Agenda of Whau Local Board - 22 November 2017

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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of the Whau Local Board.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Tracy Mulholland	· New Lynn Business Association – Business Associate/Contractor
Susan Zhu	· Chinese Oral History Foundation – Committee member · The Chinese Garden Steering Committee of Auckland – Board Member
Derek Battersby	· Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust –Trustee · New Lynn Tennis Club – Patron · West Lynn Gardens – Patron · Tag Out Trust – Chairman · New Lynn Bowling Club - Patron · Avondale RSA - Member
Catherine Farmer	· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society – Member · Blockhouse Bay Historical Society – Member · Portage Licensing Trust – Trustee · Blockhouse Bay Bowls – Patron · Forest and Bird organisation - Member
Duncan Macdonald	· Avondale Business Association – Chairman · Avondale Community Society – Chairman · Avondale RSA – Committee Member · Avondale-Waterview Historical Society - Member · Avondale Jockey Club – Member
Te’eva Matafai	· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust - Co-Founder · Miss Samoa NZ - Director · Miss World Samoa - Director · Malu Measina Samoan Dance Group - Director/Founder · Pasifika Festival ATEED - Samoa Village Coordinator · Aspire Events - Director
David Whitley	· Rosebank Business Association - Member · Pathways to the future - Past trustee · REINZ - Member · Don Oliver Youth Sports Foundation - Past trustee · Chamber of Trade - Mentor · Lopdell House - Trustee · West Auckland Enterprise, Skills & Training (WEST) - Manager

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 October 2017, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Ward Councillor’s Update

An opportunity is provided for the Whau Ward Councillor to update the board on regional issues he has been involved with since the last meeting.

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 Whau 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 Deputation - Brook Turner, VisionWest Community Trust

Purpose

1. Brook Turner from VisionWest Community Trust will be in attendance to introduce the organisation to the board and to share their work for the community of West Auckland, including social housing, budgeting, counselling and community banks.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from VisionWest Community Trust and thank Brook Turner for his presentation.

Attachments

a About VisionWest Community Trust.................................................... 249

b VisionWest annual report..................................................................... 251

8.2 Deputation - Sustainable Coastlines

Purpose

1. Sam Judd from Sustainable Coastlines be in attendance to present on a collaborative proposal (with Auckland Council, The Department of Conservation and the Department of Corrections, The Whau River Catchment Trust and others) to grow and plant 400,000 native trees alongside the Whau River to the board.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Sustainable Coastlines and thank Sam Judd for the 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 Public Forum - John Stowell - Participatory Budgeting in Auckland

Purpose

1. John Stowell will be in attendance to introduce the idea of Participatory Budgeting in Auckland to the Whau Local Board.

Executive summary

2. Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.

3. Participatory Budgeting has been used successfully in many countries, including Australia, Canada, the US and Scotland, as a way of engaging and empowering people, and as an introduction to doing democracy differently.

What have been found to be the outcomes?

• Increased civic engagement

• More broadly representative political participation

• The emergence of new community leaders and a more politically active citizenry

• Stronger and more trusting relationships between government, organisations and citizens

• Fairer, in the sense of more democratically representative, and more effective spending.

What is being proposed?

That Auckland Council, through the Local Boards, should initiate a trial of participatory budgeting by setting aside initially a minimum of 1 percent of the council's annual capital budget to be spent as decided by citizen's juries, preferably selected by lot to maximise inclusivity.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive public forum submission from John Stowell and thank him for the presentation.

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.

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Auckland Transport Update, Whau Local Board, November 2017

File No.: CP2017/24160

Purpose

1. This report:

a) Provides an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

b) Responds to requests on transport-related matters.

c) Provides a summary of consultation material sent to the Whau Local Board.

d) Provides information on transport related matters of specific application and interest to the Whau Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. This report provides a:

· update on the current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund;

· summary of consultation material sent to the Board on Bus layover in New Lynn, Margate Road Speed Tables; Broken yellow lines on Old Titirangi Road; Parking Restrictions on St Georges Road and Broken Yellow Lines on Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report, Whau Local Board, November 2017.

Comments

Local Board Capital Projects

3. The Whau Local Board has approximately $550,000 per annum of discretionary funding for transport related capital projects.

4. This money can be used for projects identified by the Local Board, the principal constraints being that the project:

· Will not compromise transport safety;

· Is transport-related;

· Does not compromise the efficiency of the road network.

5. The Local Board’s current Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects are summarised in the table below:

Project

Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed

Status

Projected Cost

Whau Bridge

This is part of the New Lynn to Waterview shared path.

The cobtrution by the Whau Local Board is for a footbridge that is 3.5m wide and 76.5m long.

· Tender for construction to be confirmed late October, 2017

· Construction to begin December, 2017

· Projected completion October, 2018

$2,000,000 (expended from last terms budget)

Waitahurangi bridge project (McWhirter Bridge)

The connection between Mcwhirter Place and Busby Street, New Lynn, was identified in the Whau Greenways Network Plan as a priority.

This is project is a footbridge to link Busby and McWhirter Streets in New Lynn.

· Offer of Service received from consultant to prepare Preliminary Design for consultation (approximate cost - $80,000). The plans will include architectural perspective as well as value engineer for all options being considered.

· Expected to be complete by the end of 2017.

$1,034,000

Consultation

Rewarewa/Great North Road reinstatement and redevelopment

6. Following the severe wet weather events earlier this year Auckland Transport have been working closely with the members of the Rewarewa Redevelopment Working Group to create the attached Great North Road reinstatement concept plan. The layout and concept has been agreed by the working group and a detailed design is now being confirmed by Auckland Transport. The attached concept plan is a compromise solution to the various conflicting demands on this area.

7. The attached proposal (Attachment C) will ensure the retention of 13 carparks and will provide a level of amenity to local business, including 3107 Great North Rd and the general public.

8. The entrance to the carpark area will be treated to create a slow speed traffic environment, similar to other shared zones. The existing footpath on the north side will also be widened to 3m to provide a shared facility and to future proof for possible future cycle connectivity. On advocacy from the Whau Local Board, the footpath between Great North Road and Rata Street will be replaced with concrete footpaths to match appearance with Totara Ave footpaths.

9. The Whau Local Board working group members have indicated support for the high level concept design.

Other

10. The local board’s views will be taken into account during consultation on any proposed schemes. The following were consulted in October 2017.

· Bus layover spaces in New Lynn

· Margate Road Speed Tables

· Broken yellow lines on Old Titirangi Road, Titirangi

· Parking Restrictions on St Georges Road, Avondale

· Broken Yellow Lines on Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The local board’s views on Auckland Transport projects will be taken into account during consultation on any proposed schemes. Any implications are discussed in the relevant section of the report.

12. Local board views on transport capital projects are discussed and addressed during the design phase of those projects and will be considered in the relevant section of the report at the time.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport activities in the Whau Local Board area and regionally for the July-September 2017 quarter	13
b ⇩	Travelwise Schools activities in the Whau Local Board area for the July-September 2017 quarter	25
c ⇩	Rewarewa/Great North Road reinstatement and redevelopment proposal	27

Signatories

Author

Felicity Merrington, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Whau Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/22444

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for the Whau Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Whau Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $150,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

3. A total of $45,577 was allocated in the local grants, round one and a further $14,061 was allocated in the quick response, round one. There is a balance of $90,362 remaining for the 2017/2018 financial year.

4. Twelve applications were received for quick response round two, requesting a total amount of $15,930.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) consider the quick response applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table One: Applications for the Whau Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018

Application No.	Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested
QR1821-209	Claire O'Neil	Towards printed performance t-shirts for public site performances at New Lynn Memorial Square and La Rosa Garden Reserve	$700
QR1821-215	Action Education	Towards Spoken Word workshops at schools in the Whau	$2,000
QR1821-212	Pasifika Migrant Services Trust	Towards hiring tables and chairs, resources, materials, a gas bottle, administration, volunteer expenses, registration fees and stall fees for the Kiribati Village at the Pasifika Fesitval 2018	$2,000
QR1821-202	Waitakere Japanese Supplementary School	Towards art materials, stationery and teaching materials for Term One, 2018	$500
QR1821-204	U3A Titirangi	Towards venue hire at the Westlynn Garden, and stationary for U3A Titirangi	$500
QR1821-208	Generation Ignite	Towards food for the “Summer Camp Ignite 2017”	$2,000
QR1821-214	Bridge of Love Association Incorporated (BOLAI)	Towards venue and sound system hire, and towards design of the promotional brochure for the “2017 BOLAI Christmas Unsung Hero Communication And Promotion Ceremony”	$2,000
QR1821-213	Bridge of Love Association Incorporated	Towards transport, rubbish bags, safety yellow jackets, water, rubbish bin hire and gloves for the BOLAI Youth Group rubbish collection beside Whau River	$2,000
QR1821-203	Avondale Community Action	Towards music, promotion, catering for volunteers and face painting for the Avondale Christmas Market 2017	$760
QR1821-206	Auckland Deaf Society Incorporated	Towards entertainment for the Deaf Children's Christmas Party and towards catering for the Senior citizens Christmas"Break-up"	$1,451
QR1821-216	Helen Fergusson	Towards venue hire and instructor for the fitness, health and well-being workshops	$547
QR1821-217	Avondale Community Fale (Pacific Events and Entertainment)	Towards costs for the security alarm system and projector for the Avondale Community Fale	$1,472
		Total requested	$15,930

Comments

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

6. 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.

7. The Whau Local Board will operate two local grant rounds and three quick response rounds in this financial year. The Whau Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 closed on 20 October 2017.

8. 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.

9. The Whau Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $150,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. It is recommended that the board consider allocating up to 10% of the budget in this grant round.

10. Twelve applications were received in this grant round, requesting a total amount of $15,930.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Whau 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.

12. 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.”

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

Māori impact statement

14. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori. One applicant applying in this round have identified as a Māori individual or organisation and five applications have indicated their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Implementation

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

16. Following the Whau Local Board allocating funding for the Quick Response Round Two, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Grants Programme 2017/2018	33
b ⇩	Whau Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	37

Signatories

Author

Caroline Teh - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Exchange of part of Margan Reserve for other land

File No.: CP2017/19241

Purpose

1. To obtain the Local Board’s support for the public notification of a proposed exchange of part of Margan Reserve, New Lynn, with private land.

Executive summary

2. Avanda is undertaking a development in New Lynn. The development requires a new road connection to Margan Avenue in accordance with the New Lynn precinct plan.

3. The proposed development is located adjacent to Margan Reserve, New Lynn.

4. Avanda has proposed an exchange of 295m² of their land at number 5 Clinker Place with 295m² of land at Margan Reserve under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977. The applicant will bear all costs associated with processing the land exchange.

5. The proposed land exchange aims to:

· enable the provision of a road, pedestrian and cycle connection between Margan Avenue to New Lynn centre and the train station, in accordance with the New Lynn precinct plan

· enable a fragmented piece of Margan Reserve to be incorporated into a larger strip along Margan Avenue.

6. Staff recommend that the Local Board support public notification of the proposed land exchange.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) support the public notification under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 of a proposed land exchange of 295m² of Margan Reserve, New Lynn (Pt Lot 1 DP 122011) for 295m² of adjacent land at 5 Clinker Place (Pt Lot 2 DP 122011) as shown on Attachment B of the agenda report.

Comments

7. Avanda is undertaking development within the Auckland Unitary Plan’s precinct plan for New Lynn, known as the West Edge. Avanda propose to subdivide the lots totalling 11.3 hectares.

8. The development will involve creating a new road connection to Margan Avenue, in accordance with standard I607.6.1 of the precinct plan (refer Attachment A). This will allow the proposed road to be vested as pubic road prior to further development taking place.

9. Margan Reserve is located adjacent to Margan Avenue and comprises two separate areas (refer Attachment B).

10. Margan Reserve is classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. It does not have a reserve management plan in place.

11. To provide access to Margan Avenue, Avanda seeks to exchange 295m² of Margan Reserve with adjacent land totaling 295m² at 5 Clinker Place (refer Attachment C) under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977.

12. The proposed land exchange is expected to have positive benefits to the community including:

· provide a road, pedestrian and cycle connection from Margan Avenue to New Lynn centre and the train station, in accordance with the New Lynn precinct plan

· minimise the loss of vegetation within Margan Reserve

· enable a fragmented piece of Margan Reserve to be incorporated into a larger strip along Margan Avenue.

Reserves Act 1977 land exchange process

13. Section 15 of the Reserves Act prescribes the process for a land exchange between reserves and other land. The process has four key steps:

· the administering body (in this case the Auckland Council) publicly notifies its intention to undertake the land exchange and calls for objections in writing, allowing a period of at least one month for objections to be received

· after a period of at least one month following public notification the administering body considers all received objections to the proposed land exchange

· the administering body passes a resolution supporting the land exchange if it considers it appropriate to do so in light of all objections received

· a copy of the resolution supporting the land exchange is forwarded to the Department of Conservation along with all the objections for authorisation under delegation from the Minister of Conservation.

14. Relevant mana whenua must be consulted when Auckland Council is performing its functions and duties under the Reserves Act 1977.

Acquisition assessment

15. Staff have undertaken an initial assessment of the proposed land exchange.

16. Open space acquisition opportunities, including land exchanges, are assessed against the criteria of the council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013.

Table 1: Initial assessment of the open space configuration that would result from the proposed land exchange

Acquisition criteria	Comment	Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority: · the proposed land exchange would facilitate improved physical access between Margan Avenue to New Lynn centre and the transport hub, which includes the train station.	High priority
Connecting parks and open spaces	High priority: · the proposed land exchange would improve the connectivity of the network of open space walkways throughout the area.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	Not a priority: · there are no known heritage, cultural or natural values of significance located within the areas proposed for exchange.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have	High priority: · the proposed land exchange will involve the loss of some vegetation to create the road however existing vegetation along Margan Avenue will be protected and a small, fragmented piece of the reserve will be connected to a wider and continuous strip.

Assessment conclusion

17. The proposed land exchange has merit when considered against the assessment criteria of the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013.

18. Staff recommend that the Local Board support the notification of the proposed land exchange.

Risks

19. There are no risks to the council if the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 land exchange process are followed correctly.

Costs

20. The applicant will bear all costs associated with processing the land exchange.

Next Steps

21. The proposed land exchange will be reported to the 5 December 2017 meeting of the Environment and Community Committee.

22. The Local Board’s views will be reported to the Committee.

23. Staff will work with the applicant and begin the section 15, Reserves Act 1977 process as soon as practicable if the Environment and Community Committee approve commencing the land exchange.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24. The Local Board’s views are sought through this report.

Māori impact statement

25. Consultation with mana whenua will be undertaken as part of the statutory process under the Reserves Act 1977.

26. The provision of quality parks and open spaces facilitates Māori participation in outdoor recreational activity.

27. Additional benefits include:

· demonstrating Auckland Council’s commitment to the Active Protection (Tautuaku Ngangahau) Principle of the Treaty of Waitangi

· helping make Auckland a green, resilient and healthy environment consistent with the Māori world view and their role as kaitiaki of the natural environment.

Implementation

28. Staff will need to reprioritise existing work in order to undertake the land exchange.

29. The land exchange process under the section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 is expected to take a minimum of six months to complete.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Precinct plan	77
b ⇩	Margan Reserve	79
c ⇩	Proposed land exchange	81

Signatories

Author

Emma Golightly - Team Leader - Parks and Recreation Policy

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Endorsement of Rewarewa Creek Redevelopment, Shared Path and Pocket Park

File No.: CP2017/23609

Purpose

1. To endorse works around the Rewarewa Creek Redevelopment including the detailed design for the pocket park and the shared pathway.

Executive summary

2. The storms of March and April 2017 represent locally significant events that had significant local impacts. In New Lynn, the impact was most keenly felt in the flooding incidents and especially in the overwhelming of a culvert in Great North Road (Rewarewa Creek), New Lynn.

3. Since April 2017, Auckland Council has been working closely with the Whau Local Board, impacted communities, Auckland Transport and council contractors to progress remediation works in response to the devastating impact of the storms on assets and our communities.

4. Through the remediation of the culvert and other network assets staff have looked for opportunities to improve the social outcomes and amenity of the site at the same time as the infrastructure investment. Consequently a pocket park and a shared path has been designed alongside the culvert renewal works.

5. This report seeks endorsement from the local board for the design for the pocket park and the shared path. It also asks the local board to note that the shared path, at its maximum gradient, will not meet the desirable standard for manual mobility access as alternative options would negatively impact neighbouring properties.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) endorse the design outlined in Attachment A for the pocket park as part of the Rewarewa Creek Redevelopment.

b) endorse the proposed shared path running along the true right bank of the Rewarewa Creek around 3,107-3,109 Great North Road and extending to McNaughton Way (Attachment B), as part of the as part of the Rewarewa Creek Redevelopment programme of works.

c) note that at its maximum gradient at the Great North Road end of the shared path will not meet the desirable standard for mobility.

d) note that the Whau Local Board will be updated on any major changes to the design of the pocket park and shared path.

Comments

6. The storms of March and April 2017 represent locally significant events that had significant local impacts. In New Lynn, the impact was most keenly felt in the flooding incidents and especially in the overwhelming of a culvert in Great North Road (Rewarewa Creek), New Lynn. The flood water ponding upstream of Great North Road and the flow across Great North Road caused significant damage to Great North Road and flood damage to local commercial premises, leading to major disruption of business.

7. Auckland Council (Healthy Waters) and Auckland Transport in a joint project have proceeded under emergency provisions of the Local Government Act to remediate the culvert, and have engaged a contractor to design and construct a new, high capacity culvert. The works programme is well advanced and is expected to be completed by March 2018. The opportunity has been taken in these works to provide treatment for the road stormwater, as well as road layout improvements.

8. As part of the Rewarewa Creek redevelopment, staff have looked for opportunities to improve social and amenity outcomes as part of the infrastructure investment. The proposal is to provide a 325m² pocket park above the new culvert outlet on the north side of Great North Road and a shared path along true right bank of the Rewarewa Creek around 3,107-3,109 Great North Road and extending to McNaughton Way.

9. These concepts have been workshopped with the Whau Local Board through the Rewarewa Redevelopment Programme, and members have been supportive of the proposals in principle. The proposals have now entered the final stages of design and details are now available for the Whau Local Board to formally review and endorse.

10. The attached detailed design plan (Attachment A) shows the proposed layout of the proposed pocket park. It will be constructed between the Bike Barn premises at 3,115 Great North Road and the site of the former Probett building, over the new culvert outlet.

11. The pocket park area is designed to be at street level and will provide a platform from which to look north down the Rewarewa Creek. The layout has been designed to provide a safe, open and well-lit area for relaxation on the seating along the retaining, or at the fenced viewing point. The east and west margins will be planted and grassed. A brick paved feature footpath will extend from Great North Road to the viewing area – reflecting the brickworks history of New Lynn. An undulating soft-fall area will provide a feature for children’s play or lounging and the balance area will be paved with coloured exposed aggregate concrete. The intention is that there will be a clear view shaft from the street across the full depth of the park to promote safety, alongside lighting both in the park and on the adjacent boardwalk at night.

12. The proposed shared path extends from the street boundary at the east side of the pocket park and continues around the bank of the Rewarewa Creek, ultimately to join with McNaughton Way. Attachment B describes the boardwalk, viewing platform and new carpark. The path descends at a gradient of 1:12 from the street level for 25 metres at the first bend, where it levels out to just above the level of the car park at the rear of 3,107 -3,109 Great North Road, before rising again to McNaughton Way.

13. The design standard gradient for mobility access is 1:20. To meet the design standard the gradient would have to be decreased by increasing the height of the path along the rear boundary of the private property at 3,107-3,109 Great North Road. Increasing the height of the path is not recommended as it may adversely affect property owner plans for redevelopment of that site, and a 1:12 maximum gradient will be acceptable for walking and cycling and for electric powered mobility devices. The gradient at 1:12 has been confirmed as acceptable for this open space by council’s Community Services department.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The recently adopted 2017 Whau Local Board Plan outcomes speak of ‘well-planned towns, facilities and housing’, ‘great neighbourhoods with strong community connections, capacity and voices’, ‘it’s 20 minutes to all we need by walking, cycling and public transport’, and an ‘enhanced natural environment.’

15. Plans for the Rewarewa Creek Redevelopment have aimed to give effect to these outcomes, and the concept for the pocket park and the shared pathway has been developed through workshops with the Whau Local Board. Discussions have focused on making the Rewarewa Creek environment more accessible as a recreational amenity. Feedback received from the board has shaped the proposed development of the pocket path and shared pathway.

16. The local board have also expressed a desire to place a pou or other marker to signify the importance of the area to Māori. Discussions with mana whenua who have an interest in this area will canvas this aspect.

17. The preliminary designs for these were presented a local board workshop on 5 October 2017 and have subsequently been advanced to detailed design level. However, the design and the maximum gradient need to be formally endorsed by the local board.

Māori impact statement

18. The provision of quality parks and open spaces facilitates Māori participation in outdoor recreational activity.

19. Wai and water quality are important topics for Māori. Auckland Council’s Te Aranga Māori Design Principles are a set of outcome-based principles founded on intrinsic Māori cultural values and designed to provide practical guidance for enhancing outcomes for the design environment. The principles have arisen from a widely held desire to enhance mana whenua presence, visibility and participation in the design of the physical realm.

20. The native plantings within the proposed site aim to address outcome that ‘the natural environment is protected, restored and / or enhanced’.

21. In addition through the proposed projects there is also an opportunity to contribute to mana outcomes through incorporation of Māori history and matauranga Māori in these public spaces.

22. Initial engagement with mana whenua has commenced and consultation with mana whenua will be undertaken as part of both the project and statutory processes. These discussions will consider whether there are any mana whenua outcome design opportunities; such as a pou proposed by the local board.

23. In line with the Whau Local Board initiative “identifying opportunities for park and facility naming/renaming and engaging with mana whenua to develop Māori names and enhance Auckland’s Māori identity and Māori heritage”, the board may wish to consider whether this pocket park and pathway offer opportunities to work with mana whenua on te reo or Māori names to enhance Auckland’s Māori identity and Māori heritage.

Implementation

24. The proposed pocket park and shared path around 3,107-3,109 Great North Road to that property’s eastern boundary will be constructed and funded as part of the current Great North Road - Rewarewa Creek culvert upgrade contract (which is jointly funded by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council). The total budget for the Rewarewa Redevelopment programme is $14.88 million, of which $243,000 is available for the development of the pocket park.

25. The development of the park and shared path are reliant on the purchase of land, agreement for an easement and resource consents. Negotiations for the purchase of the two parcels of land around 3,107-3,109 Great North Road are well advanced. Easements are being sought for the shared path through to McNaughton Way and an application for resource consents for the construction of the shared path is being prepared.

26. Subject to landowner negotiations being satisfactorily concluded and resource consents in place, it is planned that implementation will be contiguous with the final stages of the current Fulton Hogan contract to remediate the stormwater and roading infrastructure by the end of the first quarter of 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Detailed design plan for Rewarewa Redevelopment pocket park	87
b ⇩	Proposed shared path design Rewarewa Creek, Great North Road to McNaughton Way	89

Signatories

Author

Craig Mountjoy – Principal Operation Management, Healthy Waters

Authorisers

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters as first authoriser

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/23855

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 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 Citizens Advice Bureaux services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4. Thirty-one Citizens Advice Bureaux operate in the Auckland region.

5. Auckland Council fund Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated $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 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 in to the review findings to be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Recommendation

That the Whau 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.” (REG/2016/22)

10. The review scope includes:

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

· 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 Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx), a board made up of representatives from across Auckland bureaux, has been distributing the council funding to bureaux using a population-based funding model which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

12. ACABx received $1.839 million for 2017/2018, which includes an annual inflation provision. This expenditure is included in the 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 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; 75% 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) noted the following achievements and issues:

· agreed relationship principles, established a governing group and secured CAB New Zealand (CABNZ) involvement to support the relationship

· work is still in progress to improve measurement and the CAB reporting model

· 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.

· Leverage 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 socioeconomic 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.

Table 1: Review of CAB services: Draft options

Option

Description

Pros

Cons

Implementation

Option 1: Enhanced status quo

· Overall funding envelope unchanged

· Governing Body remains the decision maker for funding

· Council has funding agreement with ACABx

· The funding agreement includes:

- A review of the population-based funding model with up-to-date local board population estimates, current CAB sites and exploring the use of deprivation as a proxy for need

- Improved reporting with consistent trend information at regional and site level

- A local relationship framework developed to support strengthened and more strategic relationships between local boards and bureaux

· Valued community service is maintained

· Continued contribution to regional strategies and improved contribution to local board plan outcomes

· Updated funding model to include some aspects of need, including population growth and potentially deprivation

· Improved reporting on the use and value of the service regionally and locally (who is using the service, why and where)

· Community intelligence is shared to support local decision making and advocacy

· Efficient bulk funding model because Governing Body would allocate bulk funding to ACABx to distribute to the bureaux

· No change to the fixed funding envelope

· Does not address the overall number and location of service sites or opening of new sites in high growth areas

· No strategic approach to the region’s service needs

· Does not address that some local boards are providing additional funding for bureau services from LDI budgets

· Does not address the CAB as a largely passive service with limited resources to undertake outreach to vulnerable groups that are currently underrepresented as users

· Does not address responsiveness of the service to changing demographics and evolving community needs

· Could be implemented for 2018/2019 with a two-year funding agreement (July 2018 - June 2020)

· This is the most achievable of the options

Option 2: Locally driven

· CAB operates as a local service rather than a regional service

· Governing Body transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards. Locally driven initiatives (LDI) budgets adjusted accordingly

· It would be up to each local board to decide if local bureaux are funded and to what level. From the bureaux perspective, their funding agreement would be with Auckland Council instead of ACABx

· Local boards govern the relationship with bureaux

· The funding agreement includes:

- Meeting local board priorities

- Improved reporting and local relationship framework as under Option 1

· Opportunity to strengthen alignment of bureaux services with local board plan outcomes and with other local community services

· Local boards and bureaux work together to respond to growth and local changes

· Council funding of the service can be more responsive to local need, e.g. seek rationalisation of bureau sites at a local or cluster level, outreach to vulnerable groups that are currently underrepresented as users

· Boards can direct funding to providers best placed to serve the local community

· Improved reporting on the use and value of the service regionally and locally (who is using the service, why and where)

· Community intelligence is shared to support local decision making and advocacy

· The fixed funding envelope constrains the ability to open new sites

· No strategic approach to the region’s service needs

· Significantly higher administrative burden on CAB which will need to seek local board support for funding arrangements

· Would require increased dedicated resource from council (Community Empowerment Unit) to administer multiple funding agreements and accountability reports

· Could be implemented for 2018/2019

· Funding could be ring fenced for the 2018/2019 during phased implementation

· From 2019-2021, local boards could fund on an annual or multi-year basis and could also fund on a local board cluster basis

· This option is achievable but would require significant change for bureaux and local boards

Option 3: Regional service provision

· Assessment undertaken to understand the value of the service which would also determine the appropriate level of Auckland Council support required

· This option requires active participation from CABNZ and Auckland bureaux

· Regional Network Provision Framework developed by council, CABNZ and bureaux that reviews the location of bureau sites across the region to address service gaps and opportunities around accommodation

· Could also include potential for a single CAB entity for whole of Auckland with a mandate to develop the service regionally – requires major constitutional change for bureaux

· Comprehensive review of the CAB service going forward and role for Auckland Council in supporting the service

· Only option that allows for a review of the level of council funding for the service

· Strengthened contribution to regional strategies and local board plan outcomes

· Only option that would be able to comprehensively address the overall number and location of service sites, including new sites

· Strategic approach to the region’s service needs and addresses responsiveness of local service delivery

· Requires significant commitment and change from a volunteer-based organisation

· Relies on substantial council involvement and increased dedicated resource

· The new approach would be developed during 2018/19 and implemented in 2019/2020

· Enhanced status quo would apply in 2018/2019

· This option is the most difficult to achieve and would require long term commitment from all parties and council resourcing to implement

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 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% of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster to 13.2% 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 ⇩	Summary of local board input July - August 2017	97

Signatories

Author

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

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

Affected party approval for a proposed height in relation to boundary breach from 3053 Great North Road, New Lynn, with the public reserve Delta Triangle

File No.: CP2017/22545

Purpose

1. To consider the affected party approval application for the height in relation to boundary breach on the Delta Triangle from the proposed development at 3053 Great North Road, New Lynn

Executive summary

2. At a workshop on 18 July 2017 the Whau Local Board was presented with information by representatives of the developers about the proposed development at 3053 Great North Road and a proposed height in relation to boundary breach of 63.5m on the boundary with the Delta Triangle.

3. The Whau Local Board received a supplementary memo from the Land Use Advisor and Consultant Planner on 14 August 2017 giving more detail into the proposed development and breach.

4. This report recommends that the Whau Local Board approves the affected party application for the 63.5m height in relation to boundary breach, and separately enters into a memorandum of understanding with the developer in regards to the proposed offset mitigation to take place in the Delta Triangle.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) approve the affected party application to allow for the height in relation to boundary breach from 3053 Great North Road with the Delta Triangle.

b) enter into a memorandum of understanding with the developer to ensure that mitigation works occur in the Delta Triangle to offset the negative impacts of the height in relation to boundary breach.

Comments

5. The developer is proposing to construct a new apartment block at 3053 Great North Road, which will also include conference rooms, as well as retail space on the street level. The mitigation in Delta Triangle would occur after the development at 3053 Great North Road has been completed.

6. The proposed apartment block would be built to the height restriction of the Auckland Unitary Plan Metropolitan Centre Zone, which is 72.5 metres.

7. The height in relation to boundary breach would be 63.5 metres vertically on the boundary with the Delta Triangle due to the close proximity of the proposed building with the park.

8. The Delta Triangle is a 225 square metre reserve zoned as Open Space Informal Recreation in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

9. A compliant development on this site would need to be scaled back from the second storey, and would result in a building form that does not utilise the potential of the Metropolitan Centre Zone, or do justice to the prominent location in the centre of New Lynn.

10. The developers have offered mitigation works to upgrade the Delta Triangle in an effort to offset the impact of the height in relation to boundary breach.

11. Possible negative impacts on the Delta Triangle include extended shading, building dominance, and visual privatisation due to the size and proximity of the development.

12. Shading of the reserve would occur even with a development that complies with the height in relation to boundary limitations.

13. The developer has not yet produced plans for the offset mitigation in the Delta Triangle, however, will work with council officers towards an approved plan once the memorandum of understanding has been finalised.

14. Offset mitigation provided by the developer would mean that in future the local board would not need to budget for an upgrade of the Delta Triangle. The Local Board would be involved in the process for approving the mitigation works in the Delta Triangle.

15. The mitigation works could help upgrade the Delta Triangle to current Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design standards.

16. With the mitigation works supplied by the developer, the Delta Triangle could be upgraded to become an iconic feature of New Lynn.

17. If the local board does not grant the affected party approval, the developer can still proceed with the development via the public consultation process, and if successful would not be required to upgrade the Delta Triangle as part of their consented works.

18. Affected party approvals cannot be conditioned. Therefore the memorandum of understanding would need to be entered into by the local board and developer to ensure that the upgrade of the Delta Triangle takes place and in an agreed manner.

19. The development at 3053 Great North Road would create supply of high density residential units in the New Lynn metropolitan centre at a time where Auckland is experiencing a significant housing shortage.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. Approval of this matter sits with the Whau Local Board for a decision.

21. The Whau Local Board has not yet indicated support for the application for the affected party approval for the height in relation to boundary breach.

Māori impact statement

22. The upgrade of the Delta Triangle would benefit the local community, including Māori through the provision of an iconic, updated, safe outdoor space in the New Lynn metropolitan centre.

23. The proposal does not trigger the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and no iwi engagement has taken place.

Implementation

24. Subject to the Whau Local Board approval of the affected party approval application, council staff will prepare the necessary documentation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Nikki Clendinning - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/24341

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

3. Of significance this quarter,

· The Board endorsed Panuku Development Auckland’s High Level Project Plan for Avondale.

· West Auckland Job fest was held at the trust Stadium with 58 businesses providing 100’s of job opportunities for youth.

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

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

· Whau Recreation Centre (Red)

· Youth Capacity Building (Amber)

· Integrated Ecological Framework (Amber)

· Manukau Harbour Forum (Amber)

6. The overall financial performance for quarter one 2017/2018 is unfavourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the board to note:

· Overall, the net financial performance of the Whau local board is over budget to date with operating expenditure above budget by 8% due to higher parks maintenance than planned and operating revenue exceeding budget due to increased community facility hire.

· Capital expenditure was (71%) under budget the majority of this in parks renewals and development projects. The bulk of the capital spend in the quarter to September was in development work at Craigavon Park and on the Te Whau pathway projects.

· Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

7. The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery of meeting 58% of the indicators by the end of the financial year. The exceptions are;

· Percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in last 12 months

· Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of sports fields

· Percentage of visitors satisfied with the library environment

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel connected to their neighbourhood and local community

· Percentage of attendees satisfied with council delivered and funded local events

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel their local town centre is safe (day)

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel their local town centre is safe (night)

· Proportion of local programmes that deliver intended environmental actions and/or outcomes

8. These are explained further in detail in the report.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

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

Comments

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

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 28 June 2017

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 24 May 2017

· Libraries and Information; approved on 24 May 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 28 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 28 June 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 28 June 2017

· Local Economic Development; approved on 28June 2017

Key achievements for quarter one

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

· Job Fest at Trust Stadium

· Library activities including Arts in the Library (Blockhouse Bay) and Comic Book Month (at all three libraries).

· School planting in Rosebank through the Whau River Catchment Trust programme.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

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

· Avondale redevelopment: Panuku Development Auckland has developed a high level project plan and with Board support and advocacy had the programme endorsed by the Planning Committee of Auckland Council.

· Whau pool and recreation centre: The business case – cost benefit assessment returned a favorable result and the Board adopted this project as its major initiative for consideration by the Governing Body in the next Long Term Plan.

Risks identified in the 2017/2018 work programme

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

· Whau Recreation Centre (Red). Insufficient budget for project, Business case now completed for bid for Long Term Plan.

· Youth Capacity Building (Amber). Community partner unable to continue delivering elements of programme. Staff are looking at options.

· Integrated Ecological Framework (Amber). Delayed due to shortage of available staff resource. To be delivered in quarters 2 to 4.

· Manukau Harbour Forum (Amber). Forum currently in process of adopting workshop programme. Due in October.

Financial performance

13. Operating expenditure is 8% over budget. The majority is in the Parks activity due to higher than anticipated parks maintenance. The new maintenance contract is still bedding in and fluctuations are expected over the year.

14. Operating revenue has exceeded budget in community facility hire, mainly due to greater utilisation of New Lynn community centre.

15. Capital Expenditure of $344k is $850k below budget due mainly to resource consent and tendering issues on parks asset renewals and development of the Te Whau Pathway an Holly Street to Heron Park walkway.

16. The Whau Local Board Financial performance report is in Appendix C.

Key performance indicators

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

18. The year-end outlook is that 42 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. This report informs the Whau Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Māori impact statement

22. Board supported activities that support Māori responsiveness include building community connections (e.g. meeting with Te Pou Theatre), building community capacity (supporting Kelston Māori Network), library event to celebrate Te Ao Māori (book displays and Te Reo Māori activities) and strengthening relationships with iwi (meeting with Te Kawerau a Maki).

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work programme snapshot	185
b ⇩	Work programme update	187
c ⇩	Financial performance	211
d ⇩	Key performance indicators	219

Signatories

Author	Mark Allen - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

22 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/23350

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

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

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

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

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

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

Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Existing issues caused by election signs

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

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

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

Freedom of expression

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

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

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

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

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

(b) If so, then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of restriction

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

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

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

· maintaining visual amenity in public places; and

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

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

Connection with objective

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

Restriction no more than reasonably necessary

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

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

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

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

Proportionality

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

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

Options

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

· continue without a time limit on public election signs;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pros

Cons

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

· Consistent administration of the Bylaw across local boards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Increased chance of public dissatisfaction and complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

· Consistent with the nine week Electoral Act timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a short timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Tracy Mulholland
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Derek Battersby, QSM, JP
	Catherine Farmer
	Duncan Macdonald, JP
	Te'eva Matafai
	David Whitley

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau