Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 14 December 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Harbour Sport update

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To address the Upper Harbour Local Board and provide an update on the activities of Harbour Sport.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Toni-Maree Carnie, Chief Executive of Harbour Sport, will be in attendance to give the Upper Harbour Local Board an update on the activities and challenges their organisation has faced over the last 12 months.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Toni-Maree Carnie from Harbour Sport, and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Harbour Sport presentation.................................................................. 325

8.2 Greenhithe Community Trust update

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek guidance from the board regarding the Oruamo/Hellyers Escarpment Pest Control Project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Amanda Mitchell, Chair of the Greenhithe Community Trust, will be in attendance to update the board on plans for the use of recent private grants towards pest control in the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The Trust is seeking feedback and guidance on their proposals and would also like to introduce the facilitator for the Oruamo/Hellyers Escarpment Pest Control Project, Richard Chambers, who also works with Gecko Trust.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) thank Amanda Mitchell, Chair of the Greenhithe Community Trust, and Richard Chambers, facilitator for the Oruamo/Hellyers Escarpment Pest Control Project, for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Oruamo/Hellyers Escarpment Pest Control project - background information........................................................................................... 343

b Greenhithe Community Trust presentation.......................................... 345

8.3 Albany United Football Club resourcing challenges

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To address the Upper Harbour Local Board to highlight the challenges the club is facing with regard to insufficient training space and resources for their growing membership.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Andrea Harold, Operations Manager, and Kieron Henare, Club President, from Albany United Football Club, will be in attendance to discuss issues raised with Auckland Council’s sports fields booking department.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Andrea Harold and Kieron Henare from Albany United Football Club, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Albany United Football Club photos..................................................... 355

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.

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Landowner approvals: Northern Corridor Improvements project

File No.: CP2017/26284

Purpose

1. To seek the Upper Harbour Local Board’s view on the divestment of areas of reserve land associated with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Northern Corridor Improvements project.

2. To obtain the Upper Harbour Local Board’s direction on the allocation of compensation funds anticipated from the proposed land divestment activity.

3. To seek landowner approval and delegation from the Upper Harbour Local Board for the temporary occupation of the reserve land associated with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Northern Corridor Improvements project.

Executive summary

4. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) submitted several Notices of Requirement (NOR) and resource consents to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Northern Corridor Improvements project (NCI), a project of national significance, in December 2016. Following a formal hearing process, a final Board of Inquiry (BOI) decision has been published. The final report and decision confirms and grants the NZTA’s NOR and resource consents applications, subject to a number of conditions.

5. The NCI project contemplates NZTA permanently acquiring and/or temporarily occupying portions of council owned reserve land for construction purposes for the duration of the works (up to approximately 36 months).

6. Areas of reserve land to be permanently acquired are located at Rosedale Landfill, Tawa, Arrenway, Centorian, Meadowood, Alexandra Stream, Rook Omega and Bluebird Reserves. Land at Constellation Reserve is also permanently required. The statutory approval to divest this land was granted and delegated by the Finance and Performance Committee in July 2017. Other related matters pertaining to Constellation Reserve will be presented to the board in separate reports.

7. The areas of reserve to be temporarily occupied by NCI will be made inaccessible to the public during construction and upon completion of the works, the reserves will be reinstated by NZTA.

8. Mitigation works required as part of the BOI process include:

· re-landscaping and development of a shared user path (SUP) alongside areas of the state highway that has connection points from several of the reserves

· redevelopment of Rook Reserve, to include active recreation areas, boardwalks and footpaths

· reinstatement of exercise equipment on Barbados Reserve.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) support the divestment of approximately 3.8ha of reserve land (being portions of land at Rosedale Landfill, Tawa, Arrenway, Centorian, Meadowood, Alexandra Stream, Rook, Omega and Bluebird Reserves) to the New Zealand Transport Agency, for motorway improvements at Upper Harbour, by transfer pursuant to Sections 50 and 52 of the Public Works Act 1981.

b) request that the Finance and Performance Committee direct the net receipts of sale towards an agreed local board work programme, which delivers local park improvements in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

c) grant landowner approval for the temporary occupation of reserve land for construction and mitigation purposes, to the New Zealand Transport Agency (and their contractors) for up to 36 months within (and around) the reserve areas affected by the project, subject to:

i. the staged, detailed design and maintenance arrangements of shared user path, vegetation removal, re-vegetation, retaining walls, landscaping and concept plans, and other mitigation requirements being approved by the General Manager Parks

ii. the final terms and conditions of all temporary occupation arrangements being approved by the General Manager Community Facilities, as part of the compensation agreement for reserve land.

Comments

9. NZTA lodged applications for six NOR and 25 resource consents with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in December 2016 to accommodate the NCI project.

10. The NCI project is part of the accelerated Auckland programme, funded by central government. It provides the final motorway connection for the NZTA Western Ring Route, which is a project of national significance.

11. The project will deliver direct motorway interchange connections between State Highway 1 (SH1) and State Highway 18 (SH18), and highway improvements on SH1 between Constellation Drive and Oteha Valley Road, and on SH18 between SH1 and Albany Highway.

12. The project is multi-modal and includes:

· extension of the northern busway from Constellation bus station to Albany bus station

· upgrade to Constellation bus station

· a new bus bridge into Albany bus station

· construction of 5km shared walking and cycling path (similar to the north-western cycle-way) alongside SH1 and SH18, to encourage an increased uptake of active modes and to better connect the community with public transport, employment, schools and shopping areas.

13. The NCI project anticipates NZTA acquiring reserve land, as well as temporarily using areas of reserve for construction and mitigation purposes for the duration of the works. The table below sets out the affected reserves. Attachment B illustrates the permanent and temporary areas affected by the designation on each reserve. The full term of construction is expected to be three and a half years, with substantive works commencing in May 2018.

Reserve Name	Current area (m²)	Area of permanent requirement (m²) A	Area of temporary occupation (m²) B	Area required for construction (m²) A+B
Rosedale landfill: three parcels	221,147	17,209		17,209
Tawa Reserve: three parcels	12,910	6,151	2,046	8,197
Arrenway Reserve: three parcels *	14,568	6,596	3,922	10,518
Centorian Reserve	665	345		345
Meadowood Reserve *	9,885	120		120
Alexandra Stream Reserve	6,144	166	1,321	1,487
Rook Reserve *	14,860	5,919	6,989	12,908
Omega Reserve	8,978		1,467	1,467
Bluebird Reserve: two parcels	24,120	1,294	135	1,429
TOTALS	300,367	37,800	15,880	53,680

14. NZTA submitted an Urban Design and Landscaping Framework document (UDLF) as part of the NOR to inform the detailed design phase of the project. The UDLF sets out the key principles, outcomes, objectives and proposed methodologies for detailed design during construction, for permanent landscape mitigation works, and in relation to ongoing maintenance requirements. NZTA awarded the design component of the project as part of an Alliance Agreement in July 2017. Detailed design plans are currently being developed.

15. The draft designation conditions require NZTA to submit Urban Design Landscape Plan(s) (UDLP) to council’s Urban Design Advisory Panel for comment as part of the consenting, or ‘outline plan of works’, process. The UDLP(s) will give effect to the UDLF and may be staged or site specific, as agreed between NZTA and council.

16. The UDLP(s) will include the details and staging of proposed mitigation and enhancement planting in relation to the NZTA construction programme. As a condition of the landowner approvals, a schedule of works will be requested to detail the timeframes when each of the reserves will be closed. NZTA will be required to maintain and monitor the mitigation and enhancement planting for a minimum of four years, following the planting being undertaken.

17. The UDLP(s) will also include Reserve Reinstatement Plans, specifically for Rook, Bluebird, Arrenway and Meadowood Reserves (or parts thereof) directly affected by the construction works. The Reserve Reinstatement Plans are being prepared in consultation with Auckland Council’s Parks Department and will include (as appropriate):

· removal of structures, plant and materials associated with construction

· replacement of boundary fences to the same or similar type to that removed

· reinstatement of grassed areas to a similar condition as existed prior to construction

· replacement of trees and other planting removed for construction on a one-for-one basis (or as otherwise agreed with Auckland Council’s Parks Department)

· details of way-finding interpretation signage within and adjacent to the reserve.

18. Rook Reserve has specific mitigation requirements as a condition of the designation and will be redeveloped to include a 30x30 kick-around space, a basketball half-court, boardwalks, footpaths and planting as mitigation for the adverse effects of the loss of passive open space to the storm water wetland and the temporary occupation of Rook Reserve. Mitigation works for all reserves are further detailed in Attachment A.

19. Other mitigation works required include the re-landscaping and development of a shared user path alongside SH18 and SH1 that has connection points from several of the reserves along the way, including Spencer Ridge Reserve, Arrenway, Centorian, Alexandra Stream Reserve and Rook Reserve. Construction activities at Rosedale Reserve will be managed by way of a Construction Environment Management Plan, in addition to a suite of minimum requirements that will be developed in consultation with council’s Closed Landfill Team.

20. Omega Reserve and Alexandra Stream Reserve will have permanent infrastructure associated with the development of the SUP (including stairs and concrete paths). While the BOI process did not require specific Reserve Reinstatement Plans for these works, it is recommended that NZTA be required to supply these plans to these reserves as a condition of the landowner approval (LOA) process.

21. The project also affects parkland within other areas of the Upper Harbour Local Board, such as land at Constellation Reserve. However, approval to divest this land was granted by the Finance and Performance Committee in July 2017. Other related matters pertaining to Constellation Reserve (such as tenancy relocations etc.) will be presented to the board in a separate report. As such, this report deals only with the works within reserves listed in the above table.

Reserve divestment and temporary occupation

22. As noted above, NZTA proposes to permanently acquire approximately 3.8ha of reserve land (not including Constellation Reserve) to accommodate the NCI project (refer Attachment B). With the exception of Rook Reserve (and Constellation), the majority of the land permanently required by NZTA consists of narrow grassed strips located adjacent to the motorway. The construction of the SUP using these strips will provide increased connections between council’s reserve network. The SUP will activate Arrenway Reserve and provide a connection to the Spencer Ridge Reserve, where a SUP bridge crossing is being provided as part of another project. The SUP will also increase connectivity from the wider local area to reserves such as Rook Reserve and the wider Albany Cycleway.

23. In addition to the permanent land requirements, NZTA also require the temporary occupation of approximately 1.6ha of reserve land for construction activity to enable the NCI project. The nature of works, required access, and mitigation proposed within each reserve is outlined in Attachment A.

24. Independent valuations to assess the compensation due for the permanent land takes and temporary occupation areas are underway. While compensation values may be negotiated and agreed between the council and NZTA (pursuant to the Public Works Act) this calendar year, the final settlement of compensation due will not be known until the project is completed and the final areas of land are legalised.

25. It is recommended that, as part of the approval process for the divestment of reserves, the local board requests the Finance and Performance Committee to allocate the net receipts of sales towards an agreed local board work programme that delivers on local park improvements in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

26. Closure of walkways at intermittent stages of the works period may be necessary. As part of the conditions of landowner approval (in addition to consent requirements), it is recommended that NZTA be required to inform residents of park closures well in advance and to install appropriate information and pedestrian diversion signage.

27. Overall, parks staff consider that the temporary and permanent impacts of the proposals are manageable and can be mitigated. It is requested that authority be delegated to the General Manager Parks to review and approve the detailed plans, and to provide landowner conditions to manage the staged construction and remediation works.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. The decisions recommended in this report are not considered significant in terms of council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

29. NZTA initiated engagement with key stakeholders in 2014 and commenced community consultation from May to July 2016, to inform the social/environmental assessments and preliminary design work. Groups contributing to this consultation were:

· the Project Reference Group, a stakeholder group including Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, the local board, Watercare and iwi

· a group of 85 key stakeholders, including North Harbour Hockey, Transpower, Vector, Bike Auckland, Walk Auckland, Massey University and QBE Stadium

· one hundred and thirty interests on 52 properties

· neighbours and the wider community (with a focus on Unsworth Heights).

30. The outcomes of the engagement process fed into the identification of NZTA options, the options assessment, and the refinement of the preliminary design. The BOI decision requires NZTA to continue to liaise with the relevant stakeholders and the community during detailed design process and throughout construction.

31. The NCI project team has met several times with the Upper Harbour Local Board since 2014 to update them on the overall progress of the project and to seek feedback on a variety of matters during the concept stages of the project.

32. The project contributes directly to Outcome 2 of the draft 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan, “efficient and effective transport links”, by enabling a well-connected and accessible network that provides a variety of transport options. The Upper Harbour Local Board has publicly voiced its support for the NCI project, including positive feedback about the NCI project's investment in the Albany area in their newsletters, and attendance at one of the project business consultation breakfasts.

33. The local board has provided additional guidance and feedback on related project matters concerning Constellation Reserve and has been integrally involved in the design of the works proposed in relation to other various reserves. NZTA advises that no specific issues have been raised regarding the works proposed in these reserves and that the board supports NZTA’s mitigation proposal to re-landscape and improve the walkway within the reserves, recognising the improvements as a key benefit for the local community.

Māori impact statement

34. Cultural values assessments have been commissioned as part of the broader NCI project. Mana whenua engagement has involved the creation of an NZTA Iwi Integration Group and NZTA has hosted two site visits and numerous hui.

35. Within the project footprint, there are no identified or scheduled heritage or archaeological sites, or any identified sites of cultural significance to iwi. However, there are waterways and ecological areas important to iwi, particularly the culturally significant areas of Oteha Valley, Rosedale Creek, and Lucas Creek, that are part of the wider context of the project and that iwi seek to protect and enhance.

36. Through the BOI process, NZTA presented evidence that iwi have provided feedback on environmental matters, enhancing biodiversity, the built environment, pedestrian and cycle connectivity and public transport initiatives. Iwi is also recognised through the incorporation of Te Aranga design principles into the UDLF, which includes a forward process to acknowledge cultural kaitiakitanga and mana whenua values. With regard to council reserves, the development of the UDLPs (referenced above in paragraph 16) will be prepared in partnership with the NZTA Iwi Integration Group.

Implementation

Delegations

37. The table below explains the decision-making responsibilities and delegations pertaining to the key processes described in this report.

Decision-maker

Decision-making responsibilities

Pertinent process

Upper Harbour Local Board

· Activities on local parks within its local board area, including leases and licences

· Approve the temporary occupation of land by NZTA

· Delegate authority to the General Manager Parks, to negotiate and approve final mitigation arrangements

Finance and Performance Committee

· Decisions regarding the disposal of parks and reserves

· Allocation of capital receipts for the sale of divested land

· Approve disposal of land required by NZTA

· Delegate authority, through the Chief Executive, to the General Manager Community Facilities, to negotiate final compensation agreements

Process and timing

38. The NOR and consents went through a BOI hearing process in late July 2017. After the hearing process, the board for the requiring authority provided a draft decision and recommended conditions on 9 October 2017. The final report and decision that was published by the EPA on 22 November 2017confirms and grants NZTA’s NOR and resource consents applications, subject to a number of conditions. This process protects the space subject to the designation. However, NZTA must acquire the permanently required land and obtain landowner approval for the temporary occupation of land for construction purposes where located within parks and reserves.

39. NZTA’s investigatory work commenced in October 2017. Preliminary enabling works are scheduled to start in January 2018 on the first stage of the project, situated at the easternmost part of Constellation Drive. Substantive construction works are anticipated to commence in May 2018.

40. To minimise risk and disruption to the project, NZTA is keen to sign a compensation agreement for the temporary occupation and permanent land acquisition as soon as possible. The processes for the proposed land transfer are expected to comprise the following key components set out in the table below.

Process/decision	Target date
The Upper Harbour Local Board considers mitigation, the temporary occupation of land, and provides a view concerning the divestment of land and the treatment of funds	December 2017
Auckland Council’s Finance and Performance Committee considers the divestment of land and treatment of funds	February 2018
If approved, parties enter into an appropriate legal agreement to compensate the council and transfer the required land areas to NZTA (permanent and temporary)	February 2018
Possession of the required land is transferred to NZTA	February 2018
Staged construction commences – Auckland Council (as affected party) monitors construction impact on affected reserves	February 2018
Construction concludes – Auckland Council (as affected party) monitors reinstatement activity	Early 2021
NZTA commences the return of temporary occupation areas and asset handovers commence	Various, up until mid to late 2021
NZTA undertake final legalisation survey	Early to mid-2021
NZTA formalise ongoing access requirements
NZTA legalise the land and settle all agreements
NZTA undertake ongoing maintenance requirements	Up until 2025
Asset handover from NZTA to council concludes	2025

41. Given the length and complexity of the land transfer processes under the Public Works Act, together with the ongoing interdependencies with consenting matters, staff anticipate it could take up to a year for parties to settle and agree final compensation values. As a result, the council and NZTA have agreed to enter into an ‘advance compensation agreement’ and a prescribed time-bound valuation process, in order to allow for the project to commence physical works while providing adequate time for parties to assess and agree appropriate compensation values.

42. The final land survey (post construction) will determine the final land requirement areas and will consequently inform a final settlement and compensation reconciliation.

Costs

43. All costs incurred to facilitate agreement will be recovered from NZTA under provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mitigation works for affected reserves	73
b ⇩	Reserves impacted by the Northern Corridor Improvements Project	77

Signatories

Authors

Natasha Fredericksen - Development Manager

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Application for a licence for dining and cafe at Hobsonville Landing

File No.: CP2017/25703

Purpose

1. To seek approval to:

· Publicly notify, pursuant to section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977, a commercial licence for Catalina Bay Holdings Limited Partnership, and its tenant, to occupy part of the deck constructed over a strip of reserve (to be vested) at The Landing, Hobsonville, by Homes Land Community (2017) Limited (formerly Hobsonville Land Company Limited). The proposed term of the licence is 10 years and the purpose is for outdoor dining

· Grant the licence on terms and conditions to be approved by the head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory, Community Facilities, provided there are no significant objections.

Executive summary

2. Homes Land Community (2017) Limited (HLC), as part of its development of the former Hobsonville Airbase on behalf of the Crown, is soon to complete the subdivision of The Landing, also known as Catalina Bay.

3. The Landing has largely been sold to Catalina Bay Holdings Limited Partnership (CBH), a company owned by the Willis Bond Group.

4. The north end of the Fabric Bay Building in the north-western end of The Landing is currently being improved as a café/restaurant and adjoins the deck that HLC has constructed partly over a small strip of reserve (Lot 10), to be vested on subdivision of The Landing (see Attachment A) and partly in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

5. The intention of HLC and CBH was that the latter would be granted a licence to occupy approximately half of the deck (see Attachment B).

6. The deck is held by HLC under a coastal permit (resource consent for items in the CMA). As it is envisaged by HLC that the coastal permit for the deck will be transferred to Auckland Council in due course, CBH has approached the council for a licence.

7. Due to the deck being constructed over a reserve, Legal Services has advised that the proposed licence must be notified under section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

8. Where the local board supports the application to publicly notify, it is also recommended that the board grants approval for the licence to be granted on terms and conditions to be approved by the head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory, Community Facilities, provided there are no significant objections.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the public notification of a licence for Catalina Bay Holdings Limited Partnership, and its tenant to occupy part of the deck constructed over a strip of reserve (to be vested on subdivision) and partly in the Coastal Marine Area at The Landing, Hobsonville, by Homes Land Community (2017) Limited (formerly Hobsonville Land Company Limited), for a term of 10 years for outdoor dining.

b) approve granting of the licence on terms and conditions to be approved by the head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory, Community Facilities, if there are no objections, or no objections of significance to the granting of the licence, or no objections that cannot be resolved with the submitter.

c) approve occupation of the deck, commencing under an agreement to grant a licence, prior to the public notification period due to the previous arrangements made between Hobsonville Land Company Limited and the proposed licensee, but with termination or suspension provisions if notification results in an adverse reaction from the public, and otherwise on terms and conditions to be approved by the head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory, Community Facilities.

Comments

9. The proposed licence will contain conditions requiring strict adherence to any bylaws and any consents or regulatory licences, required for the operation of the café/restaurant.

10. The Reserves Act 1977 provides for licences to be granted for up to 40 days without notification. An agreement to grant a licence and occupation ahead of notification would have the same effect as a 40-day licence.

11. In addition to the deck, a boardwalk for public access extends to the west, and a five-metre-wide esplanade reserve will be vested by HLC to the east along the top of the seawall. Staff consider that the proposed operation on the deck will leave ample room for the general public to enjoy the coastal walkway unhindered.

12. The recreation reserve to be vested, and over which the deck has been constructed, is inaccessible because of the structure.

13. As this report is being drafted, a valuation is being prepared by the council’s valuer for determination of the commercial licence fee payable by CBH.

Background

14. HLC is in the process of subdividing The Landing at Hobsonville and has sold a substantial part of the site to the Willis Bond Group.

15. HLC’s consent application to subdivide The Landing (which was heard and granted by a commissioner) presumed the licence would be granted and the strip of land beneath the deck (Lot 10) approved to be vested as recreation reserve, rather than esplanade reserve, to facilitate the proposed commercial operation. An extract from the decision follows:

A 7m-wide esplanade reserve is also to be created along the majority of the existing 315m long seawall. 5m of this extends from the inner face of the seawall to the landward boundary. However, between the Fabric Bay building and Mean High Water Springs (MHWS), it is proposed to waive the requirement for an esplanade reserve and instead form a recreation reserve to be vested to Auckland Council (Lot 10). This is to enable a licence to occupy to be placed over the area for outdoor dining purposes.

16. The council will receive a five metre esplanade reserve on The Landing, between Launch Road and the ferry wharf. The esplanade reserve is to be vested on subdivision.

17. HLC holds a separate coastal permit (the name given to a resource consent in the Coastal Marine Area) for the deck that has been constructed on the north side and adjoining the Fabric Bay Building.

18. HLC has indicated that it wishes to transfer the coastal permit to Auckland Council in due course.

19. A Willis Bond company, Catalina Bay Holdings Ltd (CBH), is currently improving the northern end of the Fabric Bay Building for operation as a restaurant/café, and has entered into an agreement to lease with an operator, which relies on use of part of the deck constructed by HLC at the north end of the building.

20. Another part of the deck on the western side is on land acquired by Willis Bond (refer Attachment B).

21. Willis Bond has requested that council confirms the licensing of part of the deck to CBH as landowner of the Fabric Bay Building, but with provision for occupation by its tenant.

Assessment of licence application

22. The following table provides an assessment of the application for the proposed licence:

a) Pros	· Provides an opportunity for the public to make the most of the surroundings while seated on the deck, with a northerly aspect, facing the upper harbour
	· Activates the area around the ferry wharf
	· Provides non-rates revenue by way of a commercial licence fee, in accordance with council’s strategic imperative
	· Cost of maintenance of the deck, under the terms of the licence, is to be shared with the licensee (which is also part-owner of the deck)
b) Cons	· The operation, as a commercial activity, could create a sense of privatisation of public space, which may be perceived negatively by some members of the public
b) Cons	· Patrons at the café/restaurant may create noise

23. Overall, staff support the granting of the proposed licence.

Reserves Act requirements and options

24. The small strip of land (shown as Lot 10 on Attachment A) over which the deck is constructed, is to be vested as recreation reserve by HLC.

25. The Reserves Act 1977 allows for commercial activities on reserves, only after notification.

26. It is noteworthy that the deck completely covers the reserve to be vested, leaving the reserve inaccessible. However, the deck provides better access and is wider at that point on the waterfront than the reserve itself, even with part taken up with tables and chairs.

Option to refuse

27. In considering the application, the local board has an option not to proceed with the application. However, it needs to be considered that no other operator could use the position on the deck as effectively. Further, agreements have been made (between HLC and Willis Bond, and Willis Bond and the café operator) on the assumption that the deck will be used for outdoor dining. In effect, the council is inheriting this arrangement.

Option to consult

28. Where the local board considers the application, the board would then approve the public notification as required by section 54 (2) of the Reserves Act 1977, and iwi consultation as required by section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

29. The process requires that:

· public notice is published in a local paper which is in circulation in the area directly neighbouring the reserve

· a submission period of not less than one month be offered, noting that public notice given after 10 December requires extension of that period to 10 February

· full consideration be given to all objections and submissions through the board, a committee, or person(s) as appointed by the board

· either the committee or appointed person(s) make a recommendation back to the board for a decision, or the committee or board make the final decision.

30. CBH is eager to have its application considered as soon as possible, so that its tenant can operate this summer, if the licence is approved.

31. Given the timing of this report, the earliest public notification that could take place is mid-January. The one-month submission period would mean a hearing, if required, could take place in late February or early March 2018.

32. Staff recommend that the board also approves the operation commencing in mid-January under the agreement to grant a licence, or on a separate temporary 40-day licence. This will be subject to the licence being terminated upon overwhelmingly unfavourable feedback from the notification. Such temporary licences do not require notification.

33. This decision is not considered to be significant under the criteria set out in council‘s Significance and Engagement Policy. The land is not a strategic asset and a proposal to grant a licence to operate on a reserve is not an activity that exceeds the threshold on activities set out in the policy.

34. However, the proposed public engagement, which is required under the Reserves Act 1977, and iwi consultation to be undertaken in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987, are of an equivalent level of consultation that would be required under the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, if the decision was of medium significance.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. The local board has allocated decision-making to approve activities undertaken on parks and open space in its area.

Māori impact statement

36. Should the board approve public notification, iwi will also be consulted and invited to make submissions on the proposal.

Implementation

37. If approval is given by the local board, the council will enter into an agreement to grant a licence to enable the proposed café operator to commence the interior fit-out of the café/restaurant. Once complete, the proposed café operator will be able to commence operation on the deck, pending a final decision for the permanent licence after the public consultation process.

38. Should the board approve public notification, the council’s Community Facilities department will carry out public notification and consultation with iwi in late January 2018. Costs involved with the public notification and hearings process (if any) will be met by the applicant.

39. Upon the submission period closing, staff will report back to the local board on details of a hearing if necessary, or to seek a final decision regarding the granting of the licence.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	The Landing Subdivision	99
b ⇩	2017-11-29 licence area plan updated	101
c ⇩	Fabric Building licensed area plan	103
d ⇩	Artist view of the deck from northern aspect	105
e ⇩	Deck details	107
f ⇩	Overall plan of The Landing	109

Signatories

Authors

Allan Walton - Principal Property Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park

File No.: CP2018/00504

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park Master Plan December 2017.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Hobsonville Point is one of a number of Special Housing Areas designed to cater for Auckland’s rapidly growing population. The Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park development will be a significant area of open space, and a primary area providing for the active recreation needs of the growing community.

3. Waitakere City Council purchased land at Scott Point for the development of a sports park to serve the local and wider community of Hobsonville and Scott Point. An initial open space structure plan was produced in 2015 for the planning work at Scott Point. The residential development of Scott Point is underway, and this park is now required to provide for the recreational needs of the growing community.

4. Based on the initial structure plan, a master plan was produced in 2017 in conjunction with the local iwi, community, clubs, schools, environmental groups and the local board. The plan identifies three main zones across the site with the provision of active, passive and environmental areas. A strategic assessment study for the sporting needs has been undertaken and the master plan produced to accommodate these needs.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopt the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park Master Plan December 2017.

b) support the allocation of funds to the development of the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park.

c) request that detailed design works commence to allow physical works to start on Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park in November 2019.

d) note that further budget allocation is required to deliver the full Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park Master Plan December 2017, and implementation may need to be staged as resources allow.

Horopaki / Context

Opportunity

5. Structure Planning for Scott Point Park and the surrounding area was undertaken in 2015.

6. This set the foundation for the development of the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park Master Plan which commenced in early 2017.

7. The opportunity to develop a greenfields site to create a totally new sports park does not happen too often.

8. In the planning phase, it was identified that this was an opportunity to incorporate sustainable principles from the beginning of the project, and include these principles into the design of Scott Point. This was workshopped with the Upper Harbour Local Board on several occasions and received their support.

9. The objective of the project is to create a leading edge, sustainable park at Scott Point that the community is proud of.

Sustainability

10. The Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) rating tool is being applied to the design and development stage of the project. The tool evaluates the sustainability (including environmental, social, economic and governance aspects) of infrastructure projects and assets.

11. The IS rating scheme is Australia’s only comprehensive rating scheme for evaluating sustainability across design, construction and operation of infrastructure.

12. The principles are to plan, design and build a new park at Scott Point that:

· is a model and flagship of sustainability in design and operation, and creates an exemplar ‘sustainable park’ at Scott Point

· meets local board, community and key stakeholder needs for active and passive recreational outcomes, including provision for organised sport, play, and local paths

· is developed in collaboration with relevant iwi to reflect mana whenua views and aspirations

· to use the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) IS rating tool to incorporate sustainability principles across the design and construction of the park.

13. One of the main features of the design is the incorporation of the sustainable principles that were established at the beginning of the project. This reflects the direction of the council in its goals for waste reduction, energy reduction, greenhouse gases reduction and water management.

Decision making authority

14. The Upper Harbour Local Board has the authority to adopt the master plan under delegations in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options considered

15. An internal project team of various council specialists overviewed the design process. Several workshops were held with the local board. There were initially three options developed by the internal design project team.

16. The three options were presented at a workshop with the local board. Option three was identified as the preferred option, except for some modifications to the central passive zone and the location of the court area. Following the workshop, two further options were produced as a modification of option three.

17. These two further options, four and five, were presented to the local board and they identified option five as the preferred design.

18. The pros and cons of the various designs were discussed at the workshops.

Preferred option

19. Following several workshops with the local board, a final draft concept plan was identified as their preferred design (refer Attachment A). This concept enabled provision of the required fields for summer and winter play, protection of the environmental areas, and accommodates passive recreation areas, provision for six courts, with the possible option of covering several of the courts and connecting pathways to the neighbouring properties.

Auckland Council group views

20. The project design team included a wide range of representatives from relevant departments including the Sustainability Office, Community Facilities Investigation and Design – Sports, Project Delivery and Operations, Environmental Services Biodiversity, Park Services Planning, Sports Parks, Parks and Places. Several CCO teams were also involved when required, including Auckland Transport and Panuku.

21. There have been several workshops with Panuku around the interface with the commercial land to the north east, and with Auckland Transport regarding the roading network and the design of the road that will bisect the park. These discussions are still on going.

Stakeholder views

Consultation

22. A communication and consultation plan was produced to ensure that all stakeholders’ views were heard (‘Iwi, Stakeholder and Community Engagement and Communications Plan, May 2017, Opus Ltd’).

23. An interactive workshop with key stakeholders was held on 11 April 2017. The purpose of the workshop was to canvas issues and opportunities for the development of the park, and to integrate stakeholder aspirations where practicable. Facilitated by Opus, and involving the project design team, the workshop was attended by approximately 40 people including representatives of sports clubs, resident associations, schools, environmental advocates, adjacent developers, the local board, iwi, and council staff. Almost 400 comments were received, collated and summarised to inform the concept design.

24. The draft concept plan was communicated back to stakeholders in a follow up presentation on 11 December 2017. The design received unanimous support. The following key matters were identified as needing further resolution through the detailed design stage:

· consider providing more carparking in the active recreation area. It was noted that there is an issue with non-park users taking the spaces. It was also explained that the 99 spaces shown more than meet the AUPOiP standards for parking provision in parks

· the one-way entry and exit into the western car park may cause congestion. Further transport planning advice will be sought

· confirm operating hours of public toilets

· concern was also raised about the effect of light and noise on the neighbouring THAB zone on the park’s southwest boundary. A 15m buffer zone will help mitigate light spill effects

· concern regarding poor passive surveillance due to there being no road along the southwest boundary. CPTED measures will be employed in the detailed design phase to optimise safety throughout the entire park.

25. Representatives of several sporting groups identified their requirements for sports facilities. The master plan takes the approach of providing multi-use facilities, whether grass fields, hard courts or ancillary amenities, rather than providing dedicated facilities for particular clubs and codes. This enables flexibility to cater for the greatest number of users.

26. Cricket will not be catered for as there is not enough flat space for a full oval. There was a request for increased clay diamond peripheries by the Auckland Baseball Association. This would however, clash with the turf playing area of other codes.

27. A separate design workshop was held with Hobsonville Point Secondary School student focus group, ‘Epi-Lovers’, on 9 June 2017. This group is involved in conservation initiatives for the protection of the critically endangered epilobium hirtigerum plant species. The students and their project leader supported the concept presented on 11 December 2017 and have subsequently provided further design input for consideration through the detailed design stage.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

28. On 2 March 2017, a team of Hobsonville Point Secondary School and Unitec students, supported by council’s biosecurity and biodiversity officers, presented at the community forum meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board. The group spoke about the efforts they are making to help protect the nationally critically endangered plant species, epilobium, which is present at Scott Point Park.

29. On 24 July 2017, a presentation was made to the Upper Harbour Local Board. The purpose of this meeting was to provide an update on progress, present concept ideas and seek feedback and guidance from the local board.

30. On 14 September 2017, a workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board. The purpose of this meeting was to present two alternative location options for the possible provision of covered courts at the park and to canvas the benefits and disadvantages of each option; to discuss the appropriateness and function of covered courts in this location and whether they will fulfil a multi-use purpose, and to discuss the possible sustainable features of the proposed park.

31. Provision of covered courts is a focus for the local board. A recommendation was made to locate the covered courts near the multiuse hub and open-air courts in the western part of the park.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

Process

32. Iwi involvement commenced at the inception of the project when Te Kawerau a Maki Tribal Authority and Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara identified mana whenua interest in Scott Point. Representatives of both iwi were appointed and have provided input into the design throughout the master planning process.

33. The process began with a hikoi on 24 February 2017 where iwi representatives and members of the project team walked over the site and experienced its physical nature and wider setting.

34. Following the hikoi, a presentation was made to the Rewiti Marae Trust Board hui on 14 May 2017 to discuss the project and seek input from the trust. The project was positively received by members of the trust.

35. The project design team and iwi representatives undertook an interactive design hui on 31 August and 21 September 2017. This was followed by a presentation to the North West hui on 4 October 2017 to update the forum on progress.

36. A cultural impact assessment (CIA) was prepared by Te Kawerau Tribal Authority and a cultural values assessment (CVA) was prepared by Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara. Both statements provided valuable information to inform the master plan and embed Māori values in the design and ongoing park management.

37. Both iwi representatives have been greatly involved in the design work and have reviewed the final draft document.

38. They have been extremely supportive of the inclusion of the sustainability principles in the project as these link very strongly to Māori beliefs and principles.

Outcomes

39. Te Aranga Māori design principles have been used as the framework to guide both the physical design of the park and the process for ongoing iwi involvement as the project moves through subsequent phases of design, construction and management.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

40. The table below shows the current budget allocated across the next five financial years in the forward work programme. There is currently $4.603m allocated to develop and implement the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park Master Plan. These budgets will be re‑phased during the development of the next three-year local board work programme and will be signed off by local boards in July 2018. The budgets will be re-phased to align with the physical works being undertaken, most likely in 2019/2020.

41. The budget allocated to the project is currently not sufficient to implement the full master plan. Any additional funding to be allocated to this project will need to come from within the growth funding budget envelope, as determined by the Governing Body. The sports infrastructure development (SID) fund has a prioritisation process that is followed when determining how money is allocated, and the order in which projects are delivered. Scott Point is an area of significant growth and as such, scores highly in this prioritisation process. However, the funding is distributed on a regional basis, and there are significant shortfalls in sports field capacity across the region that need to be addressed. This will determine when funding will become available.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

42. An indicative budget to implement the master plan is shown on the second line of the table below. These are the approximate budget amounts that will be requested from the SID fund in each of the financial years.

	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22
Current budget	120,000	3,329,000	134,000	795,000	225,000
Indicative required budget	120,000	329,000	3,000,000	3,000,000	3,000,000

43. There are proposed to be 99 on-site car spaces with minimal on road parking.

44. The community has expressed concerns that there will be parking issues for the users of the park as there are already parking issues in the wider Hobsonville area, due to the surrounding medium density housing and the lack of off-street parking. There is concern that residents will use the park’s car park or any on-road parking.

45. The community have requested additional parking be provided on-site to also cater for the high number of users that will drive to the park to use the facilities.

46. The provision of housing next to sports fields has created issues in some areas of Auckland, due to the glare of lights and the noise from the users on the fields.

47. New technology using asymmetrical LED lights has essentially removed the issue of glare on neighbouring properties.

48. The edge of the fields has been positioned at least 15m from the boundary to provide a buffer zone from the housing. It is expected at this distance that the noise levels will not exceed the allowable levels in the unitary plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. A procurement process is underway to engage a suitable consultant to work on the detailed design and contract documents to procure the services to undertake the construction.

50. The project will be staged over several years, with physical works construction planned to commence in November 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Scott Point Masterplan	117

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Grant Jennings – Principal Sports Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan - key moves

File No.: CP2017/25754

Purpose

1. To adopt the key moves for the development of the Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan.

Executive summary

2. An open space network plan is being prepared for the Upper Harbour Local Board area. This plan will set out key moves for the development of open space over the next 10 years.

3. The local board and mana whenua have been engaged to develop key moves that will guide the development of the network plan.

4. The network plan key moves focus on improving the quality of, and access to, open space. They will help inform a set of actions which will be prioritised to assist local board decisions.

5. These actions respond to the current open space needs and the growth anticipated in the Upper Harbour area.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following key moves to guide the development of the Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan:

i. growth – responding to our growing community

ii. recreation – providing a range of play opportunities

iii. connections – developing connections for the community

iv. healthy environment – improving water and biodiversity quality.

Comments

Background

6. An open space network plan is being prepared for the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

7. This plan is being prepared to inform local board decision-making and expenditure across the park network as the area grows and changes over time. It is expected that the open space network plan will be completed by the end of April 2018.

8. The open space network plan will set out key moves for the development of open space over the next 10 years. The key moves respond to the current open space provision, the growth anticipated in the Upper Harbour area, as well as demographic changes and patterns of usage.

9. Staff have researched growth projections, demographic data and the current state of open space in the Upper Harbour area.

The local community

10. Upper Harbour had 53,670 residents in the 2013 census. Nearly half (44 per cent) of local residents were born overseas, and of that group, 42 per cent have been in New Zealand for less than 10 years. The largest groups were from the United Kingdom and China, with smaller groups from Korea and South Africa.

11. There are a relatively high proportion of people 40 to 54 years of age compared to those in Auckland as a whole (24 per cent compared with 21.5 per cent).

12. In 2013, the number of usual residents aged 65 years of age and over was 5613, up 50 per cent since 2006. The proportion of this age group is on the rise due to declining birth rates and increased longevity.

13. The ethnic composition of the local board area is:

· 2 per cent identify as Pacific Islanders

· 5 per cent identify as Māori

· 29 per cent identify as Asian

· 66 per cent identify as New Zealand European.

Population growth

14. Upper Harbour is a rapidly growing area that is experiencing significant change. Council growth models project that the area will grow by 41,866 people, or 15,384 households, by 2028.

15. The provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan allow for intensification of land use for residential areas and business development in Upper Harbour. New housing development is occurring around Hobsonville, Scott Point, and Whenuapai. More intensive development of existing housing areas is expected to occur around Albany, Albany Heights, Fairview Heights, Schnapper Rock and Greenhithe.

Current open space status

16. A combination of desk-top research, user surveys and discussions with key staff has been undertaken to understand the current state of open space in the Upper Harbour area.

17. The analysis has identified the following key points about the existing open space network:

· the network includes 214 council-owned/managed parks

· walking and cycling access to many parks is compromised by motorways and steep terrain

· there is a good distribution of open space provision in the established areas of Upper Harbour, with some parks requiring further development

· the growth areas of Hobsonville, Scott Point and Whenuapai require further open space to meet council provision guidelines

· infrastructure projects are impacting on the use of some parks and sports codes. Those affected will need to be relocated.

18. Upper Harbour is home to assets of regional significance such as QBE Stadium (25,000 seat capacity stadium) and the AUT Millennium Institute (training facility for elite athletes). Other quality facilities include international standard softball diamonds located at Rosedale Park, and 20km of mountain bike tracks at Sanders Reserve.

Open space provision

19. Neighbourhood parks provide basic informal recreation and social opportunities within a short walk of people’s homes.

20. In high and medium density areas, the Open Space Provision Policy target is to provide access to a neighbourhood park within a 400m or five-minute walk of every household.

21. Further land for neighbourhood parks is required in Scott Point and Whenuapai as these areas develop.

22. Suburb parks provide a variety of informal recreation and social experiences and will often accommodate organised sport facilities, such as sport fields. The Open Space Provision Policy target is to provide suburb parks within a 1000m to 1500m walk of every household.

23. There is a gap in provision for a suburb park in Hobsonville. Land for suburb parks will be required in Whenuapai as the area is developed.

Open Space Quality

24. Over the spring and summer of 2016/2017, the Parks and Recreation Policy Unit commissioned research to understand how people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area use and regard their local parks. The research found that 86 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their neighbourhood park.

25. People who visit parks in Upper Harbour enjoy a variety of activities as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Upper Harbour neighbourhood park preferences

26. The main barriers preventing people from using parks more often include a lack of time due to other commitments, a lack of park facilities (for example playground and shade), or weather conditions.

27. The main reason for those visiting their neighbourhood park was for active pursuits and to use the playground.

28. Generally, visitors were satisfied or very satisfied with their neighbourhood park. Suggestions for improvements generally related to wanting a better playground and/or more activities, wanting better/more facilities (for example toilets, water fountains and dog waste bins), and improved park maintenance.

Greenways

29. The Upper Harbour Greenways Plan seeks to create a network of greenways that responds to the Upper Harbour’s unique environment by linking circulation networks that are on land and water. The New Zealand Transport Agency northern corridor project will contribute to implementation of cycling and walking improvements.

30. There may need to be some changes to update the document in response to growth in the local board area.

Mana whenua

31. Staff engaged with mana whenua in August and October. This was to inform them of the development of the open space network plan and to seek their views and values in relation to the open space network.

32. Staff will continue to engage with mana whenua on the development of the open space network plan and provide opportunities for input into the development of the plan.

Open space network plan key moves

33. Key moves are developed to inform and analyse the development of options in the open space network plan. They respond to the current state and anticipated growth in the area.

34. Local board priorities identified in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 have been considered in the development of the key moves. The local board priorities are outlined in the table below:

Upper Harbour Local Board priorities	What this means
Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities	· People living in Upper Harbour are able to influence what happens in their neighbourhoods
Efficient and effective transport links	· A well connected and accessible network that provides a variety of transport options
Healthy and active communities	· Residents have access to open space and a wide variety of sports and recreation opportunities
A thriving local economy	· A prosperous and innovative local economy, with job opportunities for local residents to work close to home
Our environment is valued, protected and enhanced	· Communities are actively engaged in enjoying, preserving and restoring the natural areas

35. Staff recommend four key moves which have been informed by analysis of the current state and engagement with the Local Board. These key moves are summarised in the following table:

Key move	Focus areas	Issues to address
Growth – responding to our growing community	· Open space provision · Quality parks	The Auckland Unitary Plan provides for significant growth in the local board area. New parks will need to be acquired and some existing parks will need further development to meet the needs of the growing community.
Recreation – providing access to a range of recreation opportunities	· Play · Access to water	The Upper Harbour has diverse communities (ethnicity and age). Access to a range of recreation opportunities is important and there are improvements that can be made to the open space network to facilitate play and water activities.
Key move	Focus areas	Issues to address
Connections – developing connections for the community	· Walking and cycling connections · Signage	Well connected, attractive and safe cycling and walking paths are a priority for the community to connect neighbourhoods. Signage could be improved. Effective signage for wayfinding, site interpretation and place names contribute to building stronger communities.
Healthy Environment – Improving water and biodiversity quality	· Waterways · Ecological restoration	The Upper Harbour has large areas of significant ecological value and the community recognise that it is important that these are valued, protected and enhanced. Environmental monitoring shows that there are improvements needed. Urban development is having a damaging effect on the environment.

Next steps

36. Staff will prepare a draft open space network plan for the Upper Harbour Local Board area using the key moves and focus areas to identify actions to improve the open space network.

37. Prioritisation principles will be developed in agreement with local board members. These will be used to prioritise the actions that will be identified to improve the open space network.

38. The draft plan will be presented to the local board at a workshop in March 2017. The final plan will be reported to the local board for adoption in April 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39. Three workshops have been held with the Upper Harbour Local Board (June 2017, July 2017, and September 2017) to present the open space network plan, identify the key open space issues in the area and to develop the key moves.

Māori impact statement

40. Improving the quality of open space will have a positive impact on all residents in the network plan area, including Māori.

41. The provision of quality parks and open spaces will facilitate Māori participation in sport and recreation.

42. Māori participation rates in sport and recreation in Auckland are slightly higher than the national average. Approximately 85 per cent of Māori participate in sport and recreation each month according to Active New Zealand Survey – Auckland Results (2013/14). This figure is relatively comparable to other ethnic groups. However, Māori are disproportionately represented among those with sedentary lifestyles, and there is a higher incidence of mortality and morbidity associated with inactivity.

Implementation

43. The open space network plan will be implemented over the next 10 years.

44. There is no funding in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to implement projects in the open space network plan beyond renewal of existing assets and planned capital expenditure. Priority actions will be implemented as budget becomes available.

45. The local board is responsible for allocating funding to parks and open spaces projects.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Rutherford - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Andrew Wood - Team Leader Parks and Recreation Policy - North/West

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter two, 1 October - 31 December 2017

File No.: CP2018/00540

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter two, 1 October - 31 December 2017.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. Of significance this quarter is the Albany Stadium Pool, which has experienced a good start to the year and are on track to achieve the business plan key performance indicators (KPIs). Patronage for the quarter has been steady with aquatic visits of approximately 25,000 per month, and an increase in fitness visits. Areas performing well include Learn-To-Swim, which has increased to 950 in Term 3. Memberships have also grown to 1400 from just over 300 when the facility first opened.

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

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B). Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track) or amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed). The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

· Albany Village Library – interior refurbish - project cancelled

· Community house development (Hobsonville Point) – this project merged with Hobsonville Headquarters

· Attwood and Rame Esplanade - remove coastal assets – this project has been cancelled

· Landing Reserve - renew boat ramp and seawall – this project has been cancelled

· Waimarie Beach - renew seawall – this project has been cancelled

· RNZ Plunket Society, Albany – multi-purpose lease (project ID # 1804) - this is a duplicate entry.

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

· the underspend in operating expenditure is mainly due to projects in asset-based services

· there was an expectation of budget variances under the new Project 17 full facility maintenance contracts, until baselines at local board level are established at the end of this financial year.

7. The KPIs show a trend of delivery that is meeting the indicators, with the exceptions being; the park, sports and recreation, and community services activity areas. These are explained further in detail in the report.

8. This report also includes an update on locally driven initiatives capital expenditure (LDI capex) projects. One such project was the installation of a 3-on-3 basketball court in Unsworth Reserve. However, once designs were presented to the local board at a workshop on 2 November 2017, the local board requested additional scoping be done to upgrade the basketball court from a 3-on-3 basketball court to a half-court.

9. The installation of a half-court basketball court has additional cost implications. The local board is requested to consider allocating an additional amount of $45,000 towards this project, in order for its completion and for the half-court to meet the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) standard.

10. The local board has, through resolution numbers UH/2015/211 and UH/2017/100, already allocated $40,000 from its LDI capex budget towards the installation of a 3-on-3 basketball court. There is however, a shortfall of $45,000 for the installation of a half-court basketball court and would require additional funding. The total cost of the project will amount to $85,000. The current balance of the local board LDI capex budget is $629,000 and allows for the allocation of an additional $45,000.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 31 December 2017.

b) allocate $45,000 from its locally driven initiatives capital expenditure budget towards the installation of an International Basketball Federation (FIBA) standard basketball half-court at Unsworth Reserve.

c) approve delegated authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to allocate up to $15,000 locally driven initiatives capital expenditure as contingency funding to cover any unexpected overruns encountered during construction.

Horopaki / Context

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 18 May 2017

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

· Libraries and Information; approved on 15 June 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 15 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 18 May 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 18 May 2017

· Local Economic Development; approved on 15 June 2017.

12. The work programmes are aligned to the 2014 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key performance indicators

13. The local board agreements include level of service statements and associated performance measures to guide and monitor the delivery of local services. This report provides information on the performance measure year-end outlook for Upper Harbour Local Board’s measures, showing how we are tracking as at the second quarter of the 2018 financial year.

14. The year-end outlook is that 30 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

15. Currently, all performance measures are being reviewed as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan.

16. The first and second quarter will be providing the year-end outlook based on the results of 2016/2017, or any changes to the outlook based on results available. The third quarter will be better placed to accurately project the year-end outlook for all measures. This is because the data for the performance measures is collected annually through surveys.

17. Please reference Attachment D for further details relating to the KPIs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 31 December 2017.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. All Māori within the Upper Harbour Local Board area are able to participate in and have access to all projects and initiatives covered in this report.

Financial performance

20. The Upper Harbour Local Board has invested $2.3m in capital expenditure and $4.9m in net operating expenditure, for the year to date at 31 December 2017.

21. Net cost of service is $15,000 behind budget for the year. The underspend in asset-based services expenditure of $274,000 is related to projects in the Parks, Sports and Recreation activity.

22. From the local board’s LDI funding, most projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year. In the first six months, the board allocated $65,000 from their community grants fund and has $91,000 remaining to allocate for the remainder of the financial year.

23. Revenue is slightly behind budget for the year to date and relates to the Albany Stadium Pool.

24. Most of the capital investment to date for this financial year has occurred in the Community Services activity ($1m), with $800,000 spent in the Planning and Development activity.

25. There have been no major risks to the delivery of projects identified to 31 December 2017. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. The local board approved the installation of a 3-on-3 basketball court in Unsworth Reserve in response to requests received from residents. Designs were presented to the local board at a workshop on 2 November 2017. At the workshop, the local board requested additional scoping and cost analysis be done to upgrade the basketball court from a 3-on-3 basketball court, to a half-court.

27. The installation of a half-court basketball court has additional cost implications. The local board is requested to consider allocating an additional amount of $45,000 towards this project for its completion, and for the half-court to meet the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) standard.

28. The local board has, through resolution numbers UH/2015/211 and UH/2017/100, already allocated $40,000 from its LDI capex budget towards the installation of a 3-on-3 basketball court. There is however, a shortfall of $45,000 for the installation of a half-court basketball court and it requires additional funding. The total cost of the project will amount to $85,000. The current balance of the local board LDI capex budget is $629,000, which allows for the allocation of an additional $45,000. Attached to this report (Attachment E) is the design of the FIBA standard basketball court.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

29. The following risks have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been reported as red – significantly behind budget / time or achievement of outcomes:

· Albany Village Library – interior refurbish – project cancelled. Minor maintenance work was completed by the operations team, hence the renewal is no longer required

· Community house development (Hobsonville Point) – this project was merged with Hobsonville Headquarters redevelopment, exterior landscaping and car park construction (refer to SharePoint ID 3012 for an update / commentary)

· Attwood and Rame Esplanade – remove coastal assets – this project has been cancelled and is bundled into Christmas Beach, the Landing Reserve and Waimarie Beach seawall renewal

· Landing Reserve – renew boat ramp and seawall – this project has been cancelled and is bundled up into Christmas Beach, the Landing Reserve and Waimarie Beach seawall renewal

· Waimarie Beach – renew seawall – this project has been cancelled and is bundled up into Christmas Beach, the Landing Reserve and Waimarie Beach seawall renewal

· RNZ Plunket Society, Albany – multi-purpose lease (project ID # 1804) – this is a duplicate entry (refer to project ID # 1450).

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. The Upper Harbour Local Board will receive the next performance update following the end of Quarter 3, March 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Snapshot	187
b ⇩	Work programme	189
c ⇩	Financials	209
d ⇩	Key Performance Indicators	215
e ⇩	FIBA standard basketball court design	217

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Governance and management model for the Headquarters building, Hobsonville Point

File No.: CP2018/00461

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve a governance and management model for the repurposed Headquarters building and change of operating model for the Sunderland Lounge, both located at Hobsonville Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Headquarters building, and neighbouring Sunderland Lounge, were formerly occupied by the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF). In 2014 the Headquarters building and Sunderland Lounge were acquired by Auckland Council for community purposes.

3. Both facilities are currently undergoing refurbishment. The Headquarters building is due for completion by March / April 2018; the Sunderland Lounge by June / July 2018.

4. The 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan sets out an aspiration that the Headquarters building be available for community use in 2018. A decision on the governance and management model for the Headquarters building is required.

5. Prior to closure for renovations, the neighbouring Sunderland Lounge was functioning as a council managed venue, under an interim management period of 12 months (resolution number UH/2014/31). A decision on the future operating model for this facility is sought.

6. At a workshop on 2 November 2017, management options for the Headquarters building were presented to the local board. The board expressed interest in the Headquarters building being managed under a community-led management model.

7. Staff recommend that when both facilities are back on stream, they ultimately operate as a combined operation (precinct), managed by one community group, to best suit the needs of the community.

8. For the Headquarters building, staff recommend a two-staged management model, whereby the Headquarters building is initially established under council management. Thereafter, it is proposed to transition to a community-led model following an expression of interest process.

9. The change of operating model for the Sunderland Lounge from the current council managed to a future model of community-led is also recommended as part of the review of the interim management model. A further report will be presented in March / April to the local board regarding the expression of interest. This will include the selection criteria for a community group to manage these facilities under a combined community-led approach.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree that the Headquarters building, and the Sunderland Lounge, be operated and are considered as one combined entity (precinct).

b) approve the interim council management model for the Headquarters building for an initial establishment period, to facilitate transition to a community-led model.

c) approve a governance model for the Headquarters building, and a change of operating model for the Sunderland Lounge, from council-managed to community-led within 12 months of reopening.

d) note that a report regarding the expression of interest, proposed selection criteria and transition process for the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge, to operate under a combined community-led management model, will be presented to the board in March/April 2018

Horopaki / Context

10. The Headquarters building, and neighbouring Sunderland Lounge, in Hobsonville Point were formerly occupied by the RNZAF, prior to acquisition by Auckland Council in 2014.

11. Both facilities are currently undergoing extensive refurbishment, due for completion in 2018. Once completed, these facilities will provide spaces for community use, activities, and engagement within an area experiencing rapid population growth. Community centres such as the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge, as well as arts facilities, and venues for hire, enable Aucklanders to run locally responsive activities that promote community participation, inclusion and connection.

12. To progress this intent, a decision on the future governance and management model for the Headquarters building is required. This was discussed at a local board workshop on 2 November 2017.

13. The neighbouring Sunderland Lounge has to date (prior to closure for renovations) been operating as a council managed venue for hire under an interim management period (resolution number UH/2014/31). With the on-boarding of the Headquarters building imminent, this is an opportune time for both facilities to be considered for alignment concurrently by the local board under the same operating model, that of community-led. By signalling a clear future intent for both buildings, this would be aligned to the aspirations stated in the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan, in Outcome 1: Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and adviceThe Headquarters building

14. At a workshop on 2 November 2017, three management options for the Headquarters building were presented to the local board. These were:

· Option 1: Council management:

· Option 2: Community-led management (recommended model)

· Option 3: Contracted management.

15. The following table outlines the three management options for the Headquarters building:

Management options	Pros and cons
Option 1: Council management Auckland Council manages all aspects of the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge.	Pros	Centres are operationally stable, meeting revenue targets and typically have many regular community users.
	Cons	The standardised approach of Auckland Council does not actively support an empowered communities approach.
Option 2: Community-led management (recommended model) A community organisation would manage the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge, including bookings and activities for the community, and undertake basic maintenance / day-to-day care of the facilities. It would co-ordinate local and voluntary effort as part of the community practice.	Pros	This model empowers the community to be the centre’s decision-makers. Approach is strategically aligned to council and local board outcomes, empowering communities and building their capacity. Robust EOI process would identify existing and potentially unknown operators. Combined management of both the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge could provide additional revenue for the community group and programming. Clarity of management, cohesion and co-ordination across both centres.
	Cons	Utilising new untested community groups. Risk of catchment / domination by one community group. Time is required for organisation to develop and deliver.
Option 3: Contracted management A proven community / commercial operator to manage the facility under contract.	Pros	Likely to have an established level of service and method of operation. Likely to be operationally stable and meet revenue targets.
	Cons	May not be bespoke, or present tailored local programming, given operating concurrently with their own level of service, alongside council’s level of service requirements too. May be from outside the area, and not be as adaptive to local needs. Costs potentially higher as a commercial entity.

Preferred option

16. At the workshop, the local board expressed an interest in the Headquarters building being locally managed under a community-led management model (Option 2).

17. A community-led management model provides an opportunity for residents to use their skills, experience and talents to manage and make decisions about their community centre. Such an approach would align to the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan which aspires for ‘empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities, where people are able to influence what happens in their neighbourhood’.

18. Council staff advise the Upper Harbour Local Board to:

· approve Option 2: Community-led management for the Headquarters building.

19. Staff recommend a two-staged approach to progress the community-led model (Option 2). It is proposed that once refurbishment is complete, the Headquarters building is established for an interim period as council‑managed. This would allow a transition period to a facility that is fully community-led. An expression of interest process would identify a suitable community-led operator during this time.

20. A further report will be presented to the local board regarding the expression of interest process, and selection criteria for a community-led management of the Headquarters building.

Sunderland Lounge:

21. In considering the operating model for the Headquarters building, staff also recommend that the board consider a change of operating model for the Sunderland Lounge.

22. The Sunderland Lounge has been functioning as a council-managed venue for hire under an interim management period identified by the local board in 2014 (resolution number UH/2014/31).

23. The Sunderland Lounge is currently closed for renovations and is anticipated to re-open June/July 2018.

24. Staff recommend a change of the operating model for the Sunderland Lounge from council‑managed (venue for hire) to community-led. If agreed, this would meet the board’s intent to review their previous interim management model for the Sunderland Lounge.

25. With the completion of the Headquarters building imminent, this is an opportunity for the local board to concurrently align both facilities under the same operating model of community-led. A further report will be presented to the local board regarding the expression of interest, and selection criteria for a community group to manage both facilities under a combined community-led approach.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

26. At the workshop on 2 November 2017, the local board expressed an interest in the Headquarters building being locally managed under a community-led management model (Option 2).

27. Such an approach would align to the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan which aspires for ‘empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities, where people are able to influence what happens in their neighbourhood’.

28. It is noted that the interim management model for the Sunderland Lounge is overdue for review by the local board. This report, and the recommendations presented, would address this intent to revisit the operating model for the Sunderland Lounge by the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. The Upper Harbour area is rich in Māori history, reflected in the names of places and landmarks of cultural and historical significance. The 2006 census noted that approximately six per cent of the Upper Harbour population at the time were Māori.

30. The Upper Harbour Local Board also signed a relationship agreement with Ngāti Manuhiri on 13 December 2017, signalling future intent. The on-boarding of two refurbished facilities into the community network provides an opportune time to reflect on Māori identity and culture within the presentation, activations and engagement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31. For the 2018/2019 financial year, asset-based services budget is available of $52,333 is available for the Headquarters building, and $25,696 for the Sunderland Lounge. Additional budget is being sought through the long-term plan process for both facilities.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

32. Considering both buildings as one operational platform reduces the potential for the buildings, programming and associated uses of two neighbouring facilities from diverging, which would be an increased likelihood if they were operated independently.

33. Operating the buildings, once refurbished, under a community-led model without any initial council management exposes the community to inherent risks associated with occupation of a ‘new build’, including building and operational issues. These would be addressed by community management, thus removing such ‘teething issues’ ahead of community-led occupation.

34. Attaining clarity on the future operating model of the Sunderland Lounge at this stage in the process would streamline the need for further reporting and avoid any uncertainty and disconnect about the combined operating model for the future.

35. Any delays in the refurbishments will push out opening dates. Staff are working closely with stakeholders to mitigate against such an occurrence.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36. Upon a resolution from the local board, staff will quickly progress planning for the Headquarters building and the Sunderland Lounge to be operational. A workshop, and subsequent report to the local board regarding the expression of interest and selection criteria, will also be forthcoming in March / April.

37. Staff will actively engage with all parties, including the local board with intent, clarity and clear lines of communication, with the driver being a successful outcome for the local board and local communities during this process and beyond.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sharon McGinity - Team Leader, Event Facilitation South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 February 2018

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/25169

Purpose

1. To consider and adopt revised Standing Orders for local board meetings.

Executive summary

2. Standing Orders (SOs) are the rules for conduct and procedure at meetings. They are used to help meetings run smoothly and in accordance with relevant legislation, to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process, and to help elected members and members of the public understand how they can participate.

3. The current local board SOs were set by the Auckland Transition Agency on 27 October 2010. It is now timely to revise them to ensure they remain a clear, relevant and practical tool for local board meetings.

4. At its meeting on 28 May 2015, the Governing Body resolved to amend its SOs based on work undertaken by a political working party.

5. The revised SOs have a simplified layout, are written in a plain language style, and contain a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

6. A working group of Democracy Advisors has assessed each provision of the current (generic) local board SOs against the corresponding revised governing body SOs. For each local board Standing Order, the working group considered whether to retain the current wording, use the revised Governing Body wording or to have a combination of the two.

7. A draft set of revised local board SOs is set out in Attachment A for local boards’ consideration. It is based on the recommendations of the Democracy Advisor working group and follows the revised Governing Body SOs in terms of style.

8. The more significant suggested changes include:

· new provisions for electronic attendance at meetings

· dealing with conflicts due to the non-financial interests of members

· processes for Governing Body and Māori input

· enabling use of New Zealand Sign Language at meetings.

9. This report recommends that local boards consider and adopt the revised SOs in Attachment A.

10. Any changes to a board’s SOs requires a majority vote of not less than 75 per cent of members present.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopt the Standing Orders detailed in Attachment A to the agenda report, entitled ‘Auckland Council Standing Orders of the Local Board’, in replacement of its current Standing Orders.

Comments

Background

11. SOs are the rules for conduct and procedures at meetings. They are used to help meetings run smoothly and, in accordance with relevant legislation, ensure the integrity of the decision-making process, and help elected members and members of the public understand how they can participate.

12. The Governing Body SOs were compiled in 2010 by the Auckland Transition Agency from legacy council SOs and the New Zealand Standards Model SOs.

13. Local Board SOs were modelled on the Governing Body SOs.

14. A political working party was set up in November 2013 to review the Governing Body’s SOs. The working party’s findings were reported back to the Governing Body at its meeting on 28 May 2015 (Attachment B).

15. Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) allowed additional changes to be considered by the working party. These changes included a provision to allow members to attend meetings via audio or audiovisual link.

16. At its meeting on 28 May 2015, the Governing Body adopted an amended set of SOs which have a simplified layout, are written in a plain language style, and contain a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

17. It was resolved at this meeting to forward the report to all local boards, drawing their attention to the suggestion to provide for councillor participation at local board meetings in their SOs.

18. Over the last 18 months, a working group of local board Democracy Advisors has assessed each provision of the current (generic) local board SOs against the corresponding revised Governing Body SOs. For each local board Standing Order, the working party considered whether to retain the current wording, use the revised Governing Body wording or to have a combination of the two.

19. A revised set of local board SOs has been developed as an outcome of this work (Attachment A) which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Democracy Advisor working group.

20. The revised local board SOs follow a similar format to the Governing Body SOs with a simplified layout, a plain language style, and a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

21. Key substantive changes from the current local board SOs aim to ensure the local board SOs are up to date, fulfil Auckland Council’s legal obligations, and are practical and useful for business meetings.

22. Many SOs reflect provisions in legislation. In some cases, the wording of the SO may have been changed to a plain language style, but the intention of the SO remains the same. These SOs are usually indicated by a reference underneath the relevant clause in legislation. These SOs may not be suspended.

Key changes

23. Key substantive suggested changes from the current local board SOs are set out in the following table:

Issue	Suggested changes	Purpose of suggested change	Reference in the revised LB SOs
Quorum	Provision for the Chairperson to extend the 30-minute waiting time for a quorum, at the start of a meeting, by another 10 minutes - where members are known to be travelling to the meeting but are delayed due to unusual weather or traffic congestion. Change in the waiting time for a quorum to be reestablished (where, after a meeting starts, member(s) leave and there is no longer a quorum) from 20 minutes to 10 minutes.	Assists smooth running of meeting and ensures consistency with Governing Body (GB) SOs	3.1.4 and 3.1.6
Record of a workshop	Deletion of the requirement for the chairperson to sign-off the record of a workshop. Record of workshop proceedings will be circulated.	Assists smooth running of meeting	12.1.4
Public excluded business not to be disclosed	Clarification on situations where the duty of non-disclosure of information, at a meeting where the public were excluded, does not apply - namely where: · a meeting has resolved to make the information publicly available · there are no grounds under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for withholding the information when requested · the information is no longer confidential.	Clarification and ensures consistency with GB SOs	7.4.3
Languages	Amendments to allow New Zealand Sign Language (as well as English and Māori) to be used by members and in deputations, presentations and public forum. Two clear working days’ notice must be provided when an address is not in English (this is the same as the notice period required under the current local board SOs and the GB SOs). The GB input and Māori input sections also provide for addressing the meeting in New Zealand Sign Language, English or Māori.	Recognition of New Zealand Sign Language as an official language	1.1.2, 5.1.5, 6.1.5, 7.6.1, 7.7.5 and 7.8.4
Minutes	Clarification of what meeting minutes are to record.	Clarification	8.1.2
Agendas	Clarification that agendas can be sent electronically, and that names of local board and committee members are to be on each agenda.	Clarification	2.4.1 7.3.3
Non-financial interests	Suggested new provision regarding procedure for dealing with non-financial interests of members. If a member considers that there is a conflict of interest for an item, they may not take part in the discussions about or vote on the relevant matter.	Helps ensure robust, legally defensible decisions and consistent with GB SOs	1.3.8
Repeat Notices of Motion	Suggested amendment that a Notice of Motion that the local board or a committee has considered twice and rejected within the previous six months may be refused by the Chairperson. (There is no longer the option for a further notice - prior to the expiration of the original period of six months - where signed by a majority of all members).	Assists smooth running of meetings and ensures consistency with GB SOs	2.5.8
Procedural motions	Suggested new provision that the Chairperson has discretion about whether to allow any other procedural motion that is not contained in these SOs.	Assists smooth running of meeting and ensures consistency with GB SOs	1.7.12
Urgent items	Suggested change in title, from ‘Major items of business not on the agenda may be dealt with (extraordinary business)’ to ‘Urgent items of business not on the agenda may be dealt with (extraordinary business)’. This provision sets out when items not on an agenda may be considered. The suggested change in title aims to help clarify the types of issues that fall under this provision and better reflect the purpose of the provision. Text has also been added clarifying that extraordinary business may be brought before a meeting by a report of the Chief Executive or Chairperson. Where the matter is so urgent a written report is not practical, the report may be verbal.	Clarification	2.4.5 and Appendix D
Governing body input	A proposed section on GB input sets out that a GB member may provide input at meetings via speaking rights on items at the discretion of the chair and a report on the agenda for a GB member to provide a general update on matters of interest to the board. This can include reporting on regional matters of interest to the local board or any matter the GB member wishes to raise. This section aims to be more flexible than the current local board SO 3.9.14, by applying to GB members in general rather than ward councillors for the local board area. Whilst the right for GB members to speak as a deputation has also been retained, the GB input section enables a more flexible/permissive option, given it does not require the authorisation of a GB resolution. Use of the process for GB deputations will be appropriate for more formal circumstances, where the GB member is representing the views of the GB as a whole. The suggested notice period is seven clear working days, to enable sufficient time for it to appear on the agenda. However, this is at the discretion of the Chairperson and can be shortened if necessary. The suggested speaking time is five minutes, in accordance with provisions in the GB SOs.	More permissive input provisions	Part 5
Order of business	Clarification that the order of business for an extraordinary meeting should be limited to items relevant to the purpose of the meeting. The Chairperson may allow GB, Māori and public input that is relevant to the purpose of the meeting. The items listed in this section have been amended to fit with the order of business generated by Infocouncil.	Clarification and ensures consistency with GB SOs	2.4.2
References to working parties and briefings	These have been taken out, as these forums tend to be less formal and not covered by SOs.	Relevance
Public forum	Suggested changes clarifying that: · public forum may not be required at the inaugural meeting, extraordinary meetings or a special consultative procedure · members may not debate any matter raised during the public forum session that is not on the agenda for the meeting, or take any action in relation to it, other than through the usual procedures for extraordinary business if the matter is urgent. The meeting may refer the matter to a future meeting, or to another committee, or to the Chief Executive for investigation · Māori or New Zealand Sign Language can be used at public forum, if two clear working days’ notice is provided. Where practical, council will arrange for a translator to be present · the Chairperson may direct a speaker to a different committee and prohibit a speaker from speaking if he or she is offensive, repetitious or vexatious, or otherwise breaches these SOs.	Clarification	7.8
Suspension of SOs	A provision has been included for a member to move a motion to suspend SOs as a procedural motion. The member must name the SOs to be suspended and provide a reason for suspension. If seconded, the chairperson must put it without debate. At least 75 per cent of the members present and voting must vote in favour of the suspension, and the resolution must state the reason why the SO was suspended. It should be noted that some SOs reflect provisions in legislation so cannot be suspended. These are usually indicated by a reference underneath the SO to the relevant clause in legislation.	To assist the smooth running of meetings and ensure consistency with GB SOs	1.7.11
Notice to be seconded	A notice of motion delivered to the Chief Executive must be signed by another member of the meeting as a seconder – unless member is giving notice of motion to revoke or alter a previous resolution.	Consistency with GB SOs	2.5.2
Chairperson discretion	The discretion of the Chairperson has been clarified and made as consistent as possible in SOs relating to GB input, Māori input, public forum and deputations.	Clarification and consistency	Parts 5 and 6, 7.7 and 7.8
Māori responsiveness	Suggested provisions for representatives of Māori organisations to provide input at local board or committee meetings via speaking rights during relevant items. The main purpose of the provisions is to recognise the special status of Māori and increase the council’s responsiveness to Māori. The provisions also provide more flexibility than the deputations process, which restricts the number of deputation members that may address the meeting. The suggested notice period is seven clear working days, to enable sufficient time for such an item to appear on the agenda. However, this is at the discretion of the chair and can be shortened if need be.	Recognition of the special status of Māori and IMSB’s role under section 85 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009	Part 6 and 4.2.2
Working days / clear working days	The term ‘clear working days’ has been used throughout the document, to refer to the number of working days prescribed for giving notice. It excludes the date of service of that notice and the date of the meeting itself. This is in accordance with legislation (Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the Interpretation Act).	Clarification and consistency
Governing body input, Māori input, public forum, deputations	The provisions in these sections have been made as consistent as possible and, where appropriate, in accordance with the GB SOs. Legal advice has been followed regarding the subjects a speaker may not speak about and the questions which can be put to speakers.	Clarification
New appendices	New appendices have been added, setting out who must leave the meeting when the public is excluded and how business is brought before a meeting. Provisions in the current local board SOs relating to workshops have been placed in an appendix, given their exemption from part seven of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1978.	Clarification	Appendices B-D
Electronic attendance at business meetings	Recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002 now allow members to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual means in certain situations. There are a number of restrictions for this provision in the legislation including that relevant technology is available and of suitable quality, all those participating can hear each other and there is no reduction in accountability or accessibility of the member in relation to the meeting. Members attending meetings by electronic link may vote but are not counted as part of the quorum. The revised SOs contain provisions to enable members to attend meetings by electronic link, where the member is representing the council at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable, to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity or in emergencies. This provision will only apply where the technology is available.	Allows members to attend meetings whilst away on council business, or during illness or other emergency.	3.3
Membership of committees	In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, a clause has been included acknowledging that the Independent Māori Statutory Board must appoint a maximum of two people to sit as members of committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.	Clarification	4.2.2
Powers of delegation	Clause 36D of schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 identifies who a local board may delegate decision-making to, and the powers a local board cannot delegate. This clause does not include the power to delegate to other subordinate decision-making bodies or more than one member of a local board. Therefore, references to subordinate decision-making bodies have been removed.	Clarification	Part 4

Key differences from the governing body standing orders

24. The revised local board SOs contain some points of difference with the Governing Body SOs. Key points of difference are in the areas of refreshment breaks, petitions, notices of motion, and public input.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. This report provides information and a revised set of SOs for local board consideration and adoption.

Māori impact statement

26. The local board SOs deal with meeting procedure. They provide for Māori to be spoken at business meetings and for deputations, presentations and petitions to be in Māori. They also enable:

· Māori to participate on local board committees, even if they are not members of the relevant local board. See current local board SO 2.9.2 which states:

‘members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of the Local Board’. As such, non-members may be appointed to committees or subcommittees if they have relevant skills, attributes or knowledge.

· the suspension of SOs, which can be useful to flexibly incorporate tikanga at meetings.

27. New suggested provisions relating to Māori in the revised SOs include:

· a section on Māori input, to recognise the special status of Māori and encourage their input at local board meetings. This is in accordance with advice from Te Waka Angamua and work being undertaken by some local boards on a co-design process with mana whenua to improve Māori input into local board decision-making

· clarifying that the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) must appoint a maximum of two people to sit as members of committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources (in accordance with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 85)

· providing for Māori to be spoken at public forum, and by the Governing Body or Māori organisations providing input, as long as two clear working days’ notice is given of the intention to do so.

28. Inclusion of these provisions recognises the special status of Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Local Government Act 2002 requirements to provide opportunities and processes for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes.^{^[1]} It is also in accordance with the goals of council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework, Whiria Te Muka Tangata. In particular, to foster more positive and productive relationships between council and Māori and contribute to Māori well-being by developing strong Māori communities.

Implementation

29. Changes to SOs requires a majority vote of not less than 75 per cent of members present (Section 27(3) Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).

30. If approved, the revised SOs will come into effect immediately.

31. Copies of the revised SOs will be provided to all local board members, where local boards choose to adopt changes.

Attachments