Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

The Chairtperson opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance

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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 March 2018, 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 7.7 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Toni-Maree Carnie, Chief Executive Officer of Harbour Sport, has requested a deputation to provide an update on the operations of Harbour Sport.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks Ms Carnie for her presentation.

8.2 Destination Orewa Beach

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Hellen Wilkins, Business Association Manager, Destination Orewa Beach, has requested a deputation to provide the annual update from Destination Orewa Beach.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks Ms Wilkins for her presentation.

8.3 Hibiscus Coast Association Football Club

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Representatives of the Hibiscus Coast Association Football Club have requested a deputation to discuss the possibility of installing boundary netting printed with sponsorship signage.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks the representatives from Hibiscus Coast Association Football Club for their presentation.

8.4 Metro Park East Trust Board

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

The Metro Park Trust Board have requested a deputation to make a presentation to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks the representatives of the Metro Park Trust Board for their presentation.

8.5 Hibiscus Coast Community RSA

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Representatives from the Hibiscus Coast Community RSA have requested a deputation to present to the local board on the options available to the RSA.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks the representatives from the Hibiscus Coast Community RSA for their presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 CareerMum

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Anwen Robinson will be in attendance to introduce a social enterprise she has founded called CareerMum.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks Ms Robinson for her presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Penlink - Update

File No.: CP2018/04807

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To respond to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s request for Auckland Transport to update the existing business case for a four-laned Penlink option, including high occupancy vehicles and public transport.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The updated Benefit Cost Ratio, for a 4-lane Penlink option using the latest Auckland Council land use and population growth rate assumptions is between 3.6 and 5.8 (National Benefit Cost Ratio) and 4.5 and 7.8 (Government Benefit Cost Ratio). The range in Benefit Cost Ratio is a function of the timing and extent of assumptions regarding additional lanes on State Highway 1 (SH1).

3. Peak demand for commuter bus services on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula is forecast to double with improved direct routes and frequency, and travel time savings of around 20 minutes using the Penlink route to the North Shore and city centre.

4. The Benefit Cost Ratio for a 2-lane Penlink option using the latest Auckland Council land use and population growth rate assumptions is between 4.2 and 7.7 (National Benefit Cost Ratio) and 6.9 and 12.6 (Government Benefit Cost Ratio).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) notes the Benefit Cost Ratio update provided by Auckland Transport on the Penlink tolled options and the potential increase in public transport demand/services that Penlink may generate.

Horopaki / Context

5. A business case for Penlink (4-lanes) was prepared in 2013 which included traffic modelling using growth inputs from land use forecast scenario I8b. Subsequently the transport economic analysis in that business case was updated by Auckland Transport (AT) in 2016 for growth inputs from land use forecast scenario I9 together with assumptions for Transport for Future Growth (TFUG) upgrades to the wider transport network in the north Auckland area. Land use scenario I9 has now been superceded by I11, to reflect the Unitary Plan, and transport network upgrade scenarios have been guided by the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

The most significant changes in land use scenario I11 versus I9 are;

· Household numbers on the peninsula remain similar but higher population growth is forecast.

· Greater and faster household and population growth is forecast for Wainui.

· Household and population growth forecasts for Dairy Flat are reduced.

6. The public transport mode share for journey to work trips originating on the peninsula is relatively low compared to other nearby areas.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7. The Penlink project Business Cost Ratio (BCR) calculated under specific growth and land use and wider transport network upgrade scenarios are set out in the table below. For a high efficiency rating under the National Land Transport Programme Assessment Framework the BCR needs to exceed 4.9. A project with a BCR between 3.0 and 4.9 is given a medium efficiency rating.

Number of Lanes Option	BCR	Network Scenario TFUG (I9, 2016)	Network Scenario A (I11, 2018)	Network Scenario C (I11, 2018)
4	National	2.4¹	5.8²	3.6²
4	Government^*	3.0¹	7.8²	4.5²
8. 2	National	3.5³	7.2⁴	4.2⁴
8. 2	Government *	5.7³	12.6⁴	6.9⁴

Assumptions;

¹ Construction cost $330m ² Construction cost $348m

³Construction cost $209m ⁴ Construction cost $252m

* Includes tolling

Network Scenario TFUG - Extensive network improvements including 6-lane North/South SH1 to Silverdale

Network Scenario A - Based on ATAP 1.1, includes additional lane North on SH1 to Redvale in 2026

Network Scenario C - As per Network Scenario A plus 6-lane SH1 to Wilks Rd and south facing ramps in 2046

8 The analysis indicates that the Penlink project BCR is influenced by the timing of wider transport network upgrades and that a significant portion of the benefits associated with the project are linked to non-Penlink users. Ultimately a combination of Penlink and additional State Highway 1 lanes are expected to provide the most effective transport improvements for the wider Hibiscus Coast area.

9. Excluding trips internal to the peninsula and to the rest of the Hibiscus Coast, an average of 285 weekday bus journeys are currently made from the peninsula to downstream final destinations on the North Shore or city centre. By comparison there was an average of 1,365 return journeys to similar final destinations from the remainder of the Hibiscus Coast (i.e. Silverdale, Millwater and Orewa). Similarly the public transport mode share for journey to work trips originating on the peninsula is relatively low. These results are likely the result of relatively slow existing bus routes. Commuter buses using Penlink could potentially achieve 20 minute travel time savings and along with improved routes and increased frequency in peak periods this could result in a doubling of commuter bus patronage.

10. The expected commuter bus service frequency may benefit from sections of bus or transit lanes at key Penlink intersections but not warrant dedicated bus lanes or HOV lanes along the full length of Penlink.

11. Reports setting out the BCR and public transport analysis (by Beca and MRCagney respectively) are appended as Attachments A and B.

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

12. All proposed schemes are subject to review of local impacts and local board views. These will be addressed on an individual projects basis as a project progresses.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

15. All proposed schemes are subject to risk analysis and no specific issues have been triggered by this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

16. Auckland Transport believes this report adequately addresses the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s request.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Penlink Four Laning Update 2018 (Beca, 21 February 2018)	13
b ⇩	Short Report: Penlink Bus Services (MRCagney, 28 March 2018)	29

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Kevin Jones (Auckland Transport – Manager Regional Strategic Programmes and Benefit
Authorisers	Theunis van Schalkwyk (Auckland Transport – Group Manager Strategic Projects)

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for April 2018

File No.: CP2018/04717

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects, a summary of consultation material sent to the local board and information on transport-related matters of specific application and interest to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This particular report provides updates and information on:

· Update on the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund Projects;

· Penlink;

· Regional Land Transport Plan 2018;

· Glenvar Ridge Road Roundabout Construction;

· Northern Busway’s 10th birthday;

· Auckland City and Waterfront;

· Consultations on regulatory processes;

· Traffic Control Committee results; and

· Issues Raised by Elected Members.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) notes the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for April 2018.

b) approves the detailed design and construction of Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project 578, the extension of the Orewa Boulevard concept from Riverside Road to Empire Road, Orewa, based on a rough order of cost of $1,330,000.

c) approves the detailed design and construction of Local Board Transport Capital Fund project 579, Torbay Parking Stage II, on the property at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay, based on a rough order of costs of:

· $87,000 for the provision of six concrete parking bays with retaining wall; or

· $56,000 for the provision for five new concrete parking bays.

d) approves the detailed design and construction of Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project 580, Town Centre ‘Slow Zones’ in the town centres of Mairangi Bay, Browns Bay, Silverdale and Torbay at a total cost of $1,972,195, or at the individual costs of $468,777 for Mairangi Bay, $1,117,858 for Browns Bay, $164,606 for Silverdale and $220,954 for Torbay.

e) approves the detailed design and construction of Local Board Transport Capital Fund project 582, raising the existing pedestrian crossing located at 419 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, based on a rough order cost of $195,000.

Horopaki / Context

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

3. A summary of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s current allocation in its Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) is shown in the table below:

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$3,076,390
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$743,805
Remaining Budget	$2,332,585

4. The remaining budget shown above comprises $1,643,883 that must be spent before 30 June 2019 and $688,702 that may be spent before 30 June 2020.

5. The $743,805 committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction comprises funding allocated to Project 091, Mairangi Bay Art Walk; Project 411, Torbay Revitalisation; and funding recently allocated to Project 558, Orewa Pedestrian Crossings (see paragraph 6. below).

6. Construction of Project 558, the upgrade of four crossings at the intersections of Hibiscus Coast Highway / Moana and Moenui Avenues, has been affected by unforeseen delays with the tendering process.

7. The revised timeline for the work is therefore:

· market tender to close 3 April 2018;

· construction to start mid-April 2018; and

· construction completed late May 2018.

8. At its meeting on 15 November 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requested a number of rough order of costs for projects it wishes to consider for funding from its LBTCF (HB/2017/187). The rough order of costs included in this report for further consideration by members were discussed at a workshop on 5 April 2018.

9. The rough order cost to raise the existing pedestrian crossing located at 419 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay is $195,000. This includes:

· raising the crossing using reinforced concrete, which is considered appropriate for that particular environment;

· significant traffic management costs, drainage, rebuilding paved areas in the vicinity and installing tactile pavers;

· an allowance to replace the existing lighting as this is unlikely to meet current safety standards;

· the standard 30% contingency allowed for at concept stage.

10. A rough order of costs to complete construction of Stage II of the Torbay Parking project on the Auckland Council Reserve located at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay, was requested.

11. As the area falls away significantly at the western end, a retaining wall will be required for the installation of the six car parks requested. Costs for two options have therefore been investigated, one to provide six car parks and a second to provide five car park spaces, for which no retaining wall would be required.

12. The rough order of costs for Option 1 is $87,000 and includes:

· provision for six new concrete parking bays, including kerbing, dish channel, line marking and a retaining wall;

· a 30% contingency that is standard at concept stage.

13. A plan for Option 1 is appended to this report as Attachment A.

14. The rough order of costs for Option 2 is $56,000 and includes:

· provision for five new concrete parking bays, including kerbing, dish channel and line marking;

· a 30% contingency that is standard at concept stage.

15. A plan for Option 2 is appended to this report as Attachment B.

16. A rough order of costs to extend the existing Orewa Boulevard concept from Riverside Road to Empire Road, Orewa, was requested.

17. A ‘to scale’ concept has been developed using the original pencil concept drawings developed by the former Rodney District Council in 2008, to allow accurate quantities to be calculated. This is appended to this report as Attachment C. An artist’s impression has also been created and is appended as Attachment D.

18. The rough order of costs to fully implement the concept is $1,330,000, which includes:

· installation of a new pedestrian crossing, new paved footpath on the west side, angle parking on the beach side as per the original concept (this will be subject to stakeholder consultation prior to being developed further), central islands with planting, a new shared path through the adjacent park land and new street lighting.

· the standard 30% contingency applied at concept stage.

19. Auckland Transport’s (AT)s road safety team was consulted on the request for a rough order of costs to install driver feedback signs and road markings to create ‘Slow Zones’ in the town centres of Mairangi Bay, Browns Bay, Silverdale and Torbay. They advised they do not support this treatment for these particular centres, noting that the treatment is more appropriate where there is a lot of through traffic, such as on Hibiscus Coast Highway / The Boulevard in Orewa. They note that the signs are much less effective in localised centres where, after a brief initial effect, drivers revert to their previous speeds.

20. Where ‘Slow Zones’ are introduced, the aim is to make the centres much more pedestrian friendly. This is preferably achieved by the introduction of engineering changes such as raised tables, which restrict the traffic speeds to approximately 30-35km/h, village threshold treatments at each entry point, and other forms of traffic calming devices such as small roundabouts, speed cushions or raised zebra crossings.

21. Concept designs have therefore been developed for each of the four centre and are appended to this report as Attachments E (Mairangi Bay), F (Browns Bay), G (Silverdale) and H (Torbay).

22. The rough order of costs based on these concept designs is tabulated below with the number of features for each centre listed:

SUMMARY
		Village thresholds	Speed cushions	Zebras	Raised Zebras	Total Cost	Total Incl. 30% Contingency
Site	Location	Qty	Qty	Qty	Qty

1	Mairangi Bay	3	0	1	1	$360,598	$468,777

2	Browns Bay	5	2	0	4	$859,891	$1,117,858

3	Torbay	3	0	0	0	$169,965	$220,954

4	Silverdale	2	0	0	1	$126,620	$164,606

	TOTAL (Excl. GST)						$1,972,195

23. The rough order cost of $1,972,195 includes the standard 30% contingency applied at the concept stage.

24. As an alternative, the local board may choose to provide funding for one or more of these town centres on an individual basis.

25. Rough order of costs were requested by the local board for possible bike parking options at the Gulf Harbour Ferry Terminal.

26. A similar request was made to AT’s Walking and Cycling Team whose staff advise that this project is included in the current year’s programme and therefore under investigation.

27. Should a suitable site and design be agreed, this will be funded from AT budgets. As such it will not be necessary for the local board to fund the project from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

28. Rough order of costs were also requested for the modification of seven of the fourteen existing bench seats in the area between 292 and 350 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.

29. Should rough order costs for this project become available prior to the meeting, they will be circulated to members under separate cover so that decisions to commit to detailed design and construction, if appropriate, may be made at the meeting.

Penlink

30. At its meeting on 13 December 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved to (HB/2017/205):

a) request Auckland Transport to update the existing business case for a four-lane Penlink option, including high occupancy vehicles and public transport in this option, and report this back to the local board.

31. A response to the local board’s request from Auckland Transport (AT) will appear as a separate item on the agenda for the April 2018 meeting.

Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

32. Consultation on the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2018 will begin on Monday 23 April 2018 and close on Sunday 6 May 2018.

33. Members from all 21 local boards have been invited to an information, question and answer session on Monday 23 April 2018.

34. Each local board will have an opportunity to give verbal feedback on the plan to representatives of the Regional Transport Committee (decision makers for the RLTP) on Monday 30 April 2018.

35. There will be a number of public information sessions and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will be informed of these as soon as details are confirmed.

Glenvar Ridge Road Roundabout Construction

36. Work has been progressing with the construction of the new roundabout on Glenvar Road at its intersection with the new Glenvar Ridge Road.

37. Glenvar Ridge Road will extend from opposite the Long Bay Baptist Church on Glenvar Road to the western boundary of the lower Long Bay development site. The new road will:

· Draw traffic generated by the area away from existing routes.

· Provide good links to main arterial routes such as East Coast and Oteha Valley Roads.

· Provide a direct route to Long Bay Regional Park.

· Include a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians.

38. Until now works have largely been happening off the main alignment of Glenvar Road, but the next stage involves the construction of a new retaining wall on the southern side of Glenvar Road and then the second half of the roundabout on the main Glenvar Road alignment.

39. While this work is underway, there will be a temporary detour in place for traffic heading west towards East Coast Road, which will leave Glenvar Road at Stredwick Drive and re-join Glenvar Road from Fitzwilliam Drive. Eastbound traffic will continue to use Glenvar Road; however, vehicles from properties that enter Glenvar Road from East of the Long Bay Baptist Church will only be able to head East. Vehicles from properties that enter Glenvar Road from West of the Long Bay Baptist Church will still be able to head in either direction.

40. There will be a 30km/h speed limit in place for the duration of the work and from time to time the traffic will be shifted to different sides of the road as works progress.

41. The detour, which is anticipated to be in place for approximately 5 months, is illustrated below:

42. Further information about this work and the Glenvar Ridge Road project is available at: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/glenvar-ridge-road/.

Northern Busway’s 10^th birthday

43. Auckland’s Northern Busway was opened 10years ago and commuters continue to embrace the regular buses, which arrive every few minutes during peak hours.

44. The city’s double deckers are also in continual use on the Northern Busway, giving passengers an even better view across the Harbour Bridge and a much faster commute into and out of the city.

45. The patronage of the busway continues to grow rapidly and in the past four years it has increased from 2.5 million to its current 5million.

Auckland City Centre and Waterfront

46. Auckland Council, AT, Panuku and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development are working together to undertake several projects in the downtown area of Auckland. The projects are all interrelated, and it is the intention of the council family that they will be delivered ahead of the 36^th America’s Cup planned for 2021.

47. The projects are important upgrades to existing public facilities that will ensure that the Ferry Basin and the Quay Street precinct are safe and can continue to serve Auckland and its visitors.

48. The projects include:

· Quay street seawall seismic upgrade.

· Downtown public spaces.

· Ferry Terminal redevelopment – Phase 1 (Piers 3 and 4).

· Queens Wharf mooring dolphin.

· Quay Street upgrade.

· Britomart East bus interchange.

49. Further information on the projects is available at: https://www.aklintothefuture.co.nz/

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

Consultations on Regulatory Processes

50. Documentation describing a proposal to install angle parking in the vicinity of 2 Watea Road, Torbay, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 28 February 2018. Members Bettany, Cooper and Parfitt indicated their support for the project. No objections to the proposal were received.

51. Documentation describing a proposal to construct a footpath on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, extending from Puriri Avenue to Arundel Reserve, was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 1 March 2018. The proposal included additional pedestrian crossing facilities, parking and possible tree removal, and is part of a region-wide programme to improve pedestrian safety and walking connections between residential areas and key destinations. Members Parfitt and Fitzgerald advised that they were supportive of the proposal, Member Fitzgerald requesting that good crossing points for mobility scooters and walkers be included because of the high numbers of elderly people living in Orewa. No objections to the proposal were received.

52. Documentation describing a proposal to construct a footpath on Rishworth Avenue, Whangaparaoa, extending from 2 Rishworth Avenue to its intersection with Wade River Road, was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 1 March 2018. The proposal included additional pedestrian crossing facilities, retaining walls and parking restrictions, and is part of a region-wide programme to improve pedestrian safety and walking connections between residential areas and key destinations. Member Fitzgerald indicated her support for the project. No objections to the proposal were received.

53. Documentation describing a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions on Weatherly Road and Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, to improve visibility for drivers approaching the bend and reduce conflict with oncoming traffic, was forwarded to East Coast subdivision members on 2 March 2018. Members Bettany and Parfitt expressed support for the project. No objections to the proposal were received.

54. Documentation describing the proposed construction of a footpath on the southern side of Stanmore Bay Road, Whangaparaoa, between 45 and 101 Stanmore Bay Road, with new pram crossings and new broken yellow lines at Shuttleworth Place, was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 14 March 2018. The project is part of a region wide programme to improve safety, connectivity and accessibility for pedestrians, and has a high priority because it fills a long-standing gap in the existing urban footpath network, improving accessibility to bus stops and bus services on Stanmore Bay Road. Member Fitzgerald indicated her support for the proposal. No objections were received.

55. Documentation explaining changes proposed at the intersection of Beach and Bute Roads, Browns Bay, which will significantly improve pedestrian safety, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 19 March 2018 with a request for responses no later than 4 April. Members Parfitt and Fitzgerald initially expressed support, Member Parfitt then withdrawing her support pending a discussion with AT staff about the proposal and feedback received to the public consultation.

56. Documentation describing a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions in Arklow Lane, Stanmore Bay, to address access and visibility issues at the front of 14 Arklow Lane, Stanmore Bay, was forwarded to Hibiscus and Bays subdivision members on 22 March with a request for responses by 9 April 2018.

Traffic Control Committee Results

57. Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board during January and February 2018 are listed below:

Decision	Report Type	Nature of Restriction	Decision
Beach Road, Waiake	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping at all Time Restrictions (NSAATs)	Carried
Beulah Avenue, Korotaha Terrace, Sandwon Road, Rothesay Bay	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined	NSAATs, Give Way	Carried
East Coast Road, Northcross	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined	NSAATs, P60, Angle Parking, Lane Arrow Markings, Prohibited Right Turn	Carried
Knights Road, Rothesay Bay	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	NSAATs	Carried
Pohutukawa Avenue, Orewa	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	NSAATs	Carried
Saltwood Street, Mermaid Mews, Silverdale North	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	NSAATs	Carried
Ladies Mile, Kawau Island Avenue, The Circle, Manly Park Avenue, Laurence Street, Glengarry Avenue, Manly	Written Decision	Temporary Traffic and Parking restrictions (Weet Bix Triathlon 2018)	Carried

Issues Raised by Elected Members

58. The following list summarises issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 29 March 2018:

	Location	Issue	Status
1	Mairangi Bay Town Centre	Pavers in Mairangi Bay Town Centre	A trial to confirm the effectiveness of a treatment process recommended by Horizon International, the suppliers of pavers installed in the retail centre of Mairangi Bay to improve their skid resistance, is being undertaken. The results of the trial will determine any future treatment and members will be provided with further information at the conclusion of the trial. Note: At this stage the trial has yet to be subjected to any scientific testing as such, though it does appear to have aided skid resistance. Members will be further updated when testing has been carried out.
2	1022 Beach Road, Torbay	Request for NSAAT restrictions and installation of a one-way system at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay.	Member Parfitt asked for the installation of NSAAT restrictions on the service lane at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay, along the length of the building located at 1028 Beach Road, to make it easier for vehicles exiting angle parking recently installed. Member Parfitt also asked for consideration of a one-way system being installed on the service lane, with the entry point at 1022 Beach Road and the exit point between the properties 1042 and 1054 Beach Road, noting that there is also the option to turn left and drive through the community hall's car park. Referred to Traffic Engineering.
3	Wade River Road and Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa	Request for safety improvements at the intersection of Wade River Road and Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa.	Member Parfitt asked on 25 February 2018 that safety at the intersection of Wade River Road and Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa, be investigated, suggesting that the owner of the property whose shrubs block visibility for those turning right be asked to trim these, or that consideration be given to installation of a Stop control. On 21 March, Member Parfitt was advised that AT's engineers had confirmed that a stop control is already in place at this intersection and that all signage is appropriate. They will however write to the property owner asking that they trim the vegetation to improve visibility for exiting vehicles.
4	East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay	Request for pedestrian crossing on East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay.	Member Parfitt asked for the installation of a pedestrian crossing on East Coast Road near Kowhai Road, Mairangi Bay, on 26 February 2018. A resident has suggested that there should be a crossing where drivers are forced to stop somewhere between Constellation Drive and Tristram Ave so that space would be created for cars to turn onto East Coast Road from side streets and for pedestrians to cross. Under consideration by Network Management and Safety.
5	Whangaparaoa Road, Red Beach	Request for a bus stop and bus shelters on Whangaparaoa Road, Red Beach.	Member Fitzgerald asked on 28 February 2018 if it would it be possible to put a bus stop on a flat area opposite the Waitemata Health complex on Whangaparaoa Road; and whether any of the bus stops along the stretch of road involved in the Dynamic Laning trial on Whangaparaoa Road will be provided with bus shelters before winter. On 8 March Member Fitzgerald was advised that AT isn’t currently installing any new shelters in the Hibiscus Coast as it is in the process of implementing the New Network for the entire Auckland Region, therefore focusing on identifying and completing new bus stops that will enable the New Network to operate. Once this process has been completed, staff will return to each area to review the effectiveness of the distribution, safety and standard of all bus stops. Those on the Hibiscus Coast were reviewed as part of the first implementation of the New Network programme, but staff are aware that there are still some stops that need improvement and others where the gaps between existing stops need to be reduced. The second review will include a review of both bus stops and shelters on Whangaparaoa Road and other nearby locations. Member Fitzgerald was also advised that there are two stops in close proximity to the WDHB-building – 300m North and 300m South on the opposite side. The stop closer to the traffic signals on the intersection of Whangaparaoa Road and Red Beach Road has a brand new shelter installed during February 2018.
6	Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa	Request for relocation of speed limit sign on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.	A constituent of Mark Mitchell, MP asked for relocation of a 70km/h speed limit sign currently located on Hibiscus Coast Highway from 75m before the bridge at the northern end of Orewa to a less hazardous position. The request related to the excessive speed of traffic passing the narrow driveway entrance to Orewa House Business Park, Walnut Cottage Restaurant and eight residential properties. On 21 March 2018 the MP's Office was advised that the sign will be relocated further North along Hibiscus Coast Highway and that this work is expected to be completed by the end of April 2018.
7	West Hoe Road/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa	Suggested improvements at the intersection of West Hoe Road/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.	On 7 March 2018 Member Parfitt forwarded suggestions from a resident for safety improvements at the intersection of West Hoe Road/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa. The suggestion was for repainting the lines so that there is only one lane heading North through the lights; widening the turn west into West Hoe Road; repainting the stop line at West Hoe Road (turning South) further west; installing a sign on the slip road reading ‘give-way to pedestrians’; and installing a high rumble strip heading north from West Hoe Road lights into Hibiscus Coast Highway using the current second merge lane. Member Parfitt was advised on 19 March that a response could be expected in June. Under consideration by Network Management and Safety.
8	Waiwera Village, Waiwera	Request for signs to public toilets in Waiwera.	Member Parfitt requested the provision of signs to the public toilets located at the end of Waiwera Road, Waiwera, at the entrance to the town on Hibiscus Coast Highway and at strategic locations within the village. Referred to Traffic Engineering.
9	Totara Views, Red Beach, Orewa	Request for traffic calming in the vicinity of Totara Views, Red Beach, Orewa.	The Office of Mark Mitchell MP asked on 15 March 2018 whether the speed limit on Hibiscus Coast Highway in the vicinity of Totara Views, Red Beach, could be reduced, or if there were any other measures that could be put in place in this vicinity to reduce vehicle speeds. Referred to Network Management and Safety.
10	Gulf Harbour Ferries	Queries related to Gulf Harbour Ferries.	On behalf of a constituent, Member Parfitt asked on 22 March 2018 why ferries are not factored into AT’s Journey Planner application; and why the cost of the ferry from Gulf Harbour to Auckland is $11 compared to the cost of the bus at $6. Referred to AT Metro.
11	Albany and the Hibiscus Coast	PT queries related to Albany and the Hibiscus Coast.	Member Parfitt asked on 29 March 2018 on behalf of a resident that additional parking facilities be provided near the Albany Bus Terminal to meet the ever increasing demand of customer's using the bus services to the city, that the SkyBus service start from the Albany Bus Terminal instead of Albany Civic Crescent or that SkyBus at least pass through the Albany Bus Terminal; for a direct bus service/shuttle bus between Browns Bay shops to Albany station via Carlisle Road; and that the Hibiscus Coast Station be upgraded to make it similar to Albany/Constellation stations. Referred to Parking Facilities(busway stations) and AT Metro (bus services)

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

61. All proposed schemes are subject to risk analysis and no specific issues have been triggered by this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Torbay Parking Stage II Option 1	55
b ⇩	Torbay Parking Stage II Option 2	57
c ⇩	Orewa Boulevard Stage 3 Concept Plan	59
d ⇩	Orewa Boulevard Stage 3 Artists Impression	61
e ⇩	Mairangi Bay Slow Zone	63
f ⇩	Browns Bay Slow Zone	65
g ⇩	Silverdale Slow Zone	67
h ⇩	Torbay Slow Zone	69

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett Elected Member Relationship Manager Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Local Transport Capital Fund: options for distribution and size of the fund

File No.: CP2018/04644

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on options for the future size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital fund and on the proposal to increase advisory support for the fund from Auckland Transport staff.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the local transport capital fund as an outcome of the governance framework review. Staff were directed to undertake further work with Auckland Transport and local boards on the size of the increase, and the distribution methodology.

3. The local transport capital fund was established in 2012 and currently sits at $10.8 million. It is allocated on a pure population basis. Two options for the size of funding increase have been modelled, an increase of $6 million and an increase of $10 million.

4. Staff have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population model, a model applying the Local Board Funding Policy, and a model that includes a mix of a fixed level of funding per board, along with a variable rate determined by the Local Boards Funding Policy.

5. Each of the options has been assessed against a set of criteria. The pure population model is not supported by staff, while each of the other two models has merits. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Board Funding Policy be applied to the distribution of the local transport capital fund, with an additional amount of $10 million being added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their preferences.

6. It is also recommended that Auckland Transport have funding allocated to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing local transport projects.

7. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board endorses:

a) an increase to the local transport capital fund of $10 million per annum (inflation adjusted) from 1 July 2018.

b) the distribution of the entire local transport capital fund to be made according to Auckland Council’s Local Boards Funding Policy from 1 July 2018.

c) Auckland Transport receiving additional funding to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing projects for the local transport capital fund.

Horopaki / Context

8. The local transport capital fund (LTCF) was established by resolution of the Strategy and Finance Committee [SF/2012/40] in April 2012, in order to provide local boards with access to funding for local transport projects that had strong local significance, but which were unlikely to be prioritised through the regional transport planning process.

9. The establishment of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of a dedicated local budget [CAB Minute(09) 30/10] and that “local boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’^{^[1]}”.

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

· provide local boards with more direct ability to influence local transport projects.

11. Projects must be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network. Auckland Transport retains the responsibility for delivering projects through this funding and the budget remains with Auckland Transport. Depreciation and consequential operating expenditure are also the responsibility of Auckland Transport, as is the core administration of the fund.

12. The fund was initially set at $10 million per annum (since adjusted for inflation, and now sitting at $10.8 million) and is currently split between the local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive two per cent and one per cent of the fund respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have remained at 2012^{^[2]} levels.

13. At the Governing Body meeting of 28 September 2017, at which the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party were considered, it was agreed [GB/2017/117] that officers would report back to the governing body through the 10-year budget process on options for significantly increasing the LTCF, as well as providing an assessment of options for allocating the additional funding.

14. This report provides options for the quantum of the proposed increase, the method of allocating the proposed increase among the twenty one local boards and issues relating to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Issues with the local transport capital fund identified through the governance framework review were grouped under three key themes:

· the overall size, or quantum, of the local transport capital fund

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

· the administration and support provided by Auckland Transport to local boards in relation to developing options and projects for consideration.

Quantum of funding

16. When the LTCF was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded according to Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) prioritisation formulas.

17. While the fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in 2016/2017 financial year was $17 million, as local boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. It has delivered 286 projects over the five year period.

18. The LTCF contribution to these many local projects has also been complemented through the input of additional funds from Auckland Transport (as well as NZTA subsidy) with the value of the work they have delivered to their communities being substantially leveraged through this additional funding.

19. Staff have modelled the impact of the proposed increase on individual local boards according to a range of distribution models. In doing so, two different levels of increase have been used – the $10 million figure, initially proposed by Auckland Transport, and a lower figure of $6 million.

20. Neither figure is based on specific needs assessment, but Auckland Transport is of the view that a baseline of approximately six hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year is desirable to give individual boards the resources to support significant local projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.

21. Local boards that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier to leverage that to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland Transport funding, for example for projects that are being brought forward as a result of LTCF investment. Successful examples include the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal, the Mt Albert Station Bridge and the Māngere Future Streets project.

Distribution methodology

22. This section provides modelling of three distribution options applied to two levels of overall increase (sub-option A being an increase of $6 million, and sub-option B being an increase of $10 million). The options are:

· Option 1: status quo – simple population based distribution of both the existing fund and any additional funding

· Option 2: applying the current Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the fund

· Option 3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards, as well as a variable component based on the Local Board Funding Policy.

Population based distribution

23. In 2012, the Governing Body elected to distribute the first iteration of the LTCF purely on a population basis, following consultation with local boards^{^[3]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

24. We have modelled (Attachment A) the option of applying the population based distribution methodology, based on Statistics NZ 2017 population estimates. As you will see from the modelling, the impact on local boards with higher populations is the most significant, in terms of an increase in funding, especially if the additional amount is $10 million.

25. Under this model, however, if the additional amount is $6 million, six local boards would still fall short of the $650,000 baseline figure identified by Auckland Transport as being desirable to enable the delivery of viable local transport proposals.

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

26. Following the establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local Board Funding Policy, as required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This policy was adopted in 2014, and uses an allocation methodology incorporating three factors: population (90 per cent), deprivation (five per cent) and land area (five per cent). This funding policy is currently applied to locally driven initiatives funding, including the local capital fund, but was not retrospectively applied to the LTCF.

27. The development of the funding policy involved significant consultation and engagement with local boards prior to final adoption. There are no current plans to review the policy.

28. We have modelled (Attachment B) the option of applying the Local Board Funding Policy to the distribution of the LTCF. The modelling has been applied to the existing fund and the additional amounts of $6 million and $10 million. The modelling is also based on 2017 population estimates.

Fixed and variable costs distribution

29. As previously noted, Auckland Transport has the view that in order to deliver transport infrastructure of any significance, a certain level of baseline funding is desirable – around $650,000 per annum, based on practical experience.

30. Many local boards have achieved significant results with their local transport projects, but transport infrastructure is inherently costly and costs tend not to vary according to location. For example, a footbridge and walking path in Pukekohe will tend to cost the same as a comparable one in Glenfield.

31. In considering the distribution methodology for the extended fund, Auckland Transport has put forward the following factors as being relevant:

· the cost of building transport infrastructure is not directly related to the size of the population it serves

· mature areas with high populations tend to already have higher quality and better developed transport infrastructure

· the existing Auckland Transport/NZTA criteria for regional transport spending tend to favour, as would be expected, areas of high density and growth

· the physical size of an area tends to have a correlation with the need for transport infrastructure e.g. the number of settlements, town centres.

32. A distribution model based on a split of fixed and variable costs has also been modelled as an option. The methodology involves fifty per cent of the entire quantum of funding being distributed by an even split (with the exception of Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Local Boards which receive 1/3 and 2/3 of a single share respectively), thus giving all other local boards the same level of core funding. The other fifty per cent of the funding would be distributed according to the Local Board Funding Policy.

33. We have modelled (Attachment C) the option of applying this fixed/variable costs model to the distribution of the LTCF.

Assessing the options

34. Each of the three distribution models has elements to recommend it and others that detract from it. In assessing the models, staff applied the following assessment criteria:

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

· recognising the role of local boards as leaders of place shaping within their communities.

35. Staff assessment of the options against these criteria is set out below.

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

36. These options have been modelled on 2017 Statistics New Zealand population estimates.

37. A pure population based approach has the benefits of being objective, transparent and straightforward and means that funding received is proportionate to the number of ratepayers. It was, however, recognised at the time that this approach applied to areas of extremely low population (Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands) would result in those local boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island local boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Board Funding Policy.

38. The limitations of this approach are that it does not address either the level of need in a given local board area, or the underlying cost drivers of transport infrastructure. Hence, large areas of low population density with significant roading networks and multiple population centres are funded at the same, or lower, level as smaller urban communities of interest with already well-developed transport infrastructure, but higher population density.

39. The distribution methodology is simple and transparent and easy for communities and stakeholders to understand. In terms of delivering equity and fairness, this model delivers the widest differential of funding levels across local boards, with the highest funded local board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded local board (excluding the island local boards).

40. Option 1a also results in six local boards receiving less than Auckland Transport’s benchmark identified as desirable for supporting good local transport outcomes in communities. The model limits the potential for those local boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers and to leverage additional investment into their projects. This model, and therefore Options 1a and 1b, is not supported by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

Options 2a and 2b – Local Board Funding Policy based distribution

41. This distribution method involves application of the current Local Boards Funding Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local activities (including local capex) to local boards and is based on the following factors: ninety per cent population^{^[4]}, five percent deprivation^{^[5]}and five per cent land area^{^[6]}^.

42. Applying the Local Board Funding Policy is a simple methodology that has a clear rationale, is easily described to the community and is consistent with council’s wider approach to funding local boards. It takes account of multiple factors, delivering a more equitable distribution of funding, especially to local boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

43. Reviewing the projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of the local boards’ focus has been on “people centred” transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the principles underpinning the Local Board Funding Policy i.e. that population is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation also need to be taken into account.

44. This distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the twenty one boards. The local boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all local boards receive the proposed level of baseline funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.

45. Under this model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous local boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller local boards, due to the compounding impact of the distribution model. For example, the Howick Local Board would receive over $1.7 million and Henderson-Massey Local Board over $1.4 million. Despite these extremes, this option provides an arguably more equitable and nuanced distribution of funding, as well as being consistent with current funding policy.

46. Its variation between the lowest and highest level of funding is still high with the highest funded local board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under Option 2a, five local boards still receive less than Auckland Transport’s desirable benchmark for delivering good local transport outcomes in communities and it limits the potential for those local boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers.

47. This is the preferred option on the basis of consistency with the existing funding policy, assessment against the criteria and recognition of the population focus of projects delivered using this fund. The preferred option is for the $10 million quantum as better providing for good local transport outcomes and delivering local place shaping.

Options 3a and 3b – fixed and variable cost distribution

48. This model is more complex and less transparent to communities and stakeholders than the other models. The identification of the benchmark figure is based on Auckland Transport’s experience of administering the fund over the past five years and the learning that has been gained from this, rather than in-depth financial analysis of infrastructure costs.

49. The results of this distribution are similar to those of applying the Local Board Funding Policy, in that a similar number of local boards benefit under each model. However, it is different local boards that benefit from each model. In terms of equity and fairness, this model reduces the difference between the highest funded and lowest funded local boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark, even under Option 3a ($6m increase).

50. The model reduces the impact of population on the distribution of funding, however, which is a core component of current funding policy and the focus of the projects delivered using the LTCF. The model performs well against the criteria of enabling the delivery of good local transport outcomes and supporting the role of local boards as place shapers.

Summary of assessment of options

51. Of the three distribution models assessed, the current model of pure population distribution performed the poorest and is not recommended by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

52. The other two models deliver mixed results against the criteria. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Board Funding Policy distribution best meets the criteria and is consistent with current funding policy. The final recommendation to the governing body will also be informed by feedback from local boards through this process.

Administration of the Local Transport Capital Fund

53. When the LTCF was established in 2012, it was recognised that there would be an impact on Auckland Transport as the fund administrator. While design costs are capitalised within the cost of a specific project, there are also additional costs in developing options, undertaking feasibility studies, assessing proposals and general administration.

54. It was noted at the time that if each local board proposed three to four projects a year that this could place a considerable burden on Auckland Transport and it was recommended that this be reviewed at the time the fund was reviewed. Given the proposed increase to the size of the fund, this issue needs to be revisited.

55. Auckland Transport’s advice on LTCF investment focusses on whether a project put forward by a local board is technically feasible, and whether it is realistic in light of the available funding from the LTCF. During the governance framework review some local board members raised concerns about the nature and quality of advice received from Auckland Transport in relation to LTCF proposals. Local boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high quality proposals.

56. It is recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional opex funding in support of the LTCF to be used to develop a more systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the application of the LTCF. This will include supporting boards to investigate and develop options for projects for consideration. A sum of $500,000 per annum is recommended to support this deliverable.

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

57. Workshops have been held with every local board and a range of initial feedback has been received. Discussion on collective views has also taken place at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum. While some local boards have given early indication of their preferred options, others have reserved the right to engage in further consideration ahead of providing formal feedback.

58. There was general support for an increase to the fund and for additional funding to be provided to Auckland Transport to provide advice on projects and mixed views on options for allocating the fund. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently.

59. Growth was raised by some local boards as a factor that should be considered. Staff’s view is that the population element of each of the models addresses this as current population is the only reliable indicator of growth. Population estimates are updated and will be applied to the fund annually.

60. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently. A recent presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum noted that it would be helpful for the Governing Body to have a clear preference signalled by the majority of local boards, in order to facilitate its decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

61. A move away from a pure population based distribution model would take into account other factors, being deprivation and land area. Both options 2 and 3 include a deprivation component, although this is greater in option 2. This would have some positive impact on local board areas where there is a higher Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

62. The source of the additional funding is not addressed in this report, as it is being considered through the overall budget setting process in the 10-year budget. Essentially, however, there are two options that the Governing Body will need to consider – that additional funding comes from rates and/or borrowing, or Auckland Transport reprioritises within its existing funding envelope.

63. The proposed size of the increase to the fund (both options) is not significant enough within the overall transport budget to enable transparent trade-offs at a detailed level e.g. which specific transport projects might not be funded in the Regional Land Transport Plan in a given year if the LTCF is increased.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

64. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

65. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May. Any new funding and change to the distribution methodology will be applied from 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Population based distribution modelling	79
b ⇩	Local board funding policy distribution modelling	81
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	83

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Landowner approval for the construction of a replacement pump station in Mairangi Bay Reserve

File No.: CP2018/03421

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide land owner approval for the construction of a replacement Watercare wastewater pump station at 12R Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Landowner approval is required for a new Watercare pump station, which will replace the existing facility.

3. Staff recommend that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approve the location and design of the plant, which was discussed at a workshop on 30 November 2017.

4. The proposal for a new pump station allows for continual operation of the current pump station during construction.

5. The existing pump station is no longer fit-for-purpose. Overflows will become more frequent if a new pump station is not built.

6. If approved, construction is planned to commence in October 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the application from Watercare Service Ltd. to construct a replacement wastewater pump station at 12R Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay.

b) delegate the formulation of detailed conditions of approval to the Manager, Land Advisory Services.

c) supports the proposed exchange of land at 10 and 12R Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay, subject to Watercare Services Limited obtaining a publically notified resource consent for the pump station replacement works and the satisfactory conclusion of all required statutory processes.

Horopaki / Context

7. The Mairangi Bay wastewater pump station is a critical asset in the East Coast wastewater network. Growth pressures are increasing across the network, which places further strain on existing infrastructure.

8. The current wastewater pump station is no longer fit-for-purpose. Approximately six wet weather wastewater overflows occur annually in Mairangi Bay. The new pump station will reduce the frequency of overflows.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. Watercare has investigated options to reduce the number of overflows at the Mairangi Bay wastewater pump station and cope with the impact of growth.

10. Watercare began consultation with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in 2014 regarding the proposed replacement of the pump station. It has continued to work with Auckland Council and the local board to refine the layout and design of the proposal to minimise impacts on the reserve and surrounding environment.

11. Most recently, a workshop was held with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the 30 November 2017 to present the location and layout as well as key design components for a new pump station at Sidmouth Street (see Attachment A).

12. The preferred option is to build a new pump station on council land at 12R at Sidmouth Street adjacent to the existing asset.

13. The proposed design has a number of advantages, in particular it:

· allows for the ongoing operation of the existing pump station during construction

· integrates the storage tank and pump station into one underground structure which avoids any negative impacting on existing vegetation and minimises impact on the neighbouring Mairangi Bay Reserve

· improves access to the Mairangi Bay Reserve in accordance with the reserve management plan adopted in 2015.

14. Staff recommend that the local board provide land owner approval for the construction of a replacement Watercare wastewater pump station at 12R Sidmouth Street. Council will then seek to exchange this site for Watercare land at 10 Sidmouth Street under the Reserves Act 1977.

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

15. Watercare has consulted with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on a number of occasions since 2014. The local board, at a workshop on the 30 November 2017, asked Watercare to proceed with urgency to build the new pump station.

16. Local board landowner approval is sought through this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. Watercare held a hui with their Mana Whenua Advisory Group and has consulted with iwi regarding the project as part of the statutory approvals process.

18. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority has advised they do not oppose the development. They also confirm they will be available in the event an archaeological Accidental Recovery Protocol is triggered requiring iwi advice.

19. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua support the application based upon the information provided to date.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. There are no financial implications for the local board. The construction budget sits with Watercare.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. There are no significant risks to council of granting landowner approval for the construction of a replacement wastewater pump station. These works will be subject to a publically notified resource consent under section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

22. There is the risk of continual and more frequent overflows if the status quo is maintained.

23. Any delays in construction will likely increase construction costs. This risk is borne by Watercare.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. If approved, construction of pump station is likely to commence in October 2018. Watercare will work closely with the local board throughout construction of the project.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays November 2017 Workshop Briefing	97
b ⇩	Sidmouth Street Pump Location	111

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Darren Cunningham - Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Landowner approval for upgrade of the Taiaotea Creek in Sherwood Reserve, Browns Bay

File No.: CP2018/04048

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve a landowner approval application from Auckland Council’s healthy waters department to conduct an upgrade of the Taiaotea Creek in Sherwood Reserve, Browns Bay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s healthy waters department has proposed an upgrade of the Taiaotea Creek in Sherwood Reserve as offset mitigation for development sites in the area.

3. Contractors will be on site at the Sherwood Reserve for about nine months, during which time there will still be limited access through the reserve for members of the public to utilise.

4. The proposed upgrade includes:

a) weed eradication on site

b) re-planting of the riparian margin with selected native species

c) removal of the concrete bottomed channel

d) dechannelisation of the stream (i.e. creating a natural meandering watercourse)

e) creation of a naturalized wetland area

f) creation of a fish-ladder to aid eel (and other aquatic species) migration

g) upgrading footbridges

h) new wide shared paths.

5. The upgrades to the reserve will help increase the visual amenity of the area, increase the public’s use and enjoyment of the reserve, and improve local biodiversity in the wider Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approves the application to upgrade the Taiaotea Creek and riparian margin in the Sherwood Reserve, including associated works, temporary site access and storage.

b) delegates to the Manager, Land Advisory Services the formulation of detailed conditions of approval.

Horopaki / Context

6. Sherwood Reserve is a large green space situated in Browns Bay, located to the west of Freyberg Park. The Taiaotea Creek (the creek) runs through Sherwood Reserve (and Freyberg Park) and out to the ocean near Browns Bay Beach Reserve.

7. The restoration of the creek is to offset mitigation for several sites upstream that are undergoing development. Healthy Waters is working with the developers, who are providing the funding for the upgrade to mitigate for their works.

8. The concrete channelled part of the creek runs through land owned by Auckland Transport, despite appearing to be part of the reserve. The works in this area are therefore not part of the landowner approval application. However, while works are underway, pedestrian access through this area will be maintained by contractors on site for use by the public.

9. Healthy Waters proposes a forebay in the area west of Glencoe Road in order to make it easier to maintain and clean the pond area. This is because less silt and sediment will enter the main pond area to the east, which also ensures increased quality of water in the pond and going into the downstream environment.

10. There will be an upgrade to the existing cascade area and the creation of a fish ladder for easier eel migration upstream. Currently the eels attempt to migrate upstream during large storm events, but cannot get over the concrete structure between the stream and the pond. The ability to migrate from local streams and back again is a necessary component of the eel reproductive cycle, as they live in freshwater but breed in saltwater. Having this fish ladder in the Sherwood Reserve would allow for more eels to thrive in this environment, and would increase biodiversity in the creek. This will have a flow on effect, helping to increase biodiversity across the waterways in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

11. Both footbridges across the waterway will be upgraded. The main bridge will become a boardwalk over a shallow wetland area of the pond, whereas other parts of the pond will be deeper.

12. There will be weed eradication on site and new riparian planting to help create a healthy aquatic environment. There is currently an abundance of weeds on site, including, but not limited to woolly nightshade, bindweed, wandering jew, kikuyu grass, and black-eyed susan. Flax will be planted to act as a natural barrier as opposed to erecting fencing around the pond. This will help to create a more natural look to the creek. The overall site plan for the reserve has been included as Attachment A to this report.

13. Replanting of the reserve could involve volunteers to encourage the local community to get involved with the look and feel of their local park as well as helping to enhance the natural environment. This would be up to Healthy Waters to organise.

14. Pathways to be reinstated in the reserve will be three metres wide to encourage shared use (walkers and cyclists).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. The proposed works on site will greatly improve the area for the public as well as the local biodiversity.

16. All proposed works and site plans have been developed by the healthy waters department.

17. The proposed upgrade of the creek and the Sherwood Reserve aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board outcomes of “our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation”, “our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas”, and “a protected and enhanced environment”.

18. Healthy Waters have completed comprehensive engagement with the three local schools in the area – Northcross Intermediate, Sherwood Primary, and Browns Bay Primary as a way of including community engagement with the new design of the reserve.

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

19. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has not indicated its stance on this application. The benefits to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area however, would be extensive. Aesthetically the reserve will be improved which will allow for increased enjoyment and use by the public. The quality of the environment will be exponentially improved allowing for greater biodiversity – both flora and fauna.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. Iwi consultation has been undertaken by Healthy Waters and is ongoing with the local iwi that have interest in the land. At the time of writing, two on-site meetings between Healthy Waters and local iwi have occurred.

21. The improvements to the creek and Sherwood Reserve will improve the space for the public to enjoy, including Māori.

22. The improvements and upgrades to the creek and Sherwood Reserve would meet Tangata Whenua outcomes in terms of enhancing the ecological value of the creek.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. The new design of the reserve, including the forebay will allow for easier maintenance and cleaning of the area, which over time should improve cost effectiveness. This means that the financial implications to council are minimal.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. There are no significant risks to council of granting a landowner approval for this proposal. Overall, the proposed work will positively enhance this creek and reserve. It will allow local biodiversity to thrive, and the local community to get greater use and enjoyment from the area.

25. This work will mean limited public access through the reserve temporarily while the site works are underway. Healthy Waters and their contractors will work to maintain public access through the reserve at all times, however, it still may be somewhat disruptive to the public.

26. As well as this, construction noise and dust could affect nearby residential properties if not properly managed by contractors, who will need to ensure that all efforts are taken on site to minimise the negative impacts on neighbouring properties during the construction phase. Work of this nature would be monitored by council compliance staff, which would help ensure that any issues around noise and dust would be minimised.

27. Although the works are proposed to take place over nine months, and are a temporary inconvenience, the short term negative effects are greatly outweighed by the long term positives of this proposed upgrade.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. After the local board has delegated approval to the Manager Land Advisory Services, the Land Use Advisor will issue the landowner approval to the Healthy Waters department.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plans	117

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Nikki Clendinning – Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Development of Open Space Land - Millwater Precinct 2 Suburb Park

File No.: CP2018/03974

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the final concept plan for the Suburb Park in Precinct 2 - Millwater to be carried out by WFH Properties Ltd.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Development of the Millwater Playspace in Precinct 2 will be carried out by WFH Properties Ltd.

3. WFH Properties Ltd has prepared final concept plans for the Precinct 2 Reserve in consultation with council staff for the local board’s consideration and approval (see Attachment C).

4. The proposed Precinct 2 reserve forms part of the wider Millwater open space network and is in addition to the Precinct 7 Reserve on Harris Drive that has already been completed by the developer.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the Millwater Precinct 2 reserve overall plan and reserve playground plans prepared by LASF Landscape Architects and Park Central dated 29 March 2018 for the proposed development of the Precinct 2 Suburb Park.

b) delegate to Parks and Community Facilities staff to work through and approve engineering detail once received.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Millwater development located to the north of Silverdale and west of Orewa commenced in 2009 and will provide approximately 2000 housing units. It is being developed by WFH Properties Limited in multiple stages within a series of precincts, which is now largely complete (refer to Attachment A for a location plan).

6. Precinct 2 is located at the southern end of the Millwater development. It is approximately 57 hectares and forms a natural amphitheatre that consists of sloping ground rising above an intermittent stream that runs through the centre of the site.

7. Resource consent was granted for the development of Precinct 2 in November 2014. The subdivision will result in 641 new households made up of a mix of low, medium and high density lots.

8. A suburb park, approximately 3.1 hectares in size has been acquired by Council and the acquisition was settled on 17 January 2018 (refer to Attachment B for a development concept plan and scheme plan). High density lots will be located around the periphery of the park to encourage activation and provide direct access to the park. In line with the purpose of a suburb park, a variety of informal recreation experiences will be provided.

9. A report was presented to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee on the 18 November 2015 to approve the acquisition where it was resolved (resolution PAR/2015/84):

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) approve the acquisition of 3.1 hectares of land (Lot 800) within Precinct 2 of the Millwater development, Silverdale North, for the creation of a suburb park at a maximum price of $3,300,000.

b) Agree that the General Manager Community and Social Policy, under delegation from the Chief Executive, will approve the final location, configuration and size of the public open space within Precinct 2 of the Millwater development, Silverdale North

c) Confirm that there be no restatement of this confidential report, attachments or resoultions for the acquisition of land for public open space within Precinct 2 of the Millwater development in Silverdale North until settlement of the purchase, and only then is the resolution to be restated.

d) Refer the issue of SHA’s status details to the CEO review Committee for consideration.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. The suburb park adjoins a drainage reserve at the eastern end featuring stormwater ponds/wetlands, the intermittent stream and associated riparian margin. The reserve will be extensively planted in natives and the path network will extend its length. These works will be funded by the developer. The total area of the suburb park and adjoining drainage reserves is approximately 7.4 hectares.

11. The development also includes five pedestrian street to street linkages provided as part of the overall pedestrian network.

12. The developer has provided an overall reserve plan including concept plans and landscaping plans prepared by LASF Landscape Architects dated 29 March 2018 (Attached as Attachment C) for the proposed suburb park and has agreed to implement the works at their cost as part of the agreement for sale and purchase of the land. The works include a large lawn area for informal recreation, a playground with a basketball half court, netball hoop, rope climber, fitness station, seesaw, double slide, basket swing, inground trampolines and wobbly goals. There will also be a network of paths around the suburb park.

13. Community Services and Community Facilities have met and discussed the concept plans and support the proposed concepts for the suburb park. Some recommendations were requested and changes were made as a result. The proposal was well received and it was agreed that the concept plans incorporate all suggested changes and will provide a great opportunity for natural play for adults and children of all ages. It was recommended that an independent play assessment be carried out for fall heights and this will be carried out as part of the engineering plan approval stage.

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

14. The proposed park acquisition of the 3.1Ha suburb park was discussed with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at two workshops on 3 December 2014 and in August 2015. It was also reported to the business meeting on 21 October 2015 where it was resolved (resolution HB/2015/165):

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) support the acquisition of up to 3.1 hectares of land (Lot 800) offered by WFH Properties located in Precinct 2 in the Millwater development, Silverdale North, at $3.3m and the developers offer to implement a landscape plan at their cost including:

i. A flat grassed area for informal recreation e.g. ball games

ii. Medium sized playground, hard courts and toilet

iii. Natural sloping grassed area for socialising, picnicking etc

iv. General landscaping including specimen trees, gardens and park furniture

v. A path network that will dissect the grassed areas and lead to the adjoining drainage reserve

b) request that the final location, configuration and size of the suburb park acquisition within Precinct 2 of the Millwater development, Silverdale North, if it varies with the agreed proposal, be reported back to the local board’s Facilities and Reserves Committee for any approvals.

c) confirm that there be no restatement of this confidential report, attachments or resolutions for the acquisition of land for public open space in Silverdale North until settlement of the purchase, and only then is the resolution to be restated.

15. The local board has decision making responsibility for the development of local parks within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The local board’s views were sought on the overall reserve plan at a workshop on 30 November 2017. Recommendations were that shade sails were installed over the play area which has since been added to the latest concept plan. It was also suggested that some small/miniature fruit trees were added.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. No direct impacts on Māori arising from this development have been identified.

17. Archaeological assessments were undertaken by Clough and Associates Limited in 2006 and reconfirmed in May 2014. The land was visually inspected in February 2006 and a series of test pits across the entire site were excavated and examined. The report concluded that no archaeological sites are present within Precinct 2 and there are no sites of known archaeological significance.

18. Consultation has been undertaken through the consenting process with the two iwi considered most active in the area, Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara and Ngāti Manuhiri. No response was received from Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara. The Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust Resource Management Unit had a Kaitiaki Assessment Report prepared in June 2014. The main concerns around importing and exporting soil, sediment and erosion controls and the use of locally eco-sourced native plants within the development have been addressed. The conclusion of the report was that no further involvement by Ngāti Manuhiri is required.

19. A condition of consent requires that local iwi are included in the landscaping and ‘finishing’ of the subdivision. Mana whenua have been consulted during the development the final concept design for the proposed park. The Landscape Proposal with the preferred concept was presented to the North West hui on 7^th February 2018 (Minutes attached at Appendix D).

20. Feedback and requests for further information were in relation to the wider development of the suburb park and drainage reserve development, and not the playground proposal itself. Recommended changes that affect the concept plan include replacing exotic specimen trees with native trees. Mana Whenua do not support planting of exotics, due to environmental concerns. This has been done in the final concept plan where the main feature tree species around the top of the reserve have been changed to Pohutukawa, but a few exotics have been kept throughout to provide some stronger seasonal colour and change to the landscape, as have the fruit trees.

21. Other further information requested at the hui includes information on where the silt from the three stormwater ponds is to be disposed of and further information on the water quality of the streams on the reserve. The ponds have been desilted with the works finishing in March 2018 and replanting of the stormwater ponds is to occur in the 2018 planting season. The silt was taken to the Redvale land fill. Mana whenua will be provided with this further information.

22. The naming of the park will be done at a later date as part of the Māori naming project in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area for parks and reserves.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. Annual operational costs of maintaining the Precinct 2 Reserve has been estimated by Community Facilities to range between $32,244 and $123,552 with a median consequential opex cost of $43,962, subject to detailed design.

24. The maintenance cost of the playground and toilet is expected to commence at practical completion in year 2018/2019. The playground and toilet together is expected to cost approximately $8,000 - $17,000 per year in consequential opex.

25. The bulk of the maintenance cost will be the hard and soft landscaping items. The hard and soft landscape items are expected to be maintained by the developer for two years following practical completion in accordance with the resource consent. Council will be expected to commence maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping items in the park in the financial year 2020/2021.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. An infrastructure funding agreement is being drafted to manage any risks and detail out requirements for handover including the need for producer statements, warranties, and independent playground safety audits. The infrastructure funding agreement or developer agreement will specify compliance with council’s Health and Safety requirements and the current Health and Safety legislation. All landscaping within the suburb park and stormwater wetlands will be maintained by the developer for two years following practical completion in accordance with the resource consent. The playground items and the public toilet will have a 12 months defects period associated with them.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27. The developer wishes to develop the Precinct 2 Suburb Park as soon as possible once the local board’s approval is obtained. Parks staff have not been sent engineering details of the proposed park developments but when received will review to ensure the proposal meets the council’s park construction standards.

28. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering detail once received to ensure the proposal meets the Council’s park construction standards.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Millwater Precinct 2 - Location Plan	125
b ⇩	Development concept plan and scheme plan	127
c ⇩	Reserve overall final concept plan	129
d ⇩	Extract from North west iwi engagement forum minutes 7.2.2018	141

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Maylene Barrett - Senior Parks Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Delegation for formal local board views on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement

File No.: CP2018/04439

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board delegates the responsibility of providing formal views on resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement to a local board member.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local board feedback can be provided on notified resource consents, plan changes and designations. Written feedback needs to be provided prior to the submission closing date (usually 20 working days after public notification). This feedback is included in the planner’s report verbatim and local boards are also able to speak to their written feedback at the public hearing. Views should be received by the processing planner or reporting consultant by submission closing date to ensure the content can be considered in planning reports.

3. This report explores options to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings. Because local board reporting timeframes don’t usually align with statutory timeframes, in most instances formal reporting at a business meeting will not allow local feedback to be provided by submission closing date.

4. Providing formal local board views by way of a delegation to a local board member is considered the most efficient way of providing formal local board views. This is because the delegate can provide views within the regulatory timeframes and because no additional reporting is required when new applications of interest are notified.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) delegates the authority to Local Board Member XXX, to prepare and submit local board views and speak to those local board views at any hearings on:

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / Context

Notified Resource Consents

5. Local boards are able to provide input into the determination of applications that may be notified. Local boards, via their appointed Resource Consents Leads, input into a wide range of resource consents that are received by Auckland Council and that trigger the matters of particular interest to local boards.

6. Local views and preferences are also able to be provided, once a decision of notification is made, and local boards can then submit further feedback to any notified resource consent application within their local board area. This feedback is then included in the planner’s report verbatim for the hearing and for the consideration of the commissioners who determine the outcome of the resource consent application.

7. Local boards are also able to speak to their written feedback at any notified resource consent hearing. Local boards are taking this opportunity up more often and it is considered important to ensure any feedback is authorised by the local board and a delegation is in place for the Resource Consent Lead to authorise them to speak on behalf of the local board at hearings.

Notified Plan Changes and Notices of Requirement

8. The Auckland Unitary Plan was made “Operative in Part” in November 2016. As plan changes and notices of requirement can now be received and processed by council, there are opportunities for local boards to provide their views and give feedback on notified applications.

9. For council-initiated plan changes and notices of requirement, staff will seek local board views prior to notification for proposals where there are issues of local significance. For private plan changes and notices of requirement submitted by non-council requiring authorities, local boards may not have any prior knowledge of the application until notification.

10. Local boards can provide written feedback on notified applications. Written feedback needs to be provided prior to the submission closing date (usually 20 working days after public notification). Local boards can subsequently present their feedback to support their views at any hearing.

11. It is important that options are explored to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way and a delegation to ensure timely feedback is desirable. At present the local board views must be confirmed formally and statutory timeframes are short and do not always align with local board reporting timeframes.

12. Local boards may want to add the responsibility for plan changes and notices of requirement feedback to the resource consent lead role. This will broaden the responsibilities of the role to enable feedback on notified plan changes and notices of requirement to be provided. Alternatively, local boards may want to develop a separate planning lead role and each local board has the flexibility to make appointments that best suit their needs.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options considered

13. Options available for local boards to provide their views into the hearings process have been summarised in Table 1.

14. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings (option 2). Because local board reporting timeframes do not usually align with statutory timeframes, in most instances formal reporting at a business meeting will not allow local feedback to be provided by submission closing date. Views must be received by the processing planner or reporting consultant by the submission closing date to ensure the content can be considered in planning reports.

15. Providing formal local board views by way of a delegation to one local board member (option 5) is considered the most efficient way of providing formal views. This is because no additional reporting is required when new applications of interest are notified.

Table 1: Options for local boards to provide their formal views on notified applications (resource consents, plan changes, notices of requirement)

Options	Pros	Cons
1. No formal local board views are provided		· Local board views will not be considered by the hearings commissioners
2. Formal local board views are provided at a business meeting	· All local board members contribute to the local board view · Provides transparent decision making	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process
3. Formal local board views are provided as urgent decisions	· Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines	· Decisions are not made by the full local board · Urgent decisions may not be accompanied by full information and the discussion may be rushed · Not transparent decision-making because the decisions do not become public until after they have been made
4. Formal local board views are provided by separate and specific delegation for each application which the local board wishes to provide their views	· Delegations can be chosen to align with area of interest and/or local board member capacity	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines required to make each separate delegation are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process · Decisions are not made by the full local board
5. Formal local board views are provided by way of delegation to one local board member (preferred option) for all applications	· Delegate will become subject matter expert for local board on topic they are delegated to · Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines · Any feedback can be regularly reported back to the local board	· Decisions are not made by the full local board

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

16. This report seeks a delegation to a local board member for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement, to allow local boards to provide feedback in accordance with agreed timeframes on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

17. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

18. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

19. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that council consult with Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities, on draft plan changes prior to their notification. Council must also consider iwi authority advice in evaluations of plan changes.

20. For private plan changes, council seeks that the applicant undertakes suitable engagement with relevant iwi authorities, and where necessary will undertake consultation before deciding whether to accept, reject or adopt a private plan change.

21. For notices of requirement, council serves notice on Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities. Requiring authorities must also consult with the relevant iwi as part of the designating process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. If local boards choose not to delegate to provide views on notified applications, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views prior to the submission closing date and may miss the opportunity to have their feedback presented and heard at a hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. The appointed Hibiscus and Bays Local Board member will operate under the delegations of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 April 2018

Disposal recommendations report

File No.: CP2018/04690

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland to recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee the disposal of a council owned property in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The council-owned site at 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is vacant land that was acquired for transport purposes. The site is no longer required for this purpose. The rationalisation process for 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay commenced in May 2016. Consultation with council departments and its Council Controlled Organisations, iwi authorities and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service use has been identified for the property through the rationalisation process. Due to this, Panuku Development Auckland recommends disposal of the site.

3. A resolution approving the disposal of the subject site is required from the Finance and Performance Committee before the proposed divestment can be progressed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay.

Horopaki / Context

4. Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) is required to undertake ongoing review of council’s property assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that are no longer required for council service purposes and may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) and the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

5. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council departments and its Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All sale recommendations must be approved by Panuku’s Board before a final recommendation is made to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Property Information

6. 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is a 809m²vacant site acquired by the former Rodney District Council in 1998 for the purpose of Whangaparāoa Road widening project. The widening of Whangaparāoa Road remains a "live project" but this site is not included in the Whangaparāoa Road upgrade project (between Hibiscus Coast Highway to Red Beach Road).

7. The Auckland Transport (AT) Board resolved in November 2015 that 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay was no longer required for current or future transport related purposes. It was subsequently transferred to Panuku for rationalisation.

8. The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) zoning is residential - single house. It has a 2017 capital valuation of $530,000.

9. 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is subject to the offer back obligations to the former owners in accordance with section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

Internal Consultation

10. The rationalisation process commenced in May 2016. No alternate service uses for the subject site were identified during the internal consultation.

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

11. Panuku attended a workshop with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board regarding 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay in October 2017. The local board provided informal feedback that it supported retaining part of the subject site in council ownership and requested confirmation that the subject site is not required for the Weiti Crossing (Penlink) and Whangaparāoa Road widening projects. The local board also requested further information relating to AT’s decision to release the subject site from service.

12. In response, both Panuku and AT have advised the local board that 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is outside the extent of the AUP Penlink designation; that the subject site is not affected by the Whangaparāoa Road widening AUP designation which only includes the other side of Whangaparāoa Road at this point in the alignment; and confirmed that the subject site is not required for current or future strategic transport purposes.

13. Panuku and AT also provided the board with the November 2015 AT Board resolutions releasing 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay from service. Further information relating to AT’s assessment process supporting the decision has also been provided to the local board.

14. This report provides the local board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding the subject site.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. 14 mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay. The following feedback was received:

a) Ngāti Wai

No feedback received for the subject site.

b) Ngāti Manuhiri

No feedback received for the subject site.

c) Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

No feedback received for the subject site.

d) Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

No feedback received for the subject site.

e) Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei

No feedback received for the subject site.

f) Te Kawerau a Maki

No feedback received for the subject site.

g) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

No feedback received for the subject site.

h) Te Akitai - Waiohua

No feedback received for the subject site.

i) Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No feedback received for the subject site.

j) Ngāti Paoa

No feedback received for the subject site.

k) Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for the subject site.

l) Ngāti Maru

No feedback received for the subject site.

m) Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for the subject site.

n) Patukirikiri

No feedback received for the subject site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes and the LTP by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects. In the 2017/2018 financial year, the LTP has forecast the disposal of non-strategic council assets to the combined value of of $67 million.

17. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the annual statement of intent states the activities and intentions of Panuku, the objectives that those activities will contribute to and performance measures and targets as the basis of organisational accountability. For the 2017/2018 financial year Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $60 million and to sell $100 million of property by 30 June 2018.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. No risks associated with the recommendation contained in this report have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19. Following receipt of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s resolutions, the subject site will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee with a recommendation to divest. If the committee approves the proposed disposal of the subject site, Panuku will seek to divest of the subject site in a manner which ideally provides a housing outcome and optimal return to council.

20. The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

21. The adjoining landowner has expressed interest in purchasing 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay should it be approved for sale. This can be explored further should the Finance and Performance Committee approve the proposed disposal.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Unitary Plan designations in relation to 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay	151
b ⇩	Images of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay	153

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor, Portfolio Review, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku Development Auckland

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

[1] Cabinet paper: Auckland Governance: Regional Transport Authority Steven Joyce, Minister of Transport 2009

[2] Based on Statistics NZ 2011 population estimates

[3] There was no formal local board funding policy in place at this time

[4] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

[5] Based on Index of Deprivation provided by the Ministry of Health

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
Members	Chris Bettany
	David Cooper
	Gary Holmes
	Caitlin Watson
	Vicki Watson
	Mike Williamson

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events	Confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation	Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson
Transport Information Group	Discuss transport issues/projects	Janet Fitzgerald Julia Parfitt
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes Janet Fitzgerald
Urgent Decision Making	To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board	Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

Organisation	Local Board Member
Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society)	Julia Parfitt Chris Bettany - Alternate
Estuary Arts Charitable Trust
Victor Eaves Management Committee	Mike Williamson
Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland)	Janet Fitzgerald
Business Improvement Districts (BIDS)
Destination Orewa Beach	Vicki Watson David Cooper - Alternate
Torbay	Chris Bettany Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Browns Bay	Gary Holmes Chris Bettany - Alternate
Mairangi Bay	David Cooper Julia Parfitt - Alternate

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager