Agenda of Howick Local Board

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - Cockle Bay residents, Coastal Erosion 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Notice of Motion - Member Turinsky - Auckland Transport Eastern New Network Bus Stops 7

13 Notice of Motion - Member White - 43 Cook Street Bus Stop 11

14 Chairperson's Report 15

15 Councillor Update 17

16 Approval of funding to address the recent effects of coastal erosion 19

17 Auckland Transport monthly update 25

18 Land owner approval to replace signage at Lloyd Elsmore Park, Howick 35

19 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Jingyao International Limited at 170 Chapel Road, Flat Bush 43

20 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Xinhao Developments Limited at 242 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush. 49

21 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by 292 Flat Bush Limited (Li Hua Wu) at 292 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush. 57

22 Road Name Change Approval for the residential subdivision by Legend Management Services Limited and Noah Eastern Limited at 245, 265 & 289 Flat Bush School Road and 16 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush 63

23 ATEED six-monthly report to the Howick Local Board 67

24 2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 83

25 Additions to the 2016-2019 Howick Local Board meeting schedule 91

26 Workshop Records 93

27 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Howick Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 19 February 2018, 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 Howick Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation - Cockle Bay residents, Coastal Erosion

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

Cockle Bay residents to speak to the local board on the issue of the erosion problems.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from the Cockle Bay residents and thank them for the presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 Notices of Motion have been received from Member Turinsky and Member White for consideration under items 12 and 13 respectively.

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

Approval of funding to address the recent effects of coastal erosion

File No.: CP2018/01344

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To allocate funding of $250,000 from the Howick Local Board’s 2017/2018 locally driven initiatives capex budget to repair and address coastal erosion at Cockle Bay.

2. To inform the Howick Local Board (the board) on suggested approaches to manage erosion at Mellons Bay, Eastern Beach, and Bucklands beach.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. A coastal storm, which coincided with higher than average ‘king’ tides on 4 and 5 January 2018, caused significant erosion at beaches in the Howick Local Board area. This report updates the board on council’s responses to the erosion at Cockle Bay, Mellons Bay, Eastern Beach, and Bucklands Beach specifically.

4. Erosion at both Cockle Bay and Mellons Bay has removed sections of esplanade reserve. This now means infrastructure immediately landward (road and car parking) is at risk of failure should these sites experience extreme storm events in the immediate future. The placement of geotextile fabric and a rock revetment^{^[1]} at both sites, immediately post the storm, was considered necessary as emergency works. This is a temporary measure to reduce the risk of further erosion at both sites.

5. This report subsequently requests allocation of $250,000 (which has been estimated via consideration of preliminary design and unit rates) of local capital funding to better address the longer-term erosion issues at Cockle Bay. The recommended option is to fund necessary repairs or enhancements to the seawall, a transfer of sand to the western end of the beach to counter the effect of erosion, and to address wave reflection (waves bouncing off the seawall) from the seawall, via the placement of a rock revetment.

6. This report does not present detailed design options, the scope of which will be discussed with the board once funding is approved, and all investigations are complete.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Howick Local Board:

a) allocate $250,000 from its locally driven initiatives capital budget to undertake necessary repairs or enhancements to the Cockle Bay seawall, a transfer of sand to the western end of the beach to counter the effect of erosion, and to address wave reflection from the seawall, via the placement of a rock revetment.

b) note that detailed design for the seawall at Cockle Bay will be presented to the board prior to implementation.

c) note that coastal erosion works at Mellons Bay will be funded through a regional community facilities budget.

Horopaki / Context

7. The board has recognised in its local board plan the need to continue investigating measures to manage coastal erosion in the Howick area. Advice to the board in December 2017 on where to prioritise management responses, recommended focusing on Eastern Beach, Little Bucklands Beach, Cockle Bay and Bucklands Beach.

8. Since that advice was provided, a significant storm has induced erosion at Cockle and Mellons Bays placing esplanade reserve and critical infrastructure at risk. Consequently, these beaches are now considered to be the highest priority for management.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Cockle Bay

9. A temporary rock revetment was placed along Cockle Bay immediately following the January 2018 storm as a temporary measure for managing erosion. Because of the site exposure, a robust methodology was used to supervise and influence the emergency work construction. A recent engineering assessment by an external specialist consultant has concluded that the revetment, as constructed, is suitable as a medium-term management response, and a masonry seawall extension, as previously promoted, is not yet required. This confirmation has subsequently influenced the recommended approach to managing coastal erosion, in the longer-term at Cockle Bay, and enabled consideration of options to address wave reflection, noted as a key driver for the longer-term erosion as observed.

10. Instead of extending the masonry seawall by 35 metres as previously proposed, the preferred longer-term option to manage erosion at Cockle Bay is now to repair the seawall, transfer sand from the eastern end of the beach, and to attempt to address wave reflection. As part of this option, the rock revetment as constructed in January 2018 will remain in situ with sand transferred to the area immediately adjacent (under the provisions of an existing resource consent) to restore public access and improve beach amenity.

11. The initial option to repair and extend the seawall is also not supported by Cockle Bay residents. Residents expressed concern with respect to wave reflection from the seawall, driving sand migration and loss. The revised proposal (option one) has been developed to address the underlying issue of wave reflection off the current seawall and will reduce the risk to adjacent infrastructure by incorporating the rock revetment already in place into this revised proposal (option one).

12. Option one is the preferred option. Repair and extension of the seawall is option two. Options one and two are outlined in table one below. Table one also presents alternative options as raised by the community which are not recommended.

13. All options will be affected by severe storms, which will affect design life of sand placement, rock placement and other structures.

Table one: Options for mitigating coastal erosion at Cockle Bay

Option		Pros	Cons	Cost
One	Sand transfer, repair seawall and address wave reflection issues (Preferred option)	· Transfer sand adjacent to the recently constructed rock revetment to restore access and improve amenity - current resource consent for sand transfer · Addresses the wave reflection issues – via placement of wave energy-absorbing material (rock with voids between) along the edge of current vertical seawall. · Incorporates a monitoring programme to assess effectiveness of each stage, prior to any additional physical works being considered. · Public and resident support for this management approach.	· Additional rock revetment in front of existing seawall will require a resource consent · Sand transfers may be required more regularly	$250,000
Two	Seawall extension and repair with sand transfer	· Reduces future erosion risk. · Seawall extension can be completed under emergency works provisions of the Resource Management Act · Current resource consent for sand transfer	· Does not address wave reflection issues · Strong community opposition as they favour addressing wave reflection as the primary driver for observed erosion. · Sand transfers may be required more regularly · Will potentially transfer erosion point (end effects) further down the beach.	$250,000
Three	Sloped masonry seawall, with repairs and sand transfer	· Reduces future erosion risk. · Seawall can be completed under emergency works provisions of the Resource Management Act · Current resource consent for sand transfer	· Costs are ~40% higher than option two · Occupies more beach area (as a sloping structure) compared to option two · Does not address wave reflection issues · Sand transfer potentially required more regularly · Public opposition to extension of the seawall (both vertical or sloped) · Will potentially transfer erosion point (end effects) further down the beach	$350,000 to $400,000
Four	Installation of a rock revetment groyne, beach nourishment, and extension of the extend southern outlet (training)	· Holistic management response Will address wave reflection and restore access and amenity	· Very expensive · extensive coastal structures that will occupy the intertidal area and may have adverse visual effects. · Detailed consent process and associated public consultation required. Current public opposition to this option.	$1million to $1.5 million
Five	Grouted rock groyne with integrated public access, beach sand nourishment, extend southern outlet (training)	· As above for option four	· As above for option four	$1.8million to $2million

Mellons Bay

14. The January 2018 storm also resulted in erosion at Mellons Bay, placing the carpark and supporting infrastructure, including a wastewater pipeline, at immediate risk. Due to the influence of the existing sea wall, the long-term approach to manage coastal erosion at this location is to extend the terraced timber wall further along the beach to the existing stormwater outfall. The area past the outfall will be reshaped to improve pedestrian access onto the beach. This work will be funded through a Community Facilities regional budget.

15. The new timber seawall will be slightly realigned from the current alignment of the foreshore, to work with local coastal processes. This will provide for an increased beach width (above the high tide line) in front of part of the newly constructed seawall. The majority of rock revetment placed on the beach in this location, as an emergency works response, will be removed from Mellons Bay to allow for the unimpeded construction of the timber seawall.

16. Future opportunities for improving the amenity at this beach include re-aligning the stormwater outfall and improving access down to the beach in this location, but it is suggested that this be considered once urgent works have been completed.

Eastern Beach

17. Engineers have been engaged to undertake a profile survey of this beach to identify whether sand transfers are required. A resource consent is in place for this work, and if required will be funded through community facilities as an operational response.

18. Long-term options for managing erosion at this location may include consideration of infrastructure relocation and road realignment at the northern end, but this will require consultation with Auckland Transport, with an update back to the local board once this has been completed.

Bucklands Beach

19. Consultation with Auckland Transport has been initiated with respect to long term management options for Bucklands Beach. This may include a requirement to complete regular sand transfers, similar to Eastern Beach, or extension of the seawall in locations where erosion is in close proximity to the road. An update to the board will be provided once this consultation has been completed.

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

20. A workshop with the board was held in February 2018 to discuss the erosion at Cockle Bay and explain why extending the seawall was the then preferred option (this is now option two) for managing future erosion risk. While board members were cognisant of the need for urgent works at Cockle Bay, they expressed interest in seeing the detailed design options for the seawall prior to commencing physical works.

21. Since that workshop, Cockle Bay residents presented their concerns about the proposed seawall extension to the board at its February 2018 meeting. As a result, community concerns about possible wave reflection from the existing seawall have been incorporated into the preferred staged response option recommended for funding (option one). It is expected that detailed design options, once completed, will be presented to residents prior to any physical works implementation.

22. The local board plan notes that the board will continue to advocate for a regional approach, including regional funding, for coastal erosion. While regional funding for coastal erosion mitigation will be considered as part of the consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the required work at Cockle Bay cannot wait for the governing body to decide on any proposed regional fund.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23. No consultation with Māori was undertaken for this report due to the urgent nature of these coastal erosion management works at Cockle Bay and Mellons Bay.

24. Mana whenua have indicated a high interest in coastal management during consultation on the regional Coastal Management Framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. This report seeks locally driven initiatives funding of $250,000 for repairs to the Cockle Bay seawall, sand transfer and placement of rock revetment along the current seawall to address the issue of wave reflection. No regional funding is available for this work. This figure is based on recent further physical works, and input from council’s quantitative surveyor.

26. Enduring funding may be required for future asset maintenance and renewals.

27. Community facilities funding is available for required works at Mellons Bay.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28. If this work is not undertaken, there is a significant risk to infrastructure, at both locations, from future erosion.

29. The sand transfer and temporary rock revetments may fail in large and extreme weather events occurring across multiple days. Staff will monitor any impacts of such events on the Cockle Bay project, and at Mellons Bay, prior to the timber seawall being extended.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. Detailed investigation and design for Cockle Bay will be completed once funding has been approved. A supporting workshop in March 2018, is requested to discuss and agree the recommended design options.

31. Works on the timber seawall extension at Mellon’s Bay will commence in March 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Dr Jarrod Walker – Principal Coastal Scientist

Julie Pickering - Area Manager Operational Management & Maintenance

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

Auckland Transport monthly update

File No.: CP2018/03095

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to: respond to requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), request approval for new LBTCF projects, provide a summary of consultation material sent to the Board, and provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Howick Local Board (HLB) and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A decision is not required this month but the report contains information about the following matters:

· The wider ‘context’ or a summary of strategic projects or issues effecting the HLB’s Area

· An update on Auckland Transport projects that are being delivered in Howick including a Local Board Transport Capital Fund update.

· A summary of consultation for future Auckland Transport activities.

· Discussion of associated risks and engagement issues.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board :

a) Notes or Receives Auckland Transport’s February 2017 update report.

Horopaki / Context

3. Auckland Transport continues to deliver a number of strategic projects in the HLB area. Three major regional projects are being delivered at this time. Each project is discussed below along with the Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP).

New Network

4. The Eastern New Network is a public transport plan that simplifies bus routes across Howick. This simplification increases reliability and the number of buses servicing each individual route. The Eastern New Network is designed to let people use regular, reliable bus services either to get to their final destination or to access trains or ferries with which to complete their journeys.

5. On 10 December 2017, the New Network became operational. Delivery was completed and initial reports indicate that the transfer was successful.

6. The most significant issues related to modifications that were made to school bus routes. Schools started for the year in February and a number of schools reported scheduling issues but these have now been addressed.

7. Services are being monitored and reviewed closely so changes can be made if required. Generally Auckland Transport is able to give more feedback after about three months of operation.

AMETI

8. The project is a very large project that will build New Zealand’s first urban busway providing congestion free ‘bus only’ lanes for commuters running from Panmure Station to Botany. The aim is that people will be able to commute easily and quickly from Botany to Panmure and vice versa.

9. The HLB was briefed by the AMETI project team on 22 February 2018. The HLB heard that the project is moving quickly. The first stage of the project from Pakuranga to Panmure has completed ‘Notice of Requirement’ proceedings and a decision from the independent commissioners reviewing the project is expected in soon.

Demolition of properties started this month and contractors are being identified ready to start work later this year. A major communications programme has been planned and will start from about mid-April 2018 and will tell the community about the project and the effects it is likely to have on people during construction. The second and third stages, bus lanes from Pakuranga to Botany and a flyover that will remove the Reeve Road / Ti Rakau Drive intersection, are also progressing. The project team has been speaking to affected properties owners and will start more public discussions soon.

Ti Rakau Drive Buslanes

10. This year buslanes are being put on Ti Rakau Drive between Botany and Pakuranga. A number of intersections are also being modified to improve traffic flow. (See Fig 1) Overall the aim is to improve the reliability of services on this stretch of road.

11. It will not remove lanes of traffic (i.e. there will still be two lanes of normal traffic in each direction) but will provide a clear, congestion-free lane for buses. A small amount of parking will be lost and Auckland Transport has been contacting the people who will be effected.

Figure 1 - Schematic of the planned Ti Rakau Road Bus Lanes

RLTP

12. The RLTP is a plan for how transport delivery agencies (Auckland Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency, Kiwi Rail) intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next 10 years. It includes a 10-year prioritised delivery programme of transport services and activities. Essentially, it is a budget for Auckland’s transport expenditure.

13. Auckland Transport prepares the draft RLTP jointly with the New Zealand Transport Agency and Kiwi Rail. It is a statutory plan describing how these agencies intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next ten years. It will include a ten-year, prioritised, delivery programme of transport services and activities.

14. The original intention was to consult on the plan alongside Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. However, the consultation has been “decoupled” and moved into April to ensure it is informed by, and strongly aligned with, the Government’s soon to be released Policy Statement on Transport and a refreshed Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. A number of transport related issues are discussed in this part of the report. Analysis and advice about Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects is followed by discussion of the other local Auckland Transport projects.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

16. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund is a capital budget provided to all Local Boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local Boards can use this fund to deliver projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. The limitations being that the project must:

· Be safe.

· Not impede network efficiency.

· Be in the road corridor. Although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome.

17. HLB’s funding in this term is approx. $ 2.9 million.

18. On 15 February 2018, Auckland Transport reviewed the HLB’s current work programme for its Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Auckland Transport staffed provided information, updates about projects, and provided ‘quality advice’ to the HLB about delivery of projects.

19. Auckland Transport encourages all Local Board’s to identify potential projects as early as possible to ensure delivery within the current electoral term. This is because the fund is intended to allow local boards to build transport focused local improvements in their areas. Ideally, projects would be completed during the term of the local board that initiated them. However, for those boards who have yet to commit funding to projects this is increasingly unlikely. Projects take time to investigate, design and build and are allocated to project managers and contractors on a first come, first served basis. Local boards that delay allocating their Local Board Transport Capital Fund may not see their projects built during this term.

20. The current projects that the HLB are working on are summarised in the table below:

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

General Overview
Projects	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed
Half Moon Bay Ferry Pier and Bus Turnaround		Providing better facilities for ferry passengers at Half Moon Bay. Costs were assigned in the previous electoral term.
Buckland’s Beach Walkway Improvements		Providing safer pedestrian facilities at Bucklands Beach. The following Rough Order of Costs were provided in October 2017 · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade – Approx. $ 80,000 · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads – Approx. $ 450,000
Howick Village Centre Plan		Supporting improvements to Howick Village that will make it nicer, safer and more pedestrian friendly. The following Rough Order of Costs were provided in February 2018:. · Improved pedestrian linkages between the Village and Stockade Hill. Approx. $320,000 · Improve footpaths on Uxbridge and Selwyn Roads leading people to Howick Beach. Approx. $ 371-920,000 · Make Picton Street more pedestrian friendly Approx. $ 1.5 – 2.7 million.
Cascades Walkway		Building a footpath on Cascade Road that will provide access under the bridge on the western edge of the golf course to the walking track that follows the stream. The Rough Order of Cost is $ 298,000.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarize the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and on budget. Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved. Red - An major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved Black – The project has been investigated and the HLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.
Detailed Project Progress Report
*Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal* The pier is complete and was opened on 7 April 2017. The next step is building a bus turn around area. This part of the project is now underway and progressing quickly. The consent for the bus turnaround is issued and tender negotiations are underway. The planned completion date is the end of June 2018.
*Bucklands Beach Update* Auckland Transport is currently conducting detailed design work for two projects in Bucklands Beach: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads A Rough Order of Cost for each of these projects was provided in August 2017 and design work continues. The · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade – Approx. $ 80,000 · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads – Approx. $ 450,000 Since the last report, these projects have been workshopped with the HLB. It was reported to the HLB that an independent contractor has reviewed building a round-about at the intersection of Buckland’s Beach and Whitcombe Road and concluded that this is not practical. Advice provided is that converting ‘The Parade’ to a one-way system without a roundabout at the intersection of Buckland’s Beach and Whitcombe Road is not practical. The HLB has disputed the report and a meeting is being organized with the contractor to discuss the report. The project manager is still working on detailed costings for improving pedestrian facilities on ‘The Parade’.
*Howick Village Centre Plan* Rough Orders of Cost were requested for four projects to support the Howick Village Centre Plan in October 2017. Three of the four projects have been provided: · Improving the pedestrian linkages between Howick Village and Stockade Hill : Approx. $320, 000 · Footpath Upgrade on Uxbridge and Selwyn Road : Approx. $370- 920,000 depending on specifications · Picton Street Improvements: Approx.$ 1.5 – 2.7 million depending on options. Auckland Transport has investigated the reviewed HLB’s request and provided ‘Rough Orders of Cost’. Auckland Transport suggested that by initiating ‘detailed design’ the HLB would provide the resourcing to run a comprehensive and inclusive planning process involving Council, local shop owners and other stakeholders. The result of the process would be to move the Howick Village Plan from concept to a deliverable, detailed plan. The HLB did not support authorizing Auckland Transport to initiate ‘detailed design’. *Cascades Walkway* The design work for the Cascades Walkway project was workshopped with the HLB and design options that have been investigated were reported and discussed. The Howick Local Board continue to support this project and the project manager is continuing with the design process. Figure 2: Preferred Route of Cascades Walkway. The Rough Order of Cost has been updated to $298,000 and the cost of design work to date is $7,221.25.

Chapel Road

21. Building new bridge near Ormiston and straightening Chapel Road is a safety project that will look at the area between Stancombe Road and Ormiston Road. The overall aim being to bring it to an ‘urban’ standard for an arterial road. This is required because the road used to be a rural road and as development has occurred, it now needs to be upgraded.

22. Geo-technical investigation is still going on and the implications of this information are that original plans for the area are being reassessed and that this project will be under scrutiny during the RLTP process.

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

23. Local impacts and local board views have been included in ‘Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice’. Further information about consultations and information Auckland Transport decision–making is included below

Consultations

24. Auckland Transport provides the HLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this Local Board Area.

25. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions from February 2018 are included in the table below.

Table 2: Traffic Control Committee Decisions December 2017 and January 2018

Street

Area

Work

Decision

Caldwells Road, Griggs Road

Whitford

No Stopping At All Times

Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

26. In this reporting period one project has required iwi liaison. The Cascades Walkway Project.

27. Auckland Transport has identified and contacted relevant iwi and will involve iwi in the design process if the HLB decides to continue with this project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

28. With regards to transport the HLB’s only budget implications are related to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The current financial status of the HLB’s Local Transport Capital Fund is recorded below.

29. The table above includes money from the previous electoral term that is ‘still in the system’ but is committed to finishing Half Moon Bay. The current electoral term’s allocation is approx. $ 2.9 million. Approx. $ 520,000 is currently held against possible projects (Cascades Walkway, Bucklands Beach / Whitmore Road Roundabout etc). This leaves the HLB with approx. $ 2,381,871 that is able to be allocated to projects.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31. Auckland Transport provides the HLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this Local Board Area.

32. In this reporting period, two were put forward for comment by the HLB and details are included in Attachment A.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Transport projects being delivered in the Local Board Area.	33

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

Land owner approval to replace signage at Lloyd Elsmore Park, Howick

File No.: CP2018/02163

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the Howick Local Board grant land owner approval for the application to replace existing signage within Lloyd Elsmore Park with new designs.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The applicant, Howick and Districts Historical Society (Inc.), is seeking land owner approval to replace their existing signage within Lloyd Elsmore Park with new designs. The signs are located at multiple locations within Lloyd Elsmore Park as marked by the purple circles in figure 1 of Attachment A.

3. The new signs are proposed to be all one size and design, which will mean that there will be an increase in size from the existing signage at two locations.

4. The signage does not need resource consent and the Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015 does not apply.

5. Council’s parks and places specialist and maintenance delivery co-ordinator have been consulted and did not raise any concerns with the proposal.

6. The signage will only have a minor effect on the reserve as the signs are in the same locations as previously and will not affect access to the reserve.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) grant land owner approval to Howick and Districts Historical Society (Inc.) to replace their signage within Lloyd Elsmore Park.

Horopaki / Context

7. The applicant, Howick and Districts Historical Society (Inc.), is seeking land owner approval to replace their existing signage within Lloyd Elsmore Park with new designs. The signs are located at five different locations within Lloyd Elsmore Park as marked by the purple circles in Attachment A.

8. The applicant wants to replace its current entrance signage as it is considered old and the information on the signs is out of date. The signs will follow the format shown in Attachment A but the applicant will finalise the wording and design with their management, consultant and the sign company prior to installation. The applicant has decided not to include any picture, such as settlers on the signs, as they need the sign to be simple and clean.

9. Each sign will be made from 4 millimetre aluminium and will be screwed to wooden posts. All signs will be graffiti guarded and, to improve maintenance, will be installed on concrete foundation strips. They will include provision for promoting individual events on each sign.

10. All signs are proposed to be the same dimensions as the current Pakuranga Highway sign which is 3000 millimetres high x 2410 millimetres wide. This will mean the signs on Aviemore Drive and Cascades Road will increase in size (Cascades Road is currently 2800 millimetres high x 1750 millimetres wide and Aviemore Drive 2750 millimetres high x 1500 millimetres wide).

11. The applicants reasoning for having the signage all the same size is:

· consistency of image will reinforce the impact for marketing purposes

· one off design, installation and production costs will be minimised

· in the event of damage or maintenance required, the signs can be interchangeable or they can keep a spare in stock.

12. The applicant’s initial proposal for the replacement signage included the addition of fencible soldiers in the design. The image of a fencible soldier was included to reflect the local history of the area. After consultation with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki the applicant decided not to include the fencible soldier at this stage. Following the consultation the applicant is planning to collaborate with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki to develop the villages museum further to reflect both the early settlers life and Māori life in pre and post European settlement. Once this collaboration is completed they will look to revisit the use of the marketing icons to represent both Māori and early European settlers life in the fencible period.

13. Each parcel of land that the signs are located on has a different land classification:

· The first parcel adjacent to Pakuranga Road is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and subject to the Local Government Act 2002.

· The second parcel adjacent to Cascades Road is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve.

· The third parcel is inside the park and closest to the buildings of the historical village and is held in fee simple by Auckland Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977 as a classified local purpose (historical village) reserve.

· The fourth parcel adjacent to Aviemore Drive is held in fee simple by Auckland Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977. It has not been classified but is held for the purposes of a recreation reserve.

14. Section 94(1)(k) of the Reserves Act requires that written approval is provided by the administering body for signs on reserves administered by the Reserves Act.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. It is considered that the proposed signage will only cause a minor effect on the use of the park. The signs will be in the same locations as they are currently and there will be no change to the access or use of the reserve. The inclusion of concrete mowing strips will make it easier for Councils contractors to maintain. The applicant will also be responsible for all maintenance and repairs of the signage.

16. The applicant has consulted with the councils Resource Consents Department who have confirmed the signage does not need resource consent and the Auckland Council’s Signage Bylaw 2015 does not apply.

17. Council’s parks and places specialist and maintenance delivery co-ordinator have been consulted and did not raise any concerns with the proposal.

18. Given the above, the applicant’s proposal is considered to be acceptable to the Community Facilities Department.

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

19. The Howick Local Board raised no objections to the proposal during a workshop on 8 February 2018 where this proposal was presented to them.

20. Howick Local Board Plan 2017 outcome six “A prosperous local economy” is met, in part, by providing the Historical Village with a way to promote itself which will attract tourism to the area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. Following consultation with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, the applicant decided not to include the image of the fencible soldier in the design. The applicant is planning to collaborate with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki to develop the museum to reflect the life of both Māori and early settlers during the fencible period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. Land owner approval will not have any financial implications for the Howick Local Board. The applicant had applied to the Howick Local Board for a grant to complete funding of the signage installation when it included the marketing figures. With the simplification of the sign installation the cost of the installation will be covered within an existing grant provided by the Mount Wellington Trust.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. The main risk to council from the installation of signs is that it may encourage other users of the park to request signage within the park. The introduction of further signs may detract from the visual amenity of the reserve. Further risks to council can be managed by the conditions of the land owner approval letter such as health and safety during installation, reinstatement of any damage to the reserve and the applicant being responsible for continued maintenance.

24. The signs will not cause a greater traffic safety risk as they are in the same locations and the increase in size of the signs on Aviemore Drive and Cascades Road will not obstruct the line of sight of any corner, bend or intersection.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. If the Howick Local Board approves this application, Auckland Council staff will issue a land owner approval letter to the applicant with relevant conditions.

26. If the application is declined, the applicant will be made aware of the decision and will not be able to replace the signage.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Signage location and proposed design	39

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Glenn Riddell - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Jingyao International Limited at 170 Chapel Road, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2018/02338

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for new road names for new lanes created by way of subdivision at 170 Chapel Road, Flat Bush.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Te Whitinga Lane,’ ‘Manahau Lane,’ (applicant’s preferred road names) ‘Koropiko Lane’ and ‘Totara Haeata Lane’ were determined to meet the road naming guidelines criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngaati Te Ata and Ngati Paoa. Ngati Paoa and Ngaati Te Ata deferred interest to the lead iwi mana whenua, in this case Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki recommended three names which have been adopted by the applicant for approval. No objections were received.

5. The names ‘Te Whitinga Lane’ and ‘Manahau Lane,’ proposed by the applicant and the alternative names ‘Totara Haeata Lane’ and ‘Koropiko Lane’ are considered for approval by the Howick Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names ‘Te Whitinga Lane’ and ‘Manahau Lane’ proposed by the applicant, and the names ‘Koropiko Lane’ and ‘Totara Haeata Lane’ for the new lanes created by way of subdivision at 170 Chapel Road, Flat Bush as they meet the road naming criteria.

Horopaki / Context

6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for the Local Board’s approval.

7. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

8. The residential subdivision is located to the south of Ormiston Road and directly to the west of Chapel Road. The subdivision will be accessed by a new private lane off Triumph Road, with three smaller lanes branching off it. The applicant seeks to name the four lanes.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Lane 1)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Songbird Lane	Self-explanatory; a songbird. The applicant gave no reasoning for this recommendation.
First Alternative	Koropiko Lane	To bow, kneel, bend or stoop. Recommended by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.
Second Alternative	Tiuka Lane	Duke- a monarch or male ruler.

The applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the roads created as part of the development at 170 Chapel Road, Flat Bush.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Lane 2)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Ranea Lane	Meaning to be abundant or in full supply. Recommended by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.
First Alternative	Totara Haeata Lane	“Kings”
Second Alternative	Sunrise Lane	Self-explanatory. The applicant gave no reasoning for this recommendation.
Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Lane 3)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Te Whitinga Lane	“The crossing”
First Alternative	Duke Lane	A monarch. Given that some existing road names include ‘Triumph Road,’ ‘Chapel Road’ and ‘Fusion Road,’ the applicant suggested this and considered it would be in keeping with the theme of road names.
Second Alternative	Tui Lane	Native bird.
Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Lane 4)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Manahau Lane	To be cheerful, elated, exultant, triumphant or delight. Recommended by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.
First Alternative	Petrel Lane	A seabird.
Second Alternative	Waiata Lane	“Song”

Figure One: Layout of new roads.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

10. A number of the proposed names are not considered to meet the assessment criteria of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, as discussed below.

11. The relevant iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngaati Te Ata and Ngati Paoa. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki did not object to the proposed names, but offered three additional names which have been adopted by the applicant. Ngaati Te Ata also had no objections to the proposed names but deferred interest to Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki. Ngati Paoa also deferred interest to other mana whenua with lead cultural interest.

12. The proposed names were sent to LINZ and NZ Post for review, who advised that the following names are not acceptable to use:

· ‘Tui Lane,’ ‘Duke Lane,’ ‘Sunrise Lane,’ ‘Waiata Lane,’ ‘Regency Lane’ and ‘Kings Lane,’ as these names are already in use within the Auckland region; many within close proximity to the subject site.

· ‘Petrel Lane’ and ‘Songbird Lane,’ as there is already a Petrel Place and Songbird Close in the Auckland Region.*

· ‘Tiuka Lane’ and ‘Ranea Lane,’ as Tiaka Place is within 6km of this location, and Ranier Street is within 11km; both names were accepted by NZ Post, however LINZ advised that these names were not acceptable due to the location, proximity, spelling and similar pronunciation to existing road names.

*It is noted that Petrel Place is in Massey and Songbird Close is in Sandspit, which are areas both well-removed from the Flat Bush area.

The names above are therefore not considered to meet the road naming criteria, as one criterion states that “Where there is an existing similar/same road name within Auckland Council’s boundary or an adjoining territorial authority’s boundary, a new road name must not be:

a) The same as an existing road name

b) Similar in spelling to an existing road name; or

c) Similar in sound to an existing road name.

Both LINZ and NZ Post confirmed that ‘Te Whitinga Lane,’ ‘Manahau Lane,’ ‘Koropiko Lane’ and ‘Totara Haeata Lane’ are acceptable and are considered to meet the road naming criteria.

13. As the applicant’s preferred names (‘Te Whitinga Lane’ and ‘Manahau Lane’) meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval, while noting that the alternative names (‘Koropiko Lane’ and ‘Totara Haeata Lane’) are also appropriate as they comply with the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Danielle Ter Huurne (Intermediate Planner)

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Xinhao Developments Limited at 242 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

File No.: CP2018/02342

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for new road names for two new roads created by way of subdivision at 242 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush, as well as name extensions to approved road names.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Obelus Road’ and ‘Solidus Lane’ (applicant’s preferred road names), ‘Ohaoha Road’ and ‘Kaitaki Lane’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngaati Tamaoho and Ngaati Te Ata. Ngaati Te Ata advised that they objected to the first preference names offered but did not object to the names in Te Reo Maori. On the other hand, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki advised that they would prefer that Maori names were not used as they considered that little consultation had been undertaken with them. No alternative road names were offered. Ngaati Tamaoho advised that they would support names agreed to by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.

5. The names ‘Obelus Road’ and ‘Solidus Lane’ proposed by the applicant and the names ‘Ohaoha Road’ and ‘Kaitaki Lane’ are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

a) That the Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names ‘Obelus Road’ and ‘Solidus Lane,’ proposed by the applicant, for the new roads created by way of subdivision at 242 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush while noting that ‘Ohaoha Road’ and ‘Kaitaki Lane’ also meet the road naming criteria.

b) That the road names ‘Rashni Road,’ ‘Riwai Street’ and ‘Piringa Street’ be applied to the extensions of the relevant roads through 242 Flat Bush School Road (refer to resolution number HW/2018/10 for previous road name approval).

Horopaki / Context

6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

8. The residential subdivision will be serviced by a new loop road off Flat Bush School Road with a number of smaller roads branching off it. The applicant seeks to name one road and one accessway of the development, and to name extensions of three existing roads.

The applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the roads created as part of the development at 242 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Road 5)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Obelus Road	A division sign
First Alternative	Paripari Road	Means “steep”
Second Alternative	Ohaoha Road	To be generous

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Accessway 1)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Solidus Lane	A slash (/)
First Alternative	Kaitaki Lane	Leader
Second Alternative	Manaaki Lane	To support

Road Number	Name of extension
Road 1	Rashni Road
Road 2	Riwai Street
Road 3	Piringa Street

Road 1

Figure One: Location and layout of new roads (shaded area is 218 Flat Bush School Road with previously approved road names).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

10. All proposed road names are considered to meet the assessment criteria of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, with the exception of ‘Paripari Road’ and ‘Manaaki Lane’ as these names are already in use.

11. The proposed suffixes ‘Road’ and ‘Lane’ are considered appropriate as they accurately describe the characteristics of the roads.

12. As the applicant’s preferred names (‘Obelus Road’ and ‘Solidus Lane’) meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the alternative names (‘Ohaoha Road’ and ‘Kaitaki Lane’) are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

13. The relevant iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngaati Te Ata and Ngaati Tamaoho. Ngaati Te Ata advised that they objected to the applicant’s first preference names but supported the Te Reo Maori names. However, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki did not support the use of Te Reo Maori names as they considered that little consultation had been undertaken with them, however no alternative road names were offered. Ngaati Tamaoho advised that they would support names agreed to by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.

Given the conflicting responses from iwi, and lack of alternative names offered by iwi, the applicant’s proposed names are considered to be acceptable.

14. The proposed names were sent to NZ Post for feedback, whose Address Specialist advised that the names ‘Paripari’ and ‘Manaaki’ are already in use, but confirmed that the remaining names were acceptable.

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

15. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	242 Flat Bush School Road Plan	55

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Danielle Ter Huurne (Intermediate Planner)

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by 292 Flat Bush Limited (Li Hua Wu) at 292 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

File No.: CP2018/02344

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for new road names for two new roads created by way of subdivision at 292 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Kapara Street’ and ‘Hanjun Street’ (applicant’s preferred road names), ‘White Pine Street,’ ‘Hawai Street’, ‘Stream Street,’ ‘Koawa Street,’ ‘Manga Street’ and ‘Morepork Street’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Paoa. Ngati Paoa deferred interest to other mana whenua with a lead cultural interest. Ngati Te Ata supported the proposed Maori names, and offered three alternatives which have not been adopted by the applicant.

5. The names ‘Kapara Street’ and ‘Hanjun Street’ proposed by the applicant and the names ‘White Pine Street,’ ‘Hawai Street’, ‘Stream Street,’ ‘Koawa Street,’ ‘Manga Street’ and ‘Morepork Street,’ are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names ‘Kapara Street’ and ‘Hanjun Street’, proposed by the Applicant, for the new roads created by way of subdivision at 292 Flat Bush School Road, while noting that ‘White Pine Street,’ ‘Hawai Street’, ‘Stream Street,’ ‘Koawa Street,’ ‘Manga Street’ and ‘Morepork Street,’ also meet the road naming criteria.

Horopaki / Context

7. The residential subdivision is located to the north of the eastern end of Flat Bush School Road.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the roads created as part of the development at 292 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Kapara Street	Kapara is a hard-gum wood which usually belongs to the Rimu and kahikatea trees. These trees can be found in Murphy’s Bush, which is near the subdivision. The name will therefore promote the Maori and the environmental aspect.
First Alternative	White Pine Street	Murphys Bush nearby is comprised of mature white pine trees.
Second Alternative	Hawai Street	Means ‘watercourse.’ There are signs that a watercourse was located in the subdivision, and there are watercourses nearby in Murphys Bush.
Third Alternative	Stream Street	As above.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Hanjun Street	Suggested by the developer. A simple name which will provide diversity to the road names in Auckland.
First Alternative	Koawa Street	Also a Maori name for ‘watercourse.’ As above.
Second Alternative	Manga Street	A Maori name for a branch of a river and a watercourse, as above.
Third Alternative	Morepork Street	A spotted bird native to New Zealand, which can be found in Murphys Bush.

Road 2 Road 1

Figure One: Layout of new roads.

Figure Two: Wider context plan showing location of the new roads relative to Flat Bush School Road.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

9. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines, and all names are considered to meet the assessment criteria.

10. The proposed suffix of ‘Street’ is considered to be acceptable as it accurately describes the nature of the new roads.

11. As the applicant’s preferred names (‘Kapara Street’ and ‘Hanjun Street’) meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the alternative names (‘White Pine Street,’ ‘Hawai Street’, ‘Stream Street,’ ‘Koawa Street,’ ‘Manga Street’ and ‘Morepork Street’) are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

12. The proposed road names were sent to all relevant iwi groups for consideration and responses were received from Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Paoa. Ngati Paoa deferred interest to other mana whenua with a lead cultural interest. Ngati Te Ata supported the proposed Maori names, and offered three alternatives which have not been adopted by the applicant.

13. Consultation was undertaken with LINZ and NZ Post; both confirmed that the proposed road names are acceptable for use.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Danielle Ter Huurne (Intermediate Planner)

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

Road Name Change Approval for the residential subdivision by Legend Management Services Limited and Noah Eastern Limited at 245, 265 & 289 Flat Bush School Road and 16 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2018/02347

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board to revoke the previously approved road name ‘Kilcadden Drive’ for the road created by way of subdivision at 245, 265 & 289 Flat Bush School Road and 16 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush, and rename it with a more appropriate name.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. The name ‘Kilcadden Drive’ was approved at the local board meeting on 12^th September 2016 (resolution number: HW/2016/320) and applied to the extension of ‘Kilcadden Road’ (approved by the local board on 15^th July 2016, resolution number: HW/2016/276). As the suffixes do not match, and house numbering begins at the eastern end of Kilcadden Road, increasing westward (i.e. away from Kilcadden Drive), rather than renumbering the existing sites, it would be more practical to rename Kilcadden Drive altogether.

4. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Prometheus Road,’ ‘Eros Road’ and ‘Thallo Road’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

5. The relevant iwi groups were previously consulted in the initial road naming process, and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki confirmed they did not object to the proposed names.

The name ‘Prometheus Road’ proposed by the applicant and the alternatives names ‘Eros Road’ and ‘Thallo Road’ are therefore recommended to the local board to rename the previously approved ‘Kilcadden Drive’.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the :

a) Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, partially rescinds resolution number HW/2016/320 as it applies to the road name ‘Kilcadden Drive,’ whilst keeping the approved names ‘Whakatupu Road,’ ‘Hera Street,’ ‘Demeter Street,’ ‘Matiki Road,’ ‘Hermes Road,’ ‘Donnybrook Road,’ ‘Artemis Way’ and ‘Routhmore Street.’

b) Howick Local Board considers for approval, the name ‘Prometheus Road’ to replace ‘Kilcadden Drive’.

Horopaki / Context

6. The applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 245, 265 and 289 Flat Bush School Road and 16 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush, currently named ‘Kilcadden Drive.’

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Prometheus Road	Titan of forethought and crafty counsel, and creator of mankind.
First Alternative	Eros Road	The god of love and attraction.
Second Alternative	Thallo Road	Greek goddess of spring buds and green shoots.

Figure one: Approved road names for the residential subdivision at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road and 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

8. The new proposed road names are considered to meet the assessment criteria of the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

9. The proposed suffix of ‘Road’ is considered appropriate as it accurately describes the characteristics of the road.

10. As the applicant’s preferred road name ‘Prometheus Road’ meets the criteria, it is recommended for approval, while noting that the alternative road names (‘Eros Road’ and ‘Thallo Road’) are also appropriate as they comply with the crtieria of the road naming guidelines.

11. The proposed names were sent to NZ Post for feedback as part of the initial road naming proposal, and their Address Specialist advised that the names were acceptable.

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

12. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

13. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

14. The proposed road names were previously sent to the relevant iwi groups for the original road naming consultation process, and a response was received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki confirming they had no objection to the names.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

16. The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

17. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Danielle Ter Huurne (Intermediate Planner)

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2018/03184

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual conference and General meeting (AGM) in Christchurch Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018 and to invite local boards to nominate elected members to attend.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Local Government New Zealand Annual conference and General meeting take place at Christ’s College from 12 noon on Sunday 15 July to 1pm on Tuesday 17 July 2018.

3. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. In 2018, with the venue in Christchurch and given the cost of elected member attendance, staff recommend that one member per local board attend.

4. In addition to the official delegates, LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 13 April so that this information can be provided to LGNZ.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) nominate one elected member to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Annual General Meeting from Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018.

b) confirm that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

c) note that any members who wish to attend the AGM must provide their names to the Kura Kāwana project team by Friday 13 April to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.

Horopaki / Context

5. This year the LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the Christ’s College, Christchurch, from Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018. The AGM will commence at 12.00pm on Sunday 15 July 2018 with the conference programme commencing at 4.15pm on Sunday 15 July and concluding at 1.00pm on Tuesday 17 July.

6. The conference programme has the theme “We are firmly focused on the future: Future-proofing for a prosperous and vibrant New Zealand”. The full programme is attached as Attachment A.

7. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

8. Elected members who hold LGNZ roles are:

Mayor Phil Goff	Metro Sector representative on the National Council
Councillor Penny Hulse	Chair of Zone One and Zone One representative on National Council, Member Conference Committee
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector
Councillor Wayne Walker	Auckland Council representative on Zone One
Councillor Alf Filipaina	LGNZ Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere
Councillor Richard Hills	Member Policy Advisory Group
Waitemata Local Board Chair Pippa Coom	Member Governance and Strategy Advisory Group

9. Traditionally the four AGM delegates have been the Mayor, the Chief Executive and two Governing Body members who hold LGNZ roles.

10. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at its meeting on 23 March 2018 which includes the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff be the presiding delegate and the other three delegates be comprised of either:

· two members of the Governing Body who hold a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive; or

· one member of the Governing Body who holds a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, and a local board member.

11. Delegates in 2017 were:

· Mayor Phil Goff

· Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

· Councillor Penny Hulse

· Local board chair Pippa Coom

12. The Governing Body will also consider an item on conference attendance at its meeting on 23 March 2018 which includes the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff and the other Governing Body members chosen to be the delegates to the AGM be approved to attend the conference, and that other councillors be chosen to attend so that up to a total of six Governing Body members can attend the conference.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. In 2018, with the venue in Christchurch and given the cost of elected member attendance, it is recommended that one member per local board attend.

14. This means that a maximum of 27 Auckland Council elected members would attend the conference.

15. Delegates who attend are encouraged to report back to their local boards.

16. In addition, local board members can attend the AGM as observers, or as a delegate (depending on the Governing Body decision), provided their names are included on the AGM registration form, which will be signed by the Mayor.

17. LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 13 April so that this information can be collated and provided to LGNZ.

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

18. The LGNZ Annual conference has relevance to local board members and their specific roles and responsibilities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a member of the sub-committee. Te Maruata will hold a hui on 14 July 2018.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. The normal registration rate is $1,410 (early bird) or $1,510 (standard).

21. Costs of attendance for one member from each local board are to be met from the elected members’ development budget as contained in the Kura Kawana Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. The key risk is of delayed decision making impacting costs – the sooner the registration for the nominated local board member can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference and flights.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23. Once members are confirmed to attend, the Kura Kāwana programme will co-ordinate and book all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Conference Programme	87

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Gifford, Kura Kāwana Programme Manager

Authorisers

Kerri Foote, Local Board Services Improvements Manager

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

19 March 2018

Additions to the 2016-2019 Howick Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2018/02796

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Seeking approval for two meeting dates to be added to the 2016-2019 Howick Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the Long-term Plan timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Howick Local Board adopted the 2016-2019 meeting schedule on 12 December 2016.

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the 2018-28 Long-term Plan were unknown.

4. The board is being asked to approve two meeting dates as additions to the Howick Local Board meeting schedule so that the Long-term Plan timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) approve two meeting dates to be added to the 2016-2019 Howick Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 2018-28 Long-term Plan timeframes as follows:

· Thursday, 10 May 2018, 5.30pm

· Thursday, 7 June 2018, 5.30pm.

b) note the venue for both meetings will be the Howick Local Board meeting room

Pakuranga Library Complex, 7 Aylesbury Street, Pakuranga.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7. The Howick Local Board adopted its business meeting schedule at its 12 December 2016 business meeting.

8. The timeframes for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement which is part of the 2018-28 Long-term Plan were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early May and early June to feed into the Long-term Plan process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. The board has two choices:

i) Add the two meetings as extraordinary meetings. This would mean only the specific topic may be considered for which the meeting is being scheduled for.

ii) Add the meetings as additions to the meeting schedule. This would mean other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting.

11. In terms of statutory requirements there is enough time to allow these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule.

12. Staff advice is that since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, the best approach would be to approve these meetings as additions to the meeting schedule as it allows more flexibility for the board to consider a range of issues.

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

13. This report requests the board’s decision to schedule two additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the normal costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

16. There are no significant risks associated with this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

17. The next steps would be to implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

[1] Revetments are engineered sloping structures constructed by an arrangement of stacked rocks. They dissipate the energy of waves and prevent further erosion. The function of permeable revetments is to reduce the erosive power of the waves by dissipating wave energy.

Chairperson	David Collings
Deputy Chairperson	Katrina Bungard
Members	Garry Boles
	Jim Donald, JP
	John Spiller
	Mike Turinsky
	Adele White
	Bob Wichman
	Peter Young, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	8th February Workshop Record	95
b ⇩	14th February Workshop Record	97
c ⇩	15th February Workshop Record	99
d ⇩	21st February Workshop Record	101
e ⇩	22nd February Workshop Record	103
f ⇩	1st March Workshop Record	105

Authors	Denise Gunn - Relationship Manager PA / Office Manager
Authorisers	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager