliance.

· Option 3 – re-locate the toilet block to the area of the Baffin Street view shaft. It is to be noted that in this case, the toilet block will be located in the middle between the existing wastewater line and stormwater line. The final location will not be exactly in the centre of the view shaft, in order to avoid the existing services infrastructure – the toilet block is indicated in Attachment A in a green outline.

· Option 4 – status quo. The toilet block will remain sited where it was originally consented – the toilet block is indicated in Attachment A in grey.

Relocation options	Option 1 (relocate by WW but shorten pipe red outline and dashed line)	Option 2 (relocate above WW and bridge red outline)	Option 3 (relocate in Baffin Street view shaft green outline)	Option 4 (status quo – retain toilet block where originally consented)
Original contract cost	$210,000	$210,000	$210,000	$210,000
Additional cost for construction and consenting	$20,000	$25,000	$20,000
Professional services	$ 7,500	$ 7,500	$ 7,500
Total (excl GST)	$237,500	$242,500	$237,500	$210,000

7. All additional costs incurred through this process will be covered within the regional asset based services budgets, which means that the local board would not need to make a contribution from its locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital budget to support any of the options listed above.

8. Attached, for the local board’s reference, is the graphic depiction of the design of the Linear Park toilet block (refer Attachment B).

9. The local board is requested to formalise its preferred option, as per the information provided above, in order for the toilet (which is constructed and awaiting placement) to be installed.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve a placement option for the toilet block to be sited in Linear Park, Hobsonville Point.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Linear Park toilet block positioning options	175
b ⇩	Indicative drawing of the design of the toilet block	177

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Approval for two new road names within the subdivisions at 87 - 95 and 227 - 235 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point

File No.: CP2017/22988

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board, for road names for two new private roads within two subdivision developments at 87 - 95 and 227 - 235 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names and these have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming. While these criteria specify alternate names should be offered for consideration, only one preferred name has been suggested for each road in this instance. From the outset of this development, the proposed names have had a strong linkage to the two superlots. Further information is provided in the comments section.

3. The applicant, Ngāi Tahu Property Limited, has submitted the following road names:

Superlot	Type	Preferred
Buckley B1	Lane	Uku
Buckley 14A	Crescent	Kerewhenua

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the new road name ‘Uku Lane’ for the new private road within the subdivision development at 87 – 95 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

b) approve the new road name ‘Kerewhenua Crescent’ for the new private road within the subdivision development at 227 – 235 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

Comments

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

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

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature

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

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

8. The two new private roads to be named each service properties within their respective subdivisions.

9. Maps showing the two new private roads, with surrounding lots in the two subdivisions, are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below. Both names meet the criteria through having a historic or ancestral linkage to the area.

11. The applicant, Ngāi Tahu Property Limited, has advised that:

· from the outset of this development, the two names ‘Uku and Kerewhenua’ have been used to identify the superlots within the ‘Kerepeti’ project (‘Uku’ being BB1 and ‘Kerewhenua’ being B14A)

· these names have embedded themselves within their respective superlots and the applicant is very pleased to propose retention of these names by formally using them to identify the lane within ‘Uku’, and the crescent within ‘Kerewhenua’ as per the attached documents. Consultation has taken place with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. The background behind the names relates to the underlying theme of the ‘Kerepeti’ development, which is shaped around the concept of life and clay. These names have been used throughout the development as homes are built for people, and therefore, it is hoped that future owners can continue to use these names to identify with their own homes.

We come from clay

We return to clay

In Māori tradition, Hineahuone, considered to be the first female human, was formed from clay at Kurawaka, making this more than just an artistic material, but a blood relative

A bond between humanity and Papatūānuku (earth)

This same story of the beginning of life is shared by a huge and varied range of cultures.

Proposed new road name

Meaning

Buckley B1

Uku Lane

Uku is both a verb (to wash using clay for soap), or a noun (bluish white clay)

Buckley 14A

Kerewhenua Crescent

Kerewhenua is a noun for yellow clay

12. The road naming criteria suggests that the road types could be referred to as:

Superlot	Type	Guideline description	Preferred
Buckley B1	Lane	Narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway	Lane
Buckley 14A	Crescent	Crescent shaped thoroughfare, especially where both ends join the same thoroughfare	Crescent

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

15. Local iwi were consulted as part of the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Committee and Ngāi Tahu also consulted directly with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara who supported both names.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Superlot locations - Uku and Kerewhenua	183
b ⇩	Superlot sites - Uku and Kerewhenua	185

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 November 2017

Approval for 15 new road names within the subdivisions at 2 - 68 and 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point

File No.: CP2017/23046

Purpose

1. To seek approval for new road names from the Upper Harbour Local Board for five new public roads and 10 new private roads, within two subdivision developments at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road (Te Uru Stage 1) and 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road (Te Uru Stage 2), within The Village Precinct at Hobsonville Point.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names and these have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming. While these criteria specify alternate names should be offered for consideration, only one preferred name has been suggested for each road due to their relationship to each other in telling a story. Further information is provided in the comments section.

3. The applicant, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust, has submitted the following road names:

Superlot	Type	Preferred name
Te Uru Stage 1
Road 1	Road	Te Aho Matua
Access 1	Lane	Piko
Access 2	Lane	Whatu
Access 3	Not named as no property access – pedestrian link only
Access 4	Lane	Raranga
Access 5	Lane	Whiri
Te Uru Stage 2
Road 1	Road	Te Rito
Road 2	Road	Puku
Road 3	Road	Ringa Matou
Road 4	Road	Ringa Maui
Access 1	Lane	Matimati
Access 2	Lane	Uma
Access 3	Lane	Ko Tohu
Access 4	Lane	Ko Nui
Access 5	Lane	Mapere
Access 6	Lane	Ko Iti

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the new road name ‘Te Aho Matua Road’ for the new public road ‘Road 1’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 1’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

b) approve the new road name ‘Piko Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 1’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 1’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

c) approve the new road name ‘Whatu Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 2’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 1’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

d) approve the new road name ‘Raranga Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 4’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 1’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

e) approve the new road name ‘Whiri Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 5’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 1’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

f) approve the new road name ‘Te Rito Road’ for the new public road ‘Road 1’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

g) approve the new road name ‘Puku Road’ for the new public road ‘Road 2’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

h) approve the new road name ‘Ringa Matou Road’ for the new public road ‘Road 3’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

i) approve the new road name ‘Ringa Maui Road’ for the new public road ‘Road 4’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 1 - 73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

j) approve the new road name ‘Matimati Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 1’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

k) approve the new road name ‘Uma Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 2’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

l) approve the new road name ‘Ko Tohu Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 3’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

m) approve the new road name ‘Ko Nui Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 4’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

n) approve the new road name ‘Mapere Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 5’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

o) approve the new road name ‘Ko Iti Lane’ for the new private road ‘Access 6’ within the ‘Te Uru Stage 2’ subdivision development at 2 - 68 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville Point.

Comments

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

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature

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

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

8. Five new public roads and ten new private roads are to be named, as each services properties within their respective subdivisions.

9. Maps showing the new roads with surrounding lots in the two subdivisions are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below. All names meet the criteria through having a historic or ancestral linkage to the area.

11. The applicant, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust, has proposed only one name per road as they all relate to each other. If an alternative name is provided and accepted over the preferred, the korero being told would not make sense. These names were chosen specifically to the following korero:

· the korero for Stage 1 is linked to Pa Harakeke (flax) from Te Uru Stage 2 and is based on raranga, which translates to ‘weaving into’

· the korero for Stage 2 is based on Pa Harakeke (flax) whanaungatanga, where the role of the parents and grandparents (outer leaves of the harakeke) protect the children (inner, younger leaves of harakeke) – the future generations. It has been suggested that harakeke be incorporated into the street landscaping plans.

Proposed new road name	Meaning
Te Uru Stage 1
Road 1 - Te Aho Matua Road	Main thread
Access 1 - Piko Lane	To bend
Access 2 - Whatu Lane	Weft of the weave
Access 4 - Raranga Lane	To weave
Access 5 - Whiri Lane	Build the kete (or whatever you are weaving)
Te Uru Stage 2
Road 1 - Te Rito Road	Heart of the harakeke
Road 2 - Puku Road	Belly
Road 3 - Ringa Matou Road	Right hand Note: where the sign is placed, according to the left and right for the street from the main road (Nugget Ave)
Road 4 - Ringa Maui Road	Left hand (as above)
Access 1 - Matimati Lane	Fingers
Access 2 - Uma Lane	Chest (heartbeat)
Access 3 - Ko Tohu Lane	Index/pointer finger
Access 4 - Ko Nui Lane	Thumb
Access 5 - Mapere Lane	Middle finger
Access 6 - Ko Iti Lane	Little finger

12. The road naming criteria suggests that the road types could be referred to as:

Owner	Type	Guideline description	Applicant preferred
Public	Road	Open roadway primarily for vehicles	Road
Private	Lane	Narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway	Lane

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

15. Consultation was carried out with the Hobsonville Point Placemaking Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. They advised they have no issues with the proposed names.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Plan	191
b ⇩	Site Plans - Te Uru Stages 1 and 2	193

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, JP
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 12 October 2017	203
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 19 October 2017	205
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 26 October 2017	207
d ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record or workshop - 2 November 2017	209

Authors	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager