Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

Members were 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 Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron · New Zealand Society of Genealogists – Member · New Zealand Military Defence Society – Member · Cartwright Collective – Member · Titirangi RSA – Member · Portage Trust – Member · West Auckland Trust Services - Director
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Whau River Catchment Trust - Employee
Greg Presland	· Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member · Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust – Trustee · Glen Eden Bid - Member
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee
Saffron Toms	NIL
Denise Yates	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Committee member · EcoMatters Environment Trust – Trustee

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Rural Advisory Panel - Member
Steve Tollestrup	· Glen Eden Business Improvement District
Greg Presland	· Glen Eden Business Improvement District (alternate)
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 November 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 Update from Ward Councillors

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have 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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Request for landowner approval – ‘The Hillary’ Trail Run 2018-2020

File No.: CP2017/24499

Purpose

1. This report seeks landowner approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for temporary use of parts of the Piha Beach local park (the Piha Domain), those areas of beach seaward of Marine Parade North and parts of the Piha Esplanade Reserve over which the Hillary Trail passes, for aspects of ‘The Hillary’ trail run scheduled for Saturday 24 February 2018, and for subsequent event dates in 2019 and 2020 (those dates to be further advised closer to the time), as part of this consent approval.

2. The Auckland Council Manager of Regional Parks intends to approve the consent WS1123 “The Hillary” 2018-2020, for those areas of the Waitakere Ranges and Muriwai Regional Park over which this event takes place, and pending feedback from the members of the Local Board.

Executive summary

3. The Hillary Trail Run (‘The Hillary’) utilises the full 80km length of the Hillary Trail, where up to 20% of the total numbers of participants start the event at the Arataki Visitor Centre, and who are then joined by further numbers of participants at Piha and Bethells.

4. The event course takes place predominantly over existing regional park walking tracks, and a small percentage taking place over formed public road and (mainly staging areas) on local parks, with the event concluding at the Village Green in Muriwai.

This will be the fifth year of this annual event.

5. The approved consent includes a number of very specific conditions and requirements relating to minimising any impacts on the environment and public.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) provide landowner approval for the temporary use of parts of the Piha Beach local park (Domain), those areas of beach seaward of Marine Parade North and parts of the Piha Esplanade Reserve over which the Hillary Trail passes, for the Hillary Ultra Trail Run scheduled for Saturday 24 February 2018, the first event and as part of a 3 year consent.

Comments

6. Landowner approval is sought from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board for those areas where the event utilises local parks namely part of Piha Domain, and those areas of beach seaward of Marine Parade North and parts of the Piha Esplanade Reserve over which the Hillary Trail passes (Attachments C and D).

7. The total duration of use of the nominated areas of local parks at Piha is for a period not exceeding 3 hours, from the timeframe of approximately 930am to 1230pm.

The proposed event WS 1123 (The Hillary 2018-2020)

8. A maximum of 700 participants are consented to take part in the 2018 race and the participant numbers are staggered over three sections. Up to 150 participants are authorised to start at Arataki to complete the full 80km race; up to 275 participants are able join the race at Piha for the 34km race and the final 16km option with up to 275 participants depart from Bethells Te Henga, with all participants finishing at the Village Green in Muriwai.

There is an increase (by 25 participants) in the total consented numbers for the 2018 event from that of the 2017 event of 675.

9. The organiser proposes a final increase to 750 of total participants for the outyears 2019 and 2020, and in the final year if assessed and approved with appropriate phytosanitary measures by the Biosecurity team, featuring a limited entry 100 km course through the Cascade Kauri area for up to 50 participants, to be accommodated with adjustments to the respective 16, 34 and 80km courses and within the total fixed cap of 750 participants.

10. The organiser of the event wishes to continue to build on the reputation of an iconic trail running race that achieves the following objectives:

· Create a world class trail run that attracts national and international runners

· Showcases the Hillary Trail to local, national and international visitors

· Showcase the wider Waitakere Ranges area to local, national and international visitors

· Support local groups (who provide services and food to the event participants) to raise funds and profile their cause,

· Raise money for the Hillary Trail Run Charitable Trust to distribute to Waitākere Ranges based projects

11. The event is currently being managed for the Hillary Trail Run Charitable Trust by Shaun Collins of Lactic Turkey Events.

12. Auckland Council Regional Parks and Biosecurity staff have worked closely with the event organiser in managing and continuously reviewing past events, reviewing the event route, assessing the right balance of participants and recommending the most appropriate level of kauri dieback phyto-sanitary protection.

13. The staggering of participants over three sections has been designed to lessen the impacts on the tracks and experience shows that, given the level of normal use on the tracks that this additional level of activity will likely have minimal impact.

14. It is a condition of the consent that all race participants are made aware of the environmental sensitivities of the Waitakere Ranges, and in particular, the need to prevent the spread of kauri dieback disease. Non-compliance by competitors with the race phytosanitary measures result in their instant disqualification. The event organiser also proactively promotes awareness of kauri dieback to participants through the event registration, on their event website and at pre-event briefings.

15. The event will also be promoted as a “smoke free” event.

16. Regional Parks West are the council’s point of contact for this event.

Background

17. The inaugural event “The Hillary” was held on Saturday 29^th March 2014, and took place over established tracks on the Hillary Trail, through the Waitakere Ranges and Muriwai Regional Parks. 244 participants participated over 3 set one-way courses, all which concluded at the Village Green at Muriwai. Attracting serious and social runners, 44 took part in the 80km course starting at Arataki, 86 in the 34 km course starting at Piha, and 120 started the 16km at Bethells. The decision to grant approval for this event was carefully considered and the resulting consent contained a number of stringent conditions.

18. In December 2014, and following the inaugural event in March 2014, Auckland Council Regional Parks granted Lactic Turkey Events, on behalf of the Hillary Trail Run Charitable Trust, a three year consent to hold an ‘ultra’ trail running event on the Hillary Trail.

The third event under this consent took place without incident on Saturday 25 February 2017 – see event statistics (Attachment B).

19. For all 4 events over the years 2014-2017, there has been 100 per cent compliance with the use of phytosanitary stations by participants.

20. There has been extensive research and monitoring carried out for this event over the years, most notably in the 2015 event management which saw 7 research streams conducted during the event including;

· Footwear detritus sampling (collecting soil and detritus from runners shoes) at 5 key phytosanitary stations did not identify the presence of kauri dieback spores.

· Samples taken hourly of Trigene solution in the trays of the footwashing mats at two key locations noted no deterioration of the samples, nor the presence of kauri dieback spores.

· Photo point monitoring of track surfaces, set up based on the Department of Conservation Standard Operating Procedures, at 11 locations along the route indicated no noticeable impact to track surfaces and track margin vegetation, and it was considered that impact of the event, as recorded by the monitoring, was insignificant.

· Visual monitoring by staff of compliance with the event conditions, primarily at phytosanitary stations but also at various points along the course, such as the Arataki Visitor Centre, Huia, Whatipu, Karekare, the staging areas at Piha and Bethells and the finish line at Muriwai, noted full compliance with conditions of event.

· Video surveillance of participants at phytosanitary stations, to record interaction with measures provided at the station, also noted full compliance with use of the stations.

· Footfall efficacy monitoring sampling (measuring frequency and duration of runners footwear contact with the phytosanitary mats) demonstrated full runner efficacy and a minimum of 4 footfalls per phytosanitary station.

· 150 participants who completed an online survey recorded 99% very good-excellent feedback of the event, disclosed an 89% enhanced awareness of PTA and 99% positive response on commitment to ‘take further measures to stop the spread of kauri dieback’.

21. There was a 100% positive and encouraging feedback noted and received by staff on the day, from other park users they encountered

Implications of the Kauri Dieback Report June 2017

22. The recent release of the Kauri Dieback report v2 June 2017 (Hill & Waipara) has generated varying community response, but in the context of the management and future of ‘The Hillary’ event, recommendations in the “Reviewing access and management of human vectoring” (pg 23) part of the report detail that;

“Stronger mechanisms….. to engage people to improve compliance as a tool for defending non-symptomatic kauri areas”.
It should be noted that comprehensive phyto-sanitary and public awareness measures, developed in conjunction with the Biosecurity team, are integral to and strict conditions of this event, and which were implemented for the inaugural 2014 event, and replicated for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 events, and shall continue to be part of subsequent events. Furthermore, past participants and supporters of this event have consistently demonstrated a very high level of awareness of kauri dieback before, during and after the event.

“A review of off-track/unmanaged activities…likely to spread kauri dieback if not managed”

“The Hillary” event takes place over existing, formal tracks in the Waitakere Ranges and Muriwai Regional Parks that form the Hillary Trail.

“Full implementation of kauri dieback standard operation procedures by staff, contractors and concessionaires working in the WRRP”.

Monitoring of the past 4 events has shown 100% compliance by participants with the use of phyto- sanitary stations and cleaning of footwear, where provided and as well as part of the consent conditions and requirements.

Local Board Views and Implications

23. This report is seeking landowner approval from the local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Discretionary Use Consent WS1123 "The Hillary" 2018-2020	13
b ⇩	2017 "The Hillary" event statistics	25
c ⇩	Piha Domain Site Plan	27
d ⇩	Piha event route	29

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Auckland Transport update – November 2017

File No.: CP2017/24243

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, responds to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters. It also provides a summary of consultation material sent to the Local Board and, provides transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

3. Progress reports on the Board’s advocacy initiative of developing a Road Corridor Design Guide for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (completed). This Design Guide will form part of the Auckland Transport Design Manual. The guide will support Public Transport and ensure that cycling and walking are easy, safe and well connected. As a result of this work:

· Two possible trial bus services are being looked at for the Waitakere Ranges for possible introduction in early 2019.

· Speed Limit changes on the several rural roads in the Waitakere Ranges

· Auckland Transport will work with the Local Board and public requests for footpath improvements, through our footpath renewals and new footpath programmes. If there are any safety issues in relation to existing footpaths AT will assess them on an individual basis and repair as required.

4. Progress on the Waitakere Ranges Local Board current transport capital fund Project:

· Sunnyvale Station to Oratia Stage 1 - construction of a raised zebra crossing across West Coast Road.

5. Responses from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on consultation feedback on proposed projects.

6. Investigation and Responses to the Local Board on requests on transport-related matters.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update November 2017 report.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) Update

7. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s annual funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $358,706 pa. Future budgets will have an adjustment for inflation added. The following tables note previous decisions and progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments. The table immediately below is an update of progress on the Board’s current projects:

Sunnyvale Station to Oratia Stage 1

Project

Description

Current Status

Sunnyvale Station to Oratia Stage 1

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has approved the amount of $300,000 to move into construction of a raised zebra crossing across West Coast Road.

The above contract has started and will be finished by mid- December 2017. The contract is currently on schedule.

Financials update

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$1,900,714
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,029,993
Remaining Budget left	$870,721

UPCOMING PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

Consultation Documents on Proposed Safety Improvements

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

· Swanson Road - No Stopping at All Times Restrictions

· Road Marking Changes on Scenic Drive, Henderson Valley

· Parking Restrictions on Captain Scott Road in Glen Eden

· Glengarry Road, Shetland Street, Rosier Road, Glen Eden - Pedestrian Improvements

· Broken Yellow Lines on Korihi Drive, Swanson

· Broken Yellow Lines on Arapito Road, Titirangi

Local Board Response

10. AT did receive individual feedback from Local Board members on some of these projects and overall the Local Board endorsed them all.

Waitakere Ranges Quarterly Report for the period - July to September 2017

11. The following reports are attached to this monthly report:

· Attachment A - report from Auckland Transport departments on their activities in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter

· Attachment B - report on Travelwise Schools activities in Waitakere Ranges Local Board area over the last quarter.

Regional News

Transport Officers Begin Work on Western Line Trains

12. Transport Officers began working on Auckland’s Western Line trains. The new role will provide customer support as well as improved safety on trains. Transport Officers will be working in pairs and they will be deployed when and where they are needed most.

13. Once the rollout is completed (subject to consultation) it is proposed to have almost 230 Transport Officers warranted by the New Zealand Police working across the Network.

14. The introduction of Transport Officers will give our customers more assurance on trains and around stations that they will be safe. The placement of Transport Officers can be tailored to when and where they are needed most, which makes the service not only more robust but also more efficient.

15. As part of the SaFE (Safety and Fare Enforcement) programme run by Auckland Transport and Transdev, the new staff will provide customer service and manage fare evasion through fare inspections and issuing infringements. They will also be trained in how to de-escalate situations caused by anti-social behaviour.

16. There is also an electronic gating programme being rolled out as part of the SaFE programme which involves installing new electronic gates at eight stations across the network. The gates mean that in order to access the station’s platform, passengers have to buy a paper ticket or tag on with their AT HOP card. This means more than 90 percent of passengers will travel through as gated station as part of their journey.

17. So far Henderson and Otahuhu have finished and coming up they will be installed at Manurewa, Papatoetoe, Parnell, Middlemore, Glen Innes and Papakura.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

19. 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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport activities over the July - September 2017 Quarter	35
b ⇩	Auckland Transport School Community Transport	45

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Building in the Bush Design Guide

File No.: CP2017/21814

Purpose

1. To approve for the public release of the Building in the Bush Design Guide (July 2017). This replaces the draft extract of the Building in the Bush Design Guide that was released in June 2016.

Executive summary

2. The Building in the Bush Design Guide (Design Guide) (refer Attachment A) has been completed now that the Auckland Unitary Plan is largely operative. The development of the Design Guide is identified as a key initiative in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014, and supports the outcome in that plan that ‘the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area is protected’.

3. The Design Guide illustrates the importance of good building location and sympathetic design in all aspects of residential development when building or redeveloping a site in the bush clad areas of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area (the Heritage Area). This will help protect the heritage features which make the Heritage Area a place of local, regional and national significance.

4. The 2017 Design Guide includes guidance on the planning framework, including references to relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan. It is a companion document to the Waitākere Ranges Foothills Design Guide (2014), which is relevant for the eastern parts of the Heritage Area.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) approve the Building in the Bush Design Guide (July 2017)

b) enable the Building in the Bush Design Guide (July 2017) to be made publicly available by November 2017

c) request the Building in the Bush Design Guide (July 2017) be promoted where resource consent applications are lodged for the bush clad areas of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area.

Comments

5. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act) established the Heritage Area in recognition of the area’s local, national and regional significance. The Act identifies heritage features which individually and collectively provide a sense of place.

6. Many of the heritage features identified in the Act are located within the bush clad areas, but of particular relevance is:

(i) the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape, which is reflected in —

(i) the individual identity and character of the coastal villages and their distinctive scale, containment, intensity, and amenity; and

(ii) the distinctive harmony, pleasantness, and coherence of the low-density residential and urban areas that are located in regenerating (and increasingly dominant) forest settings...

7. The Heritage Area includes almost 40 percent of native vegetation in the region, and is the second largest block of continuous vegetation on the mainland in Auckland, after the Hunua Ranges. A significant residential population lives in the Heritage Area, mostly in forest-dominated urban, rural, or coastal communities. The 2013 census showed 20,439 people living in the Heritage Area, with 7,305 occupied dwellings and 891 unoccupied. A 2012 GIS desktop study called the Capacity for Growth Study identified 575 vacant lots in the forested areas of the Heritage Area, with the theoretical potential for 386 new lots from subdivision.

8. The Heritage Area Monitoring Report 2013 found that the objectives of the Act were generally being met, although future vulnerability remains (page 13, Volume 2):

The most significant pressure affecting these [bush-living] landscape units is that of subdivision for residential activity with its associated earthworks and or vegetation removal posing a threat to existing character and heritage features. Some of the more recent (and one or two older) subdivisions within the bush living landscape units clearly display a number of characteristics which undermine the landscape character of those units. These include the use of urban/suburban elements, mostly on public land, such as kerb and channelling, street lighting, retaining walls, concrete paths and other infrastructure.

Similarly, if the trend towards the creation of flat sections to accommodate concrete floor slabs were to spread into the bush living landscape units, the landscape character would be undermined still further by the extensive earthworks, retaining and vegetation removal required. However, if earthworks and vegetation removal are minimised, the bush-clad areas of the bush living units clearly demonstrate they are able to accommodate reasonable densities with only minor effects on landscape character.

9. The Design Guide is intended to assist land owners and developers to design buildings so that the development assists in meeting the objectives of the Heritage Area. The design guidance will help landowners to respond to the environment when planning new buildings on undeveloped sites, or when making changes to existing buildings and/or site layout. The Design Guide has an emphasis on quality of design, and will be used as an advocacy tool for council staff, such as resource consent planners.

10. Whilst the Design Guide provides best practice ‘building design guidance’, it also references the planning provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan that are most relevant for the bush clad areas of the Heritage Area. This is to highlight the types of activities that are likely to require resource consent, and to help resource consent applicants consider the effects of their development on the heritage features.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014 identified the development of a design guide for building in the bush as a key initiative, and the Local Board allocated funding for it as part of the Heritage Area work programme in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.

12. The Local Board has provided direction through workshops held in November 2014, June 2015, June 2016, and May 2017 to help develop the content within the Design Guide. The Local Board supported the release of the draft extract in June 2016, to be followed by the completed Design Guide in 2017 once the Auckland Unitary Plan was operative and the new regulatory framework that the Auckland Unitary Plan provides was known and understood.

Māori impact statement

13. The Heritage Area is within the rohe of Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua. Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua o Orakei have not been consulted specifically on this report or Design Guide. Regular consultation and engagement does however take place on a range of individual projects and activities that comprise the Heritage Area programme, and on matters of mutual interest in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area.

Implementation

14. Once approved by the local board, the Design Guide will be published on the Auckland Council website so that it is available to the public and council staff. This is likely to be available by November 2017.

15. The Design Guide will also be provided to the Resource Consent staff. This will ensure that staff processing resource consent applications in the bush clad areas of the Heritage Area are aware of the Design Guide and the design principles within it.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Building in the Bush Design Guide	51

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 April to 30 September 2017

File No.: CP2017/19475

Purpose

1. To update the Waitākere Ranges Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area for the six months, for 1 April to 30 September 2017.

Background

2. Panuku was established in September 2015 as a result of the merger of two Council Controlled Organisations – Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL).

3. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland – from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4. Panuku manages around $2 billion of council’s property portfolio, which we continuously review to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio or release land or property that can be better used by others.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board update for 1 April to 30 September 2017.

Local Activities

Portfolio management

5. Panuku manages ‘non-service’ properties owned by Council and Auckland Transport (AT) that are not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These properties are generally being held for planned future projects, such as road construction, park expansion or development of future town centres.

6. The property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases, as at 30 September 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

7. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2017 was above budget, with a net surplus to Auckland Council and AT shareholders of $1.1 million ahead of budget.

8. The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate, for the six month period, is more than 98 per cent, which is above the SOI target of 95 per cent.

Properties Managed in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Area

9. Panuku currently manages 32 properties within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area, including 19 commercial and 13 residential properties.

Business Interests

10. Panuku also optimises the commercial return from business interests it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

11. There are currently no managed business interests in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

12. The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025 reflects a desire of council to materially reduce or slow down expenditure, and unlock value from assets no longer required, or which are sub-optimal for service purposes. In response to this, prior to the establishment of Panuku, ACPL developed a new method of dealing with service property, called optimisation.

13. Asset optimisation deals with ‘service property’. It is self-funding, it maximises efficiencies from service assets, and maintains levels of service, whilst releasing property for sale or development. A key element of optimisation is that the sale proceeds are locally reinvested, to advance approved projects and activities on a cost-neutral basis. It does not include the Auckland Transport portfolio. Panuku continues to advance this programme of work. This includes the development of a cross-council project to coordinate and execute asset sales and optimisation.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

14. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

15. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$75 million disposal recommendations	$76.9 million as at 30 June 2017

16. Panuku works closely with council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

17. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60 million disposal recommendations	$20.7 million as at 30 September 2017

Process

18. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council, CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally, a governing body decision.

Under review

19. Properties currently under review in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area are listed below. This list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale, or development and sale by the governing body.

Property

Details

9 Matama Road, Glen Eden

A narrow strip of vacant land that is an access way reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The access way became redundant when a road was formed to access the adjacent developed land in 2003.

No alternative service uses were identified through the rationalisation process.

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board endorsed the proposed disposal of the subject site at its August 2017 meeting.

Panuku will seek the board’s formal view on the proposed reserve revocation at the board’s October meeting.

315A Glengarry Road, Glen Eden

Vacant land that was reviewed by council’s parks department as having little quality open space potential and with no strategic purpose to retain. Auckland Transport also advised that the property was surplus to AT service requirements. It is road reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

No alternative service uses were identified through the rationalisation process.

The board opposed the proposed disposal of the subject site on the basis that it should be retained and developed as a local park and requested a deputation to present a case to retain to Council’s Finance and Performance Committee. The committee approved the revocation of the reserve status and disposal subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes at its 11 April 2017 meeting.

Panuku are currently undertaking due diligence in accordance with statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002 in order to progress a disposal.

Acquisitions and Disposals

20. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. We buy property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other service needs. We manage the sale of properties that are surplus to council requirements. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

21. Panuku doesn’t make the decision on what properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of council.

22. We purchased 22 properties for open space across Auckland in the last financial year (ending 30 June 2017) at a cost of $48.6 million. We also bought seven properties for storm water use at a value of $19.4 million.

23. We have signed agreements for three properties across Auckland in the current financial year (July 2017), worth $13.7 million. We have purchased one property for storm water use that cost $3.15 million.

24. We purchased two of these properties during the reporting period within the Waitākere Ranges local board area.

25. All of the land we buy is subject to a confidentiality clause, so we can’t provide specific details for the two purchases in this area until the purchases are finalised.

Disposals

26. The Disposal team sold three properties for a total of $0.9 million (net amounts) from July-September 2017. The team’s 2017/18 target is $8.0 million for the year. The target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis. The team sold $22.92m (net sale proceeds) in 2016/17.

27. No properties were sold in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area in the reporting period.

Housing for Older People

28. Council owns and operates 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland, to provide rental housing to older people in Auckland.

29. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involves council partnering with a third party provider, to deliver social rental housing services for older people.

30. On 21 December 2015, council announced that The Selwyn Foundation was its preferred joint venture partner to manage the HfOP portfolio.

31. Panuku negotiated the new joint venture (JV) arrangements with Selwyn over 2016, and the JV was formally constituted in December 2016.

32. The new JV business, named Haumaru Housing (Haumaru meaning ‘to shelter’), took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement, from 1 July 2017.

33. Haumaru Housing was granted Community Housing Provider (CHP) status in April 2017. CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

34. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a multi-year development programme.

35. The first new development project will be a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site, Henderson. Once completed, this development will increase the provision to 1452 units.

36. The following HfOP villages are located within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Kaurilands Court	18 Kaurilands Road, Titirangi	22
Westview Village	100 West Coast Road, Glen Eden	42

Regional Activities

Highlights

37. Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results in our priority development locations. Panuku categorises three types of priority locations:

38. Transform locations – Panuku ‘Transforms’ locations by creating change through urban regeneration. Panuku leads the transformation of select parts of our region; working alongside others and using our custodianship of land and planning expertise. The catalytic work Waterfront Auckland led at Wynyard Quarter is a great example of the transformation of urban locations.

39. Unlock locations – Panuku also ‘unlocks’ development potential for others. By acting as a facilitator; using relationships to break down barriers and influence others, including our council family, to create development opportunities.

40. Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘support’ role to ensure council is making the most of what it already has. Intensification is a key driver in the Auckland Plan. Panuku will support housing demands by enabling development of council-owned land.

Transform locations

41. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week, while regeneration is just beginning in Manukau and Onehunga.

a) The first three phases of structural steel have been installed at the Park Hyatt Hotel. All up, approximately 2000 tonnes of primary structural steel will be used to construct the luxury five-star hotel, which will span a total area of 37,000sqm.

b) In April 2017, Mayor Phil Goff officially opened the Mason Bros. building, a former industrial warehouse that has been redeveloped into a three-level office space, bringing together a community of entrepreneurs and businesses. It is the centrepiece of Wynyard Quarter’s innovation precinct.

c) Developer Willis Bond is constructing 500-600 apartments of various types and sizes that are set to house around 1100 people. There are two developments currently under construction, Wynyard Central and 132 Halsey. The first residents have moved in in September 2017.

d) In June, Panuku handed over to Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) the management of the Queens Wharf facilities, including Shed 10 and The Cloud. Panuku continues to lead the delivery of place making and the future development of the wharf.

42. Transform Manukau was the first location to have a Framework Plan completed, outlining the five key moves for the project and the vision for Manukau in 2040. We are aiming to get the first housing site underway soon at Barrowcliffe Place. Public realm projects anticipated to start next year include the Council’s Hayman Park Playground and Putney Way street improvements in conjunction with the new bus station is targeted for completion by May 2018. Panuku is also exploring with the Scentre Group on how the shopping mall’s future development could relate to and interface with the town centre.

43. Plans to Transform Onehunga, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, were approved in March 2017. These plans were completed involving significant consultation with communities. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with the Government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The Board of Inquiry relating to the East West link is currently going through a hearing process. A draft decision is expected to be made in October and will be finalised in November. This will contain numerous conditions of consent. Once the decision is known, Panuku can advance planning on the Onehunga wharf and foreshore precinct.

Unlock locations

44. In Takapuna, Auckland Council owns nearly four hectares of land focused around the Anzac Street carpark and the Gasometer site, consultation on redevelopment of these sites has started.

45. In Northcote, we completed a Framework Plan in November 2016 that outlines the initial proposals for the town centre. An information kiosk was also opened by Homes Land Community in April. The town centre masterplan and the Awataha Greenway masterplan is targeted for completion in December 2017.

46. Plans to repurpose the iconic Civic Administration Building in Aotea Square into high quality apartments and develop the surrounding area were announced in September 2016, apartment sales are progressing well.

47. Hobsonville 20ha Airfields site - stage one of construction of 102 standalone and terrace homes is underway. Avanda Group have been announced as the developers that will deliver more than 500 homes in stage two, of which a minimum of 10 per cent will be affordable housing.

48. The Council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the mall, a 2.5ha block of land, which will see the area opened up with a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded carpark and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

49. With the overall plan for Henderson being approved in May 2017, the vision for Henderson is for it to grow into an urban eco-centre. This vision will guide planning and development with an outcome towards ‘liveable growth’ by creating a safe, attractive and vibrant mixed-use environment with a uniquely west Auckland identity.

50. The regeneration of Avondale has been upgraded from a Support location to an Unlock. A HLPP is underway, identifying opportunities within the development area. Ockham has commenced the construction of 72 apartments on Racecourse Parade, with 10 percent of the apartments being affordable. Panuku also sold a site in Avondale to Housing New Zealand in December which allowed for the development of 103 social housing units

51. A development agreement was signed with Todd Property for the delivery of more than 350 homes in Flat Bush, Ormiston. In December 2016, Panuku sold a site at 187 Flat Bush School Road for a 30-lot subdivision.

Support locations

52. The Mariner Rise subdivision at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparoa has been completed by our development partner McConnell Property along with the delivery of a 2700sqm park and playground. Sixty new homes will be built on this new subdivision.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

53. This report is for the Waitākere Ranges Local Board’s information.

54. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries you have relating to a property in your local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz

Māori impact statement

55. Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here.

56. Māori make up 12% of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50% of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5% of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.

57. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 10 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the local board area.

58. Māori make up 11 percent of the local board population, and there is one marae located within the local board area.

59. Panuku work collaboratively with Mana Whenua on a range projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

60. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Implementation

61. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Manager Stakeholder Engagement

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Renewal and variation of community lease to Titirangi Potters Incorporated, 500 South Titirangi Road, Titirangi

File No.: CP2017/22659

Purpose

1. To grant a renewal and variation of community lease to Titirangi Potters Incorporated on Titirangi War Memorial Park, 500 South Titirangi Road, Titirangi.

Executive summary

2. Titirangi Potters Incorporated holds a community lease from Auckland Council for a term of five years commencing 27 March 2013. The lease contains one five year right of renewal for the period 27 March 2018 until 26 March 2023. The pottery club leases the basement of the Auckland Council owned Titirangi Community House.

3. On 10 October 2017 the pottery club agreed to a variation of community lease to include the Smokefree Policy clause contained in the recommendations below.

4. This report recommends granting a renewal and variation of community lease to Titirangi Potters Incorporated for a term of five years commencing 27 March 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) grant a renewal of community lease to Titirangi Potters Incorporated for a term of five years commencing 27 March 2018.

b) approve a variation to the renewal of lease to include the following Smokefree Policy clause:

i) Auckland Council has adopted a Smokefree Policy to apply on all council land The lessee is obligated to abide by the policy during the term of the lease. The lessee will use its best endeavours to ensure its members, employees, invitees, contractors and agents abide by the policy.

c) approve all other terms and conditions as contained in the existing community lease dated 14 November 2014.

Comments

Titirangi Potters Incorporated

5. The pottery club wishes to exercise its right of renewal for the period 27 March 2018 until 29 March 2023.

6. The pottery club was founded in 1974 to promote clay-working skills through teaching and community involvement. It offers classes for people to learn and create in clay and a space for people with some experience to expand their skills. Once student potters are able to work independently they are able to have access to the studio and facilities outside of normal classes.

7. The pottery club was registered as an incorporated society on 27 January 2006 and is affiliated to the New Zealand Potters Society. The club’s aims and objectives are to:

· Provide a physical venue and social context for its members

· Promote and encourage an interest of pottery and ceramics

· Provide both structured tuition, information and services for its members

8. The pottery club are active in the community. They are part of events such as Waitakere Open Studios and the Lopdell Art Precinct exhibition. The club organise an annual fundraiser each year for a local charity; this year raising $2500 for Mapura Studios, an art therapy charity for disabled persons.

9. Club members perform pottery demonstrations and sell their work at the Titirangi market day which operates in the car park outside the community house once a month.

10. Any variation to a community lease must be with the consent of the lessee. Auckland Council has approached the pottery club requesting its consent to vary the lease to include the Smokefree Policy clause contained in b) i) of the recommendations. The pottery club agreed to the variation in writing on 10 October 2017.

Site location

11. The pottery club leases approximately 66.4m² of the basement area of the Auckland Council owned Titirangi Community House. The community house is located on Titirangi War Memorial Park, 500 South Titirangi Road, Titirangi (Attachment A: Aerial photograph).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Council staff sought input at a local board workshop on 1 June 2017 and no objections were raised.

13. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is the allocated authority to approve the granting of a renewal and variation of community lease.

14. The recommendations within this report support the Waitākere Ranges Local Board 2014 Plan outcome: Arts and culture flourish, with Titirangi as the vibrant arts hub for the west.

Māori impact statement

15. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

16. There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

Implementation

17. There is no cost associated with the approval of the renewal and variation of community lease.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aerial photograph - Titirangi Potters Incorporated, Titirangi War Memorial Park, 500 South Titirangi Road, Titirangi	117

Signatories

Authors

Donna Cooper - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/23342

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

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

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

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

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

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

Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Existing issues caused by election signs

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

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

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

Freedom of expression

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

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

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

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

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

(b) If so, then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of restriction

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

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

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

· maintaining visual amenity in public places; and

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

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

Connection with objective

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

Restriction no more than reasonably necessary

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

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

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

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

Proportionality

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

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

Options

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

· continue without a time limit on public election signs;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pros

Cons

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

· Consistent administration of the Bylaw across local boards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Increased chance of public dissatisfaction and complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

· Consistent with the nine week Electoral Act timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a short timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/24197

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 Waitākere Ranges 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	129
b ⇩	Review of CAB services - draft options	189

Signatories

Authors

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

Suzanne Shaw-Lentini - Business Coordinator

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Andrew Clark - General Manager Commercial and Finance

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Remuneration Authority

Consultation Document: Local Government Review

Local Board Submission

Executive summary

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards and 149 local board members, have a significant and wide-ranging governance role. We are independent governance entities with decision-making responsibility for local activities, issues and facilities, as well as providing the local input into regional policies, plans and decisions. We have responsibility for significant operating and capital budgets and are fully accountable for the decisions we make.

The manner in which local board members are remunerated is of critical importance to us and the communities we serve. After 7 years experience with Auckland Council’s governance model, we have the depth of knowledge to advise on the potential implications of the remuneration proposals put forward by the Remuneration Authority We also note that Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for its elected members, including local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs. The responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood.

The workload and responsibilities of each local board, and as a result, local board members, chairs and deputy chairs, are primarily driven by statutory and allocated roles and responsibilities. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards are required to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. While there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on factors such as those proposed by the Remuneration Authority (namely population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights), we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. As such, we submit that the roles and responsibilities of local boards should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards. A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority. We believe this approach would negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities we serve. It provides uncertainty about remuneration to potential local board candidates, makes local board remuneration a political issue, and may well cause unnecessary conflict and tension between elected members (and particularly with the governing body if it is the decision-making body).

Given the considerable work undertaken by Auckland Council to clearly define and articulate the roles and responsibilities of local board members, including chairs and deputy chairs, we believe that the Remuneration Authority has sufficient information and clarity to make a determination. Therefore, we strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority should continue its current practice of transparently and independently setting the rates of remuneration for local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs.

We are firmly of the view that the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to reflect the fulltime commitment required of this role. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs and as such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority. We also submit that the Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role, as demonstrated by Auckland Council’s recent work to develop a detailed role and capability description for this role.

Introduction

About local boards

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards (comprising 149 local board members) have a significant and wide ranging role. Local boards are independent governance entities and for some purposes, are considered to be local authorities. We have decision-making responsibility for local issues, activities, services and facilities. We are fully accountable for the decisions we make, without any involvement or oversight of Auckland Council’s governing body. We also have a key advocacy role in regional decisions and policies. In particular local boards:

· help make local government accessible to Aucklanders

· make governance decisions on local activities, issues and services

· develop and adopt local board plans every three years, to reflect the aspirations and priorities of local communities

· prioritise expenditure in local board budgets and monitor delivery of projects and spending against budget

· work with mana whenua and mataawaka

· develop annual local board agreements

· engage with communities and express views and preferences on their behalf to the governing body on region-wide strategies, plans and bylaws

· develop relationships with key stakeholders including community organisations, sports and recreation organisations and special interest groups

· propose local bylaws and local targeted rates

· work with council-controlled organisations on services they provide in the local board area.

The extent of the local board governance role is reflected in the Annual Budget. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the combined annual operating budget of local boards is $287,444,000. The combined capital budget is $172,888,000. As well, some local boards are bigger in terms of both budget and the population they serve, than other New Zealand local authorities.

The governance role of local boards, and as a result, local board members, is a significant one. When considering local board remuneration, the nature and extent of this governance role, and the demands associated with it, are key factors. After seven years experience with this model of governance, local boards have a good understanding of these demands and are well equipped to advise on the implications of the Remuneration Authority’s proposal as it relates to local board members.

About local board members

Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for all its elected members. These have been developed in consultation with and have the agreement of elected members from both arms of Auckland Council’s shared governance model. The role and capability descriptions for local board chairs, deputy chairs and local board members, all require a considerable time commitment (see Appendix A for the full role and capability descriptions). These roles are as follows.

· Local board chair: The role of local board chair is a full-time position requiring substantial additional commitment to that of other local board members. It involves civic leadership and is the most high-profile role in the local board. The chair has broad oversight of the local board’s activities and is called upon to undertake additional tasks, such as fronting media enquiries and representing the local board at a regional level. The chair is also responsible for leading local board meetings and workshops.

· Local board deputy chair: Each local board elects a deputy chair. Deputy chairs form part of the local board’s leadership team and assume significantly more responsibilities than other local board members. To meet the expectations of their role, deputy chairs are generally undertaking well in excess of the 20 hours per week time commitment expected of other local board members.

· Local board members: The workload of local boards is extensive. As a result, local board members can expect to spend around 20 to 25 hours per week on local board business. The role involves a mix of daytime and night-time commitments. Annual business such as plan development and hearings mean the job is also busier at certain times of the year.

These are significant governance roles requiring considerable commitment and as a result, limit the capacity to undertake additional employment. The manner in which local board members are remunerated is therefore, an important issue.

Factors to be used in sizing local board member remuneration

The Remuneration Authority is proposing a mix of population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights to be used when sizing local authorities for the purposes of determining remuneration. However, while there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on these factors, we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. Due to the statutory and allocated responsibilities of local boards, the workload and responsibilities of each local board, and particularly chairs and deputy chairs, are very similar. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards have to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. For example, all local boards are required to prepare local board plans and local board agreements. They are all responsible for significant local activities, issues, facilities and services. All local boards are required to input into a multitude of regional policies and plans, as well as work with council-controlled organisations on issues relevant to their areas. These are significant undertakings required of all local boards, irrespective of issues such as size of population, operating expenditure or asset base.

Collectively, the roles and responsibilities required of all local boards have the most impact on workload and should be the predominant factor when allocating a base level of remuneration across Auckland Council’s local boards. Each local board role (member, chair, deputy chair) should be sized and a base level of remuneration allocated to that role. The other proposed factors (population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights) would then be used to provide additional levels of remuneration to particular local boards, if appropriate. This approach should apply to the current remuneration practice, which determines the level of remuneration by role, as well as any proposed remuneration pool.

Submission:

· The roles and responsibilities of local boards have the most significant influence on the workload of local board members (including chairs and deputy chairs) and should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards.

· A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

· Assets go beyond built infrastructure, significant role of managing environmental ecological assets and responding to ecological needs.

· Guest nights focus predominantly on urban centres, much of Auckland’s attractions and management issues arise from visitors in general.

· Do not support using guest nights as a proxy for tourism activity in an area. As the Waitakere Ranges have few places to stay this will not adequately measure local tourism activity or the effects on the local environment and matters that need to be governed and managed.

· Local board members by their role are very accessible to members of public and face increased pressure of local demands and expectation of a timely action and a response.

Local board member remuneration

We strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority’s proposal of a remuneration pool is not in the best interests of local board members and will negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities they serve. Our reasons are set out below.

Certainty

Certainty regarding remuneration is an important issue for potential local board candidates. Currently, candidates know the remuneration they will receive if successful and can plan accordingly. This certainty is also relevant to a local board member’s decision-making process at the start of the electoral term when considering a potential role as a chair or deputy chair of a local board. The proposed remuneration pool will create uncertainty, as the actual level of remuneration for specific local board roles will not be set until after the local government election. This uncertainty has the potential to discourage potential candidates. It may also disadvantage local board members who sought re-election based on certain remuneration expectations which are not met when decisions regarding allocation of the remuneration pool are made. Financial hardship could occur as a result, particularly for those candidates who have reduced their hours of work elsewhere to become a local board member.

Independence and transparency

The remuneration pool approach has the potential to make local board member remuneration a political issue. It removes the current transparency and independence provided by the Remuneration Authority. If the level of remuneration is determined by the governing body, it has the potential to undermine the autonomy of local boards and cause unnecessary conflict and tension between the governing body and local boards. If it is determined by each individual local board (with a remuneration pool allocated at the individual local board level), it has the potential to cause conflict within the local board, particularly if there are discrepancies in how individual local board members are remunerated. It may also result in significant inconsistencies between local boards in remuneration levels for similar roles, which may negatively affect relationships between local boards.

Adequacy of information

Prior to 2017, the role definition for Auckland Council’s elected members was underdeveloped. Auckland Council has undertaken significant work over the last two years to define the roles and capabilities required of its elected members. This includes local board chairs, deputy chairs, and members. We are confident that the responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood. As such, we believe there is now sufficient information and clarity on roles for the Remuneration Authority to continue with its current practice of setting the rates of remuneration. While some differences may occur in terms of the specific workloads of individual local board members, the expectations of the various local board roles are clear. Workload issues and discrepancies are best addressed internally within each local board as part of its management of performance, rather than as a remuneration matter.

Submission:

· We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority.

· We believe that the current regime, where remuneration is transparently determined by an independent authority, is preferable and should continue, and that there is sufficient clarity on roles to enable the Remuneration Authority to make its determination.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then:

o We believe the remuneration pool should be allocated via the Governing Body to assist with consistency and equity in distribution;

o The Governing Body should be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all of its positions.

Local board chair remuneration

The local board chair has a leadership role, with broad oversight of all local board activities. The chair is called upon to undertake many additional tasks, such as chairing local board meetings and workshops, representing the local board at a regional level, fronting media enquiries, and representing the local board at civic and community events. The role of the local board chair requires a fulltime commitment. This is reflected in the current remuneration set by the Remuneration Authority. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure, and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs. As such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the roles and capabilities required.

Submission:

· The local board chair role should be treated as fulltime and remunerated accordingly.

· The future approach to determining the remuneration for local board chairs should look to establish closer parity between local board Chairs with Ward Councillors remuneration noting that they are different roles however they both have significant responsibilities.

· Furthermore, it is noted in a current situation a local board chair receives around 75% of the base councillor salary, and only 60% when compared to a governing body Committee Chair.

· It is also noted that all Ward Councillors have a shared base flat rate and this should be a goal for Local Board Chairs remuneration.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then the remuneration for local board chairs should be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the role and capabilities required of a local board chair.

Local board deputy chair remuneration

Local board deputy chairs have a major role, which extends beyond that of a local board member. As well as chairing meetings and assuming the role of the chair when the chair is absent or unavailable, they provide leadership, governance and decision-making support to the chair and the local board as a whole. A role and capability description has been developed, which demonstrates an expectation that deputy chairs will commit to a workload well in excess of the 20 hours per week expected of local board members. However, currently deputy chairs receive no additional remuneration for this additional responsibility and workload, which significantly disadvantages those local board members who are prepared to accept this leadership role. We strongly urge the Remuneration Authority to set a rate of remuneration for deputy chairs which reflects the additional responsibilities and workload assumed by local board deputy chairs.

Submission:

· The Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role.

Local board member

Submission:

· Local board members should be paid the same rate across the region noting that the population base is already reflected in the number of local board members in each board.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Appendix A

Context

Auckland Council has a unique two-part governance structure, made up of the governing body and local boards. The governing body comprises of the mayor (elected at large) and 20 governing body members (councillors) elected from 13 wards. There are 21 local boards, each of five to nine members elected from the local area (a total of 149 members).

Governing body members and local board chairs are a full-time role, while local board members are a part- time commitment.

The role of the mayor is to articulate and promote a vision for Auckland and to provide leadership towards that vision, including leading the development of the council’s plans (including the long-term plan and the Auckland Plan), policies and budgets.

The governing body focuses on Auckland-wide strategic decisions including strategies, policies, plans, regulations and activities. The governing body also appoints the chief executive and governs the council-controlled organisations.

Local boards set local direction through the local board plans, represent their local communities and make decisions on most local issues, activities and facilities. Local boards also provide input to the governing body on regional decisions and on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.

Decisions of the local boards and the governing body are decisions of Auckland Council. The chief executive has management responsibility, delegated by the elected members, for implementing the direction and decisions of the governing body and the local boards.

The elected member role is therefore a governance one.

The governing body member role

The following provides an outline of the governing body member role.

Provide regional strategic leadership and direction

· Consider the Mayor’s proposal for plans and budgets, and together with the Mayor, set direction through regional strategies, policies and plans including the Auckland Plan, long-term plan and Unitary Plan

· Balance a wide range of considerations and perspectives to provide the best possible outcomes for Auckland as a whole

· Bring views on the future of Auckland into the collective vision-making process

· Set direction for the council-controlled organisations and appoint their directors

Make decisions on regional matters

· Make decisions, without bias, that take into account social, cultural, environmental and economic matters for the benefit of all Aucklanders, both now and in the future

· Make financially responsible decisions that ensure Auckland Council has a sound financial future

· Adopt regional strategies, policies and plans and consider the views of local boards before adopting regional policies and plans or making a decision which affects the communities in a local board area Allocate non-regulatory decision-making powers to local boards

· Appoint the chief executive of Auckland Council

· Debate issues and consider all views, but once a decision is made, respect the democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Work collaboratively with other councillors, the mayor’s office, the local boards, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and the advisory panels

· Create a strong working relationship with council’s Executive Leadership Team and the council-controlled organisation executive teams and board members

Engage with communities

· Engage with the community, interest groups and organisations, particularly about regional strategies, plans and policies

· Be aware of and interested in ward issues, including attend local events, meetings and local board meetings

· Respond to requests from constituents

· Develop relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori wellbeing

· Take part in overseas delegations to promote Auckland’s interests and relationships

· Represent Auckland Council at civic other events

· Oversee hearings as part of formal public consultation

Monitor performance

· Oversee the council’s regulatory activities, consenting and bylaws

· Monitor and review performance of the organisation to ensure regional outcomes and priorities are achieved

· Oversee emergency management processes and protocols

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the committee chair

In addition to the above

· Provide leadership and inspire the committee to achieve its priorities

· Encourage an environment of collaboration and respectful debate

· Represent the committee, and the wider Auckland Council, on the committee’s work

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair committee meetings efficiently and in accordance with standing orders, terms of reference, and the elected members’ code of conduct

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Ensure committee members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account (noting that the Mayor plays this leadership role for the governing body as a whole)

The local board member role

Provide civic leadership locally

· This is the fundamental purpose of the role of a local board member. It is about making a positive difference to communities and shaping local places

· The points below are the elements that enable a local board member to achieve this.

Set local direction and deliver priorities

· Work with the community to identify a vision, outcomes and priorities in the local board plan that take into account the Auckland Plan and council’s overall financial position

· Set a work programme based on the local board plan and the local board agreement within the available budget (noting that the agreement must not be inconsistent with regional strategies and policies)

· Work pro-actively with the local community and partner with others to deliver shared aspirations

· Consider the national and regional context, including relevant legislation, when setting strategic direction

Make decisions on local matters

· Make decisions without bias for the benefit of the whole community (not just particular groups) and for both current and future generations

· Debate issues but once the local board makes a decision, respect democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

· Maintain a broad view and check that the overall direction remains appropriate

Input to regional decisions, policies, plans and strategies

· Provide views to the governing body to inform their regional decisions, including input to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Recognise that the governing body makes regional decisions and once they are made, these are decisions of Auckland Council, of which the local boards are a part

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Build relationships and work collaboratively with other local boards, the governing body and the mayor

· Build relationships across the council family, including council staff and council-controlled organisations

Promote strong, resilient and engaged communities

· Develop relationships and understanding with mana whenua, mataawaka and the range of people, groups, organisations and businesses in the area.

· Work proactively with the local community, encouraging and enabling them to have influence, get involved and work together

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori well-being

· Oversee local hearings as part of formal public consultation

· Represent Auckland Council at civic and public events

Represent members of the local community

· Represent all members of the local community by actively seeking and sharing their views with others and, advocating on their behalf

· Communicate with members of the local community in an open and appropriate way

· Advise members of the local community on the appropriate council channels to address their issues and concerns (provide the bridge between the council and the community)

Monitor the organisation’s progress and report to the public

· Monitor progress and review performance to ensure the organisation achieves the local board’s outcomes and priorities.

· Be accountable to the public by explaining council processes and reporting progress against outcomes and priorities

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the local board chair

In addition to the above

· Provide strong leadership and inspire the local board

· Build and maintain relationships to develop a collegial local board that is able to work effectively together and reach consensus to deliver the local board’s vision and priorities

· Be accountable for the local board relationship with iwi (chief-to-chief)

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair local board meetings effectively abiding by standing orders and the code of conduct

· Represent the local board, and the wider Auckland Council as appropriate, including in a civic and community role (such as citizenship ceremonies) and as the spokesperson to the media

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Work with the governing body and council committees to provide local board input to regional decisions and to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Ensure local board members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account

The role of the local board deputy chair

The chair and deputy chair collectively form the leadership team for the local board.

In addition to the local board member role, the local board deputy chair has the following roles.

Chairing and attending meetings	· Assumes leadership responsibility for chairing local board meetings and workshops (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair). · Shares the leadership responsibility for attending meetings and workshops on behalf of the local board (in the absence of the Chair or as agreed with the Chair).
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works with the Chair to provide strong and inspiring leadership to the local board and to support the achievement of agreed local board outcomes and priorities. · Supports the Chair by acting as a sounding board and sharing knowledge, experience, and workload.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Promotes the principles and processes of good governance and decision making by encouraging the provision of quality advice, sharing of information, and open, inclusive and robust discussion and debate amongst local board members.
Team and capability building	· Strives to build strong and collaborative working relationships within the local board. · Supports local board members in their roles and activities, including mentoring less experienced or new local board members.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Works with the Chair to develop strong relationships with the community, stakeholders, staff, and other elected members. · Shares the leadership responsibility for representing the local board at civic, community and council events and with the media (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair).
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Undertakes specific decision-making roles as delegated by the local board. · Undertakes specific activities delegated by the local board.

Capabilities (knowledge and skills) for all elected members

Quality decision-making

· Make good decisions based on a combination of staff advice, community views, wisdom, experience and informed judgement

· Understand and interpret information

· Be open minded, apply critical thinking and ask the right questions at the right time to test and challenge advice

· Take a broad view and balance considerations and conflicting opinions while putting aside personal bias

· Be financially prudent and have an eye to risk

Political acumen

· Understand the political environment as well as the respective roles of governors and management

· Use influence and persuasion to mobilise and proactively engage in the political environment

· Manoeuvre through complex political situations effectively and respectfully

· Aware of all stakeholders and their different needs

Leadership

· Provide leadership and direction and makes things happen to achieve the vision and outcomes

· Put energy and focus into the higher priorities

· Show leadership by continuously developing skills and knowledge, supporting others to do so and being open to feedback

Cultural awareness

· Understands and empathise with different people and cultures within the Auckland community

· Respect and embrace differences and diversity in a non-judgemental way

· Support equal and fair treatment and opportunity for all

· Understand tikanga Māori, the Māori Responsiveness Framework and the council’s responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi

· Makes an effort to support and use Māori and other languages where possible and appropriate

· Respectfully participates in cultural activities and ceremonies when required

Strategic thinking

· Understand Auckland’s needs and priorities and the links between local, regional, national and global perspectives

· Consider multiple aspects and impacts of an issue or opportunity

· Understand possible future scenarios, options and consequences and see connections across issues and opportunities

Knowledge and understanding of Auckland Council and local government

· Understand Auckland Council’s governance model and the role of the Mayor, the governing body and local boards (in particular the allocation of decision making)

· Understand and comply with relevant legislation

· Understand council’s processes (such as decision-making and policy development) and know how to influence appropriately

· Understand and abide by the Standing Orders and Terms of Reference and support the chair in using the Standing Orders

· Understand council’s key strategies, policies and plans as well as topical issues

· Understand the council organisation including the council-controlled organisation model and how to work with CCOs

· Understand central government’s policy and legislative framework, and how it affects the council

· Understand the council’s financial language, budgets and processes

Communication and engagement

· Relate well and build rapport and trust with people from all parts of the community and within the council

· Use diplomacy and tact to put others at ease. Is easy to approach and talk to

· Seek the input of others, shares ideas and engages in active listening

· Diffuse high-tension situations with confidence and respect and facilitate respectfully to reach acceptable resolutions

· Consult and engage with the whole community

· Is effective and comfortable in a variety of engagement settings, e.g. one-on-one, small and large, public and internal facing groups

· Speaks well in a range of forums with a range of people from different backgrounds and cultures

· Represent and promote council in a measured, unified and dignified light and avoid risks to council’s reputation

· Work effectively with the media, as appropriate

Relationship building and collaboration

· Build productive relationships and support within the community and with other organisations to create and deliver on the vision and outcomes

· Work to find common ground and solve problems for the benefit of all

· Represent their own views with respect, empathy and fairness to other groups or perspectives

· Able to agree to disagree and accept and own decisions and outcomes

Resilience

· Manage time, prioritise and be flexible

· Cope with the pressures of being in the public eye

Ethics and values

· Understand and uphold the code of conduct and relevant policies that guide appropriate behaviour for elected members

· Understand and model the council values and behaviours and discourage unethical behaviour

· Work respectfully with council staff, and others, and value their roles

Integrity and trust

· Widely trusted, keeps confidences and respects the confidentiality of information provided

· Seen as an honest, fair and open-minded elected member

· Take ownership and responsibility for actions

· Does not misrepresent him/herself or others for personal gain

Computer literacy

· Utilise computers and related technology as required, to carry out the role effectively

Additional capabilities for the role of committee chair or local board chair

The following capabilities are in addition to the above and specific to the role of a committee chair or a local board chair.

Leadership and delegation

· Encourage direct and robust debate but is not afraid to end it and move on

· Looked to for direction in challenging situations and faces adversity head on

· Take an unpopular stand if necessary

· Not afraid of using the casting vote if necessary

· Delegate tasks and decisions when needed

· Support peers and colleagues when needed

· Chair meetings effectively

· Find common ground and get cooperation with minimum noise

· Negotiate skilfully in tough situations with both internal and external groups

Managing vision and purpose

· Communicate a compelling and inspired vision or sense of core purpose for all members of the committee or board

· Invite input from each person and share ownership and visibility

· Foster open dialogue

Additional capabilities specific to local board chairs

· Build and lead an effective local board team, including providing feedback to members of your local board

· Develop and mentor other local board members

· Work effectively with the media

Additional capabilities specific to local board deputy chairs

In addition to the capabilities of all elected members:

Chairing and attending meetings	· Chairs meetings effectively and in accordance with good governance principles. · Demonstrates a good knowledge of standing orders · Understands and accurately represents and articulates the views of the local board
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works collaboratively to achieve agreed outcomes and priorities · Provides feedback in a constructive manner.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Shares information, seeks input and views on issues, and listens to competing interests and perspectives. · Role models good decision making and governance by encouraging robust, sound, open and inclusive processes.
Team and capability building	· Acts in a supportive manner to other local board members as needed. · Role models collaboration. · Displays a high level of political acumen and ability to navigate different political dynamics to encourage the local board to work effectively together.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Builds strong and respectful relationships.
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Seeks the input and views of local board members (where appropriate) and ensures they are accurately represented and articulated.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Chairperson's report - November 2017

File No.: CP2017/24568

Kauri dieback

1. Te Kawerau A Maki has proposed that a Rahui be placed on the Waitakere Ranges in an effort to deal with Kauri dieback.

2. It is easy to understand the reasons why. The first Kauri dieback monitoring report produced 6 years ago suggested that kauri dieback presented a significant threat to the Waitakere Ranges. The second report, a draft of which was available over a year ago, suggests that things are much worse with infection rates doubling on some measurements in only five years.

3. Although some work proposed after the second report was prepared involving improved hygiene stations and the employment of Kauri dieback ambassadors has been completed the really big decisions have yet to been made. Urgent upgrades to tracks and the construction of boardwalks need to be started now.

4. TKAM spokesperson Edward Ashby is right when he says that the map of the presence of Kauri disease when compared to the existing tracks shows that the main spreader of the disease is humans.

5. And it is clear to me that the current approach is not working. Not only should Council keep existing tracks through pristine areas closed but consideration also needs to be given to closing already diseased tracks to quarantine the disease and to stop its spread.

6. One idea the local board has discussed is the creation of a map showing walks in the Ranges that do not go through Kauri areas. This would give people an option to go walking without the fear they are spreading the disease around.

7. And we have to do whatever we can. If we fail to get on top of this crisis then in years to come the Waitakere Ranges forest will be a pale, weakened shadow of its current form.

Waikumete Cemetery Open day

8. The Local Board hosted the second open day at Waikumete Cemetery recently. Sandra Coney deserves special praise for the event and for all of the work that she put into it.

9. The cemetery was established in 1886. It is one of the larges open urban spaces in Auckland and occupies 108 hectares. It is the final resting place to more than 70,000 people.

10. It is nearly full. Unless Council can unlock some land that is covered by a significant ecological area overlay we will run out of room in the next few years.

11. The day before the open day it was my privilege to speak at the launch of Sandra’s latest book Gone West. The book is outstanding and is a fascinating read.

12. It starts with the the ten great war memorials of Waitakere, including the memorial in Waikumete Cemetery, and then digs into the background of the people named in the memorials, their families and the effects the war had on everyone.

13. The book really highlights the importance of places of remembrance and memorials so that the lives of those who gave theirs in protection of our freedom can be celebrated and those people remembered.

14. The Waikumete memorial was constructed by members of the Auckland RSA for kiwis who died during the first world war, “our fallen comrades” in the words on the obelisk.

15. And within this cemetery there are many graves and memorials of those who were killed during the war.

16. The most distressing may be that constructed by the Browne family. Four of the five sons from that family were killed in the first world war.

17. Cemeteries are vital, not just for those seeking a last resting place, but for the survivors, so that we can process the loss of a loved one and we have a physical place to go to to celebrate their lives. It is clear to me that Waikumete fulfills that important role very well.

Water quality

18. The Mayor has has announced a long term programme to improve Auckland's water quality.

19. As part of the programme the Safeswim website will have up to date water quality monitoring information available.

20. The information is especially important for out west. Regrettably five of our Manukau Harbour beaches and three of our west coast lagoons regularly have long term water quality alerts. This is half of the total problem areas in the region. The reasons vary although for most of the Manukau Beaches infrastructure is implicated. As a matter of urgency I intend to continue to raise this with Auckland Council to seek that this is remedied. These beaches and lagoons should be swimmable.

21. The local board has funded the preparation of a report into local water quality. The report is getting close to the stage where it can be released for public discussion. The intent of the report is to start a conversation with locals and to seek agreements on what we want to achieve and what the priorities should be.

Meeting with District Commander Tusha Penney

22. Henderson Massey chair Shane Henderson, Whau chair Tracey Mulholland and I recently met with Tusha Penney who is the District Commander of the Waitemata Policing District and Scotty Webb who is the Waitakere area commander.

23. Tusha is an energetic and passionate Police Officer who is clearly wanting to improve police performance out west. She wants to focus police activity on Waitakere in recognition that because of poverty this area presents the most challenges.

24. She was supportive of the Waitakere Ranges Safety hub, an office funded by the local board that is used by the local community constable.

25. She was also very keen to improve community engagement. Out west there has always been a good relationship between community and Government departments driven by the realisation that the community has huge understanding and resources that can help Government departments perform their core roles.

26. The specific matters that we discussed at this meeting were the problems being caused by parties held at Council hired halls and the support we could provide for a new police initiative seeking to address the effects of domestic violence.

27. Further regular meetings with Tusha and Scotty are being scheduled.

Waitakere Pest Free meeting

28. The local board hosted a meeting of a variety of groups interested in creating a Waitakere Pest Free area. A preliminary application to the Government Pest Free 2050 fund has been made on behalf of all of the groups.

29. The groups represented included Forest and Bird, Arc Bufferzone, Ark in the Park, Gecko Trust, Oratia Native Wildlife Project, Weed Free Waiatarua, and Ecomatters Environment Trust amongst others.

30. The design of the application will be an interesting process. But so far so good. Special thanks to Robert Woolf and Annalily van den Broeke who have both put a lot of work into the proposal.

Meeting with Japanese delegation from Akita

31. The local board had the pleasure of meeting elected representatives from the municipal association of Akita, Japan. Akita is a small (by Japanese standards) prefecture in Northern Hokkaido. They were visiting New Zealand on a fact finding tour. It was our pleasure to welcome them to Arataki Visitor’s centre and to talk to them about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and environmental protection out west.

Bioblitz

32. I was invited to speak at the Whatipu bioblitz launch. The Bioblitz was the brainchild of Friends of Whatipu which includes Bruce and Trixie Harvey and Peter Maddison. Bruce and Trixie, who have a long standing link to Whatipu, have worked particularly hard on the proposal. It was hosted at Whatipu Lodge by the Mayor of Whatipu, Wayne McKenzie.

33. The local board contributed a relatively modest amount of funding to the Bioblitz. For this investment Auckland receives the voluntary contributions of a number of enthusiastic young people collecting bio samples in the local area and the further contributions of a number of scientists analysing the samples. The intent is to measure the quality of the local biodiversity and to see what is changing when the results are compared to those of previous bioblitzes. By comparing the results we can understand what if anything is happening to the local environment.

34. When the amount contributed is compared to the numbers of hours of volu

35. Congratulations to Bruce and Trixie. I look forward to reading the findings.

Te Kura Kaupapa kapa haka

36. Councillor Linda Cooper and I and members of Sports Waitakere including Chief Executive Lynette Adams had the pleasure of attending the Kura at Hoani Waititi Marae and being on the receiving end of a spine chilling powerful performance by the Kapa Haka group. It was outstanding.

37. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Kura a few times recently and I am really impressed with what is happening. The education is first class and the students are getting a deep and important immersion in their and our culture.

Little Muddy Creek opening

38. We finally managed to officially open the Rimutaka Place walkway and on a cold and rainy day we managed to get an enthusiastic young woman to cut the ribbon.

39. Many thanks to Neil Henderson for the tremendous work he has put into the walkway. Woodlands Park Primary have requested that we see if we can extend the walkway to the school. It appears that there are major private land issues but I agree that if at all possible we should have a network of walkways so that kids can walk to school and not have to be driven.

Open Studios launch

40. Finally the annual Open Studios event has again been held. This is a yearly event where local artists open up their studios and welcome visitors from afar to look at and hopefully purchase some of their art. It is organised by a dedicated team including Renee Tanner and lets people interact with over 70 westie artists, potters, painters and jewellers. Again for a relatively modest contribution from the Board and a lot of passion and dedication from members of the community really interesting events can be organised and held and the local arts community can be strengthened.

Regards

Greg Presland

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Chairperson

greg.presland@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Phone +6421998411

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the Chairperson’s report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Portfolio Update Report: Member Sandra Coney

File No.: CP2017/24569

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity for Member Sandra Coney to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2. Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3. Member Coney has lead for the portfolios of Historic Heritage/Character and Parks area.

Heritage report

The Auckland Heritage Festival

1. It has been a very busy time for heritage since I last reported. The Heritage Conference - with the theme The People of the West – held during the Auckland Heritage Festival was a great success, though not without difficulties. Firstly, we have to move from the Titirangi War Memorial Hall as it was damaged by lightning (and is still closed). Though not in our board area, we relocated to the old WCC chambers in Henderson.

2. Blow me down if we weren’t struck by a power outage on the morning of the conference. I did my welcome without a prepared powerpoint and thankfully the power went on after that, though not completely.

One of the photos that didn’t get shown from my welcome talk at the conference. It is from the West Auckland Research Centre display of the building of the Huia dam and shows workmen hard at work with picks and shovels.

3. Thanks to our unrufflable organiser, Annalily van der Broeke, the conference went ahead without a hitch after that. We had three keynote speakers and three workshop sessions.

4. We had capacity for 150 and were completely booked out about a week ahead. Imagine our frustration that about 40 people did not turn up on the day, meaning that people were unnecessarily turned away.

5. We are discussing how to organise the next conference. It is obviously valued and is helping put heritage firmly on the map out west, but we haven’t worked out how to make sure the venue is full. Currently the conference is free, as are lunches and teas. Would people be more commited to turning up if they paid? What a pity that would be, as it might discourage people who would love to attend but are on slim budgets.

6. We are also talking about making the conference shorter, as it is a long day currently.

7. The conference wasn’t the only heritage event out west that weekend. The West Auckland Historical Society launched the long-awaited history of Henderson on the Friday night and that was a gala occasion. On the Saturday I took a tour of the Piha Radar Station site. I was quite anxious leading up to it as I had 35 booked in and had turned about 12 away. They pretty well all turned up for the walk – no defaulters here – but the weather was benign, the wind mild, and everyone could hear what was said. It was good to have several families with children attend.

Talk at Piha WW2 RNZAF radar station, 7 October 2017

8. In the afternoon, there was another walk at Titirangi and they had 80 turn up! They split into two groups to manage, but clearly there is a thirst for such activities out west.

9. On Saturday night we had a film evening, organised by Robin Newell and Sir Bob Harvey at Titirangi Theatre in Lopdell House. What a treat that was! Bob had sourced many home movies from throughout Waitakere, edited them, and introduced them. There was old footage from vineyards and orchards, home movies from Titirangi, the power coming into Herald Island and Piha, surf carnivals, the moving of the Piha surf club – a study in how health and safety was attended to in years gone by, including men crawling under the elevated building to check it. My favourite was footage taken by Claude Webber in the 1950s of my father with his and Don Wright’s double-ended surfboat, the Kawerau, racing through the waves at Piha.

10. This film evening, we plan to repeat again at Titirangi and also at Piha.

11. At Te Uru there was an exhibition called Leading Ladies, featuring early women studio potters – Briar Gardner, Olive Jones, Elizabeth Matheson, Elizabeth Lissaman and Minnie White. This was curated by Myra Elliot who also spoke at the conference and I was honoured to open it.

12. During the heritage festival also I was pleased to take part in a debate on whether there is adequate protection for built heritage. This was in the newly restored Ellen Melville Centre and was organised by the Civic Trust. This was a well attended event at this lovely venue, a great asset in the inner city. I attended the opening of the new facility on 22 September.

Ngati Whatua elders in the newly restored Ellen Melville Centre, at the opening. The tukutuku panels were restored by women from Orakei Marae.

13. Remembering Ellen – the first woman in any city council in NZ and a great feminist leader – I included her in the interpretation signs that went on graves during the Waikumete Open Day.

14. On 19 September I attended the anniversary of women’s suffrage in Khartoum Place organised by women’s organisations.

15. All in all a rich feast of heritage events during September.

2^nd Waikumete Cemetery Open Day

16. There was barely time to take a breath before we launched into the 2^nd Waikumete Cemetery Open Day. Like the conference, the organisation is a partnership between Council and many community groups, including Friends of Waikumete, RSAs, the Working Together Muslim group and many others.

17. We had a lovely sunny day, and everything went very smoothly. There were good audiences at the talks, walks and other activities. I was told the Muslin group did their demonstration eight times.

18. Chapel 1 was devoted to genealogy and history, and Chapel 2 to family-led funerals. All the talks were in the lovely Chapel of Faith in the Oaks, which was beautifully decorated with flowers. An old hearse drove sedately around the grounds and several people dressed in Victorian costume strolled the graveyard. People could learn about natural burials, visit a mausoleum and the crematorium were open – it was an opportunity to demystify the death and funeral process.

19. I was pleased to support Lady Barbara Harvey show us how to clean a grave and restore the white lettering. The grave was that of WW1 NZEF Chaplain Angus MacDonald, who I featured in my new book, Gone West: Great War memorials of Waitakere. Angus was the principal.

20. Presbyterian Chaplain in the NZEF, who after the war supported Titirangi folk to get a memorial church and spoke at Anzac ceremonies at Waikumete. I had tried to get Angus’s grave tidied up through government channels and had failed, so it was lovely to see his grave restored to its former glory, and great to have a granddaughter present as well. The NZ Society of Genealogists also featured Angus in a display in Chapel 1, showing how to research an ancestors past.

Photo shows Lady Barbara Harvey (left), Joanna Spiers (granddaughter Angus MacDonald) and Sandra Coney at Angus’s partially restored grave

Other commemorations

21. This has also been a period of commemorations regarding WW1. I attended the 100^th anniversary of Passchendaele at Auckland Museum with board member Neil Henderson. I was appointed to an advisory group on WW1 to Mayor Phil Goff, and have been attending meetings of that. Its main task is the completion of a memorial commemorating the centenary in the grounds of Auckland Domain.

22. January next year is the 100^th anniversary of the first WW1 burial in the Waikumete Soldiers section which was created in 1917. The burial was of Lieutenant William Eli Johnston, who died of shellshock on 21 January 1918. His white marble grave is near the Waikumete obelisk.

23. 2018 is also the year which is the 100^th anniversary of the influenza pandemic and the centenary of the Armistice at the end of WW1. We are starting to talk about how to commemorate these events.

Swanson Heritage Survey Design Guidelines launched

24. The Board launched the guideline on 25 October at Redwood Park Golf Club in Swanson. The design guidelines, developed by Boffa Miskell, with input from community members, provide guidance for anyone undertaking development in Swanson, either in private places or public places. There is also an inventory of historic heritage places, notable trees and Outstanding Natural Landscapes for the area, and a “places of interest” list of sites which potentially could be included in the Unitary Plan Historic Heritage Scheduled Places. There is also a Cultural Values assessment provided by Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority.

25. The Board’s job now is to make sure these guidelines are used by the resource consents team and by developers. The Board will be meeting with the Council’s consents team and the developers.

Glen Eden Community and Recreation Centre War Memorial Hall

26. In September board members went on a site visit which included the Glen Eden Community & Recreation Centre. This was one of many halls built throughout New Zealand to mark the end of the 2^nd World War, the government of the day subsidising halls and recreation centres.

27. Since our visit, we have activated some restoration of the very scruffy exterior by Council (which has the responsibility), but were delighted at what lay inside. This venue is managed by a local Glen Eden group and they have recently restored most of the interior and it is a truly lovely facility.

28. In fact while we were there, several of the organising committee were hard at work with paint brushes. The main hall is very pleasant and recent renovations have taken place in two of the three meeting rooms and the kitchen. It was all in great shape, and is very regularly and well used by the local community.

29. I was also delighted to see in the foyer a wonderful display of photos of early Glen Eden including photos of ceremonies at Waikumete war memorial. It was good to see this heritage hall well cared for and well used.

Paintwork and signage needing attention at the hall.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the Portfolio Update from Member Sandra Coney.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

23 November 2017

Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2017

File No.: CP2017/23343

Purpose

1. To present to the board with a governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for the board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) notes the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for November 2017 (attachment A).

Comments

5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

· Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

· Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2017	235

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Greg Presland
Deputy Chairperson	Saffron Toms
Members	Sandra Coney, QSO
	Neil Henderson
	Steve Tollestrup
	Denise Yates, JP