Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

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

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

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-Massey local board:

BOARD MEMBER	ORGANISATION	POSITION	Updated
Shane Henderson (Chairman)	Waitakere Licensing Trust Waitakere Badminton Waitemata Seagulls Rugby League board	Elected Member Patron Board Member	13 December 2016 April 2018
Peter Chan, JP (Deputy Chairman)	Cantonese Opera Society of NZ Asian Leaders Forum NZ-Hong Kong Business Association NZ-China Business Association Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA) Whau Coastal Walkway Trust Auckland Asian Association	Member Member Member Member Advisor Trustee President	15 Nov 2016 21 Feb 2017
Brenda Brady, JP	Safer West Community Trust District Licensing Committee	Trustee Member	15 Nov 2016
Matt Grey	Zeal	Employee / CEO	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Paula Bold-Wilson	Community Waitakere Henderson Budgeting Services Unitec Institute of Technology	Board member Board member Employee	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Vanessa Neeson, JP	Village Green Quilters Ranui Advisory Group	Member Chairperson	15 Nov 2016 17 February 2017
Warren Flaunty, QSM	Westgate Pharmacy NorSGA Properties Westgate Pharmacy Ltd The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd Life North West Pharmacy Waitemata District Health Board Waitakere Licensing Trust Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass. Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Ass.	Contractor Director Director Director Director Elected Member Elected Member Member Member	15 Nov 2016
Will Flavell	Te Atatū Tennis Club Asia New Zealand Leadership Network Rutherford College Waitākere Literacy Board	Member Member Employee Board Member	15 Nov 2016

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 March 2018 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 3 April 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 Ward Councillors’ Update

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation: A community-led initiative for a pump track in Te Atatu Peninsula

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request for the local board's support for the initiative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Pump tracks are playgrounds for people on bikes that suit everyone from 3-year-olds (I know because my 3-years old loves them) to adults (I know because I love them). They're easy enough for small children (unlike BMX tracks) and challenging enough for experienced riders (unlike learn-to-ride tracks). As well as being fun, they're a great tool for encouraging people to get on their bikes, which ultimately leads to better health, less congestion and a better environment.

3. At the moment, if Te Atatu Peninsula families want to take their kids to a really good bike facility, they have to get in their cars to get there. We want a pump track in the Peninsula that our kids can ride to, and we're prepared to do what's necessary to make it happen.

4. To get started, we need the support of the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) Receive deputation from Geoff Leyland presenting from Bike Te Atatu and thank him for his presentation.

Attachments

a Te Atatu Pump Track-Local Board............................................................... 167

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2018/05019

1. The Auckland 10-year Long Term Plan submissions process is all done, and early indications at time of writing suggest narrow support for all Council initiatives.

2. Of course, it also indicates a huge level of support once again for a public pool to service the Northwest. It is simply not good enough to continue our long vigil, we need some sort of hope that this is at least in the long term thinking of the Council. Thanks to all those who submitted, and I will communicate directly with all submitters on the local board specific comments produced.

Local Economic Development Masterclass

3. It was fantastic to attend the Local Economic Development masterclass during the month. Better still, I was invited to be on a panel discussion to talk about the challenges and opportunities inherent in local town centre development away from CBD’s.

4. Inspired by the work we are doing in Henderson town centre and the strong backing from local residents, I discussed the benefits of investment into Henderson. A city is not really a functioning city unless all areas are brought along and receive a fair level of investment and development. The towers that dot the CBD have been built by West and South Aucklanders, and it is about time this city puts more into its suburban centres to benefit our local communities.

5. I was enthralled by a speaker from the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, who questioned the very economic model that is ever-present today. For example, we should not laud the mega-wealthy people who donate to charity like Bill Gates, as they are merely redistributing money that was earned off the back of workers. He advocated for a more progressive approach, where redistribution was encouraged more, and investment into public projects to drive growth. As a representative from Henderson-Massey, it resonated with me and those ideas are worthy of more scrutiny.

Kite Day in Te Atatu Peninsula

6. Hugely successful as always. I think the kite day in Te Atatu was probably the best we have put on, and the Te Atatu residents were delighted. It would have been such a joy to see the kites soaring through the air from all around, and the huge turnout from families having fun. This is what a strong community is all about, getting together and having fun. I’m already excited for the next time.

Resident Enquiries

7. More so than ever, I have been approached by several residents this month, with a wide array of issues and opportunities. I have been particularly touched by the community effort of the residents of Sunnyvale around a walkway that had been used for generations, but blocked off from use by housing developments.

8. Due to an error in the former Waitakere City Council, the consented informal walkway was not discovered when the city signed over land for housing development. Now, we have several hundred residents in Sunnyvale facing a long detour in walking to catch the train, up to 15 minutes in some cases. It is an unacceptable situation, and yet in this time of increased fiscal sacrifices, I doubt the Council has enough funds to fix the problem. At any rate, a fix relies on the cooperation of landowners and different Council departments, a tough ask in itself. So I have promised I will do my best, but I honestly think this may be a sad and instructive case that staff work is crucial to operation of Council core business and needs resourcing to succeed. It really is an awful situation.

Final Word

9. As we go on into winter, we must always think of those less fortunate, struggling to heat their homes, or having no homes at all. If you have ever considered volunteering with a local community group, now would be the time. Stay safe Henderson-Massey, and let’s work together to build the future we deserve.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the Chairperson’s Report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Shane Henderson – Chairperson (Henderson-Massey local board)
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update Report for the Henderson-Massey Local Board - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/05073

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Land Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), provide a summary of consultation material sent to the board and, provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Henderson-Massey Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

i Progress on the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

ii Current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects

iii Consultation on proposed safety improvements

iv Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update to the Henderson-Massey Local Board – April 2018 report.

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

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

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

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

6. There will be a number of public information sessions and the Henderson-Massey Local Board will be informed of these as soon as details are confirmed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Issues Being Investigated

7. The Local board have requested the following issues be investigated and they are in the initial investigation stage:

· a request from a constituent to ask when the walkway on Alan Ave Reserve will be completed – been referred to Auckland Council Parks for action.

· Te Atatu Road and Jaemont Avenue intersection speeding issues – require more time to investigate. AT expects a response by early May 2018

· Westgate Drive/Rush Creek Dr roundabout speeding issues

· Candia Road request for footpath

· Bahari Drive intersection safety concerns

8. Auckland Transport will report to the Local Board on these once the work is completed.

Local Board Transport Fund (LBTCF) Update

9. The Henderson-Massey Local Board’s annual funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $810,647 pa. Future budgets will have an adjustment for inflation added. The following tables note previous decisions and progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments. The table immediately below is an update of progress on the Board’s current projects:

Project	Description	Current Status
Raise existing zebra crossing onto a platform at 126 Rathgar Road	It is proposed to raise the existing zebra crossing onto a raised platform for the visibility of this facility to approaching drivers and to reduce vehicle speeds at this location.	Currently in the detailed design stage. February for traffic resolution committee and then pricing. Aiming for construction during the school holidays in mid April.

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

Vodanovich Road Intersection

10. Internal consultation has been undertaken resulting in some minor changes to the design. The project is being prepared for external consultation before the end of April this will include consultation with the local board.

Triangle Road Congestion Issues

11. Auckland Transport has investigated the congestion and delays experienced on Triangle Road in the vicinity of Waimumu Road to Lincoln Road.

12. Community concerns are acknowledged by Auckland Transport and Police. Police will continue to monitor the site to assist with traffic flow and ensuring vehicles adhere to road user rules.

13. In addition, Auckland Transport are currently investigating medium and long term solutions for this road, and anticipate that further information on options will be available within the next six months.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

14. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for its feedback, and are summarised here for information purposes only.

15. Following consultation, Auckland Transport considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on, or proceed with an amended proposal if changes are considered necessary.

· Road works on Lincoln Road - Abel Tasman to Woodford

· James Laurie Street, Glendene pavement rehab

· Rangeview Road - no stopping at all times parking restrictions

· Ireland Place and around the bends of the intersection of Marinich Drive - broken yellow lines (no stopping at all times parking restrictions)

· Nirmal Place - extension of broken yellow lines

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

16. Decisions of the TCC during the month of March 2018 affecting the Henderson-Massey Local Board area are listed below.

Date	Street (Suburb)	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Decision
1 March-18	Kirby Street, Great North Road, Glendene	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined	Nsaat, bus only parking, bus shelter, lane arrow markings, traffic island, footpath, stop control, flush median, shoulder marking	Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. Auckland Transport provides the Henderson-Massey Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/05344

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board on options for the future size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital fund (LTCF) 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 LTCF 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 Boards 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 Boards Funding Policy be applied to the distribution of the LTCF, 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board endorse:

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 delivered 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.

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 NZTA’s 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 2016-17 financial year was $17 million, as 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. 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 Boards 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 (Appendix 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 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 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 Boards 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 (Appendix B) the option of applying the Local Boards 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 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 Boards Funding Policy.

33. We have modelled (Appendix 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 with 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 boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Boards 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 boards, with the highest funded board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded board (excluding the island boards).

40. Option 1a also results in six 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 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 Boards 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 Boards 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 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 Boards 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 boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all 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 boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller 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 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 board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under Option 2a, five 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 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 Boards 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 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 Boards 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 LTCF

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 3-4 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. 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 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 be able 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	23
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	25
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	27

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Approval for one new road name in the Ngāti Whātua Orākei Trust subdivision at 73-89 Moire Rd, Massey.

File No.: CP2018/04388

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from Henderson-Massey Local Board to change one previously approved road name for a new private road in the Ngāti Whātua Orākei Trust subdivision at 73-89 Moire Rd, Massey.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The Applicant, Ngāti Whātua Orākei Trust, has submitted the following road name:

Access	Type	Preferred	Alternate 1	Alternate 2
JOAL 5	Lane	Old Farm	Conference	Muriels View

4. All of the proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve a changed road name Old Farm Lane for the new private road JOAL 5 with approved name Pereki Lane within the residential subdivision at 73-89 Moire Rd, Massey

Horopaki / Context

5. Henderson-Massey Local Board approved the previous name for JOAL 5 as follows:

21 March 2017 - Pukio Lane approved with 10 other road names in resolution HM/2017/30.

15 February 2018 all 11 names approved notified to LINZ as approved.

15 February 2018 LINZ advise Pukio Lane not acceptable as identical to a lane in Remuera.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider / developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for local board approval.

7. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area

8. Names need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

9. The one new private road to be renamed services properties within the subdivision and is shown on Attachment A.

10. The Applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below. All names meet the criteria through historical association with the area.

Proposed New Road Names	Meaning
JOAL 5	(existing name Pukio Lane)
Old Farm Lane (preferred)	Referencing the McWhirter farm and homestead
Conference Lane	Referencing the pear orchard at the McWhirter farm and homestead
Muriels View Lane	George McWhirter’s wife Muriel May Ella (nee Parker).

11. The road naming criteria suggests that the road types could be referred to as:

Owner	Type	Guideline Description	Applicant Preferred
Private	Lane	Narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway.	Lane

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

12. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to boards. A decision is sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board in this report.

13. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14. Ngāti Whātua Orākei Trust are a joint venture partner with Fletcher Living for this development. Local iwi were consulted previously during original approvals as two of names were originally submitted as alternates in March 2017 but declined comment as none of the names are Māori in nature.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed changed road name is not recoverable as the applicant would have previously paid for the original road name approvals in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges. The need to change the name was because the original road naming process was not completed as LINZ was not notified allowing a similar sounding name to be approved elsewhere.

16. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a key part of the application.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. Approved road names are notified to LINZ who record them on their New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils. On completion of the subdivision through meeting all the resource consent conditions, the roads can be legalised and new property titles issued.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Plan	33

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivisions, Northern Resource Consenting and Compliance

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/04515

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Grants Programme for 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year.

4. This report presents the Henderson-Massey Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 for adoption (see attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) adopt the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan

· specific local board grant priorities

· which grant types will operate, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing dates

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. Once the local board community grants programme for the 2018/2019 financial year has been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria and eligibility with be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which includes utilising the local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The new Henderson-Massey Community Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2018/2019.

10. The new grant programme includes:

· new outcomes and priorities from the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017

· the same number of grant rounds for 2018/2019, as are available in 2017/2018.

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

11. The Community Grants Programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. Therefore, there is minimal risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

15. An implementation plan is underway and the local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including migrant and refugee groups, disability groups, Māori and iwi organisations

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	37

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Reallocation of the 2017/2018 Henderson-Massey Environmental Action Plan Budget

File No.: CP2018/02814

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the reallocation of $9,900 from the 2017/2018 Henderson-Massey Environmental Action Plan budget towards the Love Your Streams, North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu, and Pop Up Bike Hub projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At its June 2017 business meeting, the Henderson-Massey Local Board allocated $9,900 for an Environmental Action Plan project as part of their 2017/2018 local environment and development work programme (resolution HM/2017/104).

3. Funding allocated to the Environmental Action Plan project was approved to support the facilitation of key council and community stakeholders to explore the formation of an Eco-City Forum, including its purpose, focus and how it could inform and collaborate with the board to progress five environmental opportunity areas (Unlock Henderson, North West Wildlink, Connected Henderson-Massey, Sustainable Living, and Healthy Streams, Healthy People).

4. Two of the environmental opportunity areas (Unlock Henderson and North West Wildlink) have already developed collaborative stakeholder mechanisms. There is a high risk that the formation of an Eco-City Forum would duplicate these recently established models for collaboration between the council and community.

5. It is recommended to not progress the Eco-City Forum concept, and to reallocate the $9,900 funding to other environmental projects.

6. Environmental project options were discussed at a workshop with the board on 6 March 2018 and feedback from the board was used to identify the following projects recommended for funding:

· $2,400 for Love Your Streams

· $5,000 for North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu

· $2,500 for Pop Up Bike Hub.

7. This report seeks the board’s approval to reallocate the $9,900 towards these projects for delivery within the 2017/2018 financial year. If approved, the board will receive updates on each of these projects through the quarterly performance reporting process.

8. If the board does not approve the reallocation of budget towards these projects at its April 2018 business meeting, there is a high risk that these projects will not be delivered within the current financial year and budget will not be spent.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the reallocation of $9,900 from the 2017/2018 Henderson-Massey Environmental Action Plan budget towards the environmental projects summarised below:

Project	Budget
Love Your Streams (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	$2,400
North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu (Community Waitākere)	$5,000
Pop Up Bike Hub (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	$2,500
Total budget	$9,900

Horopaki / Context

9. The previous Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan (2014) included an initiative to “prepare an Environmental Action Plan for our area to help coordinate environmental activities across a diverse range of community, council and government groups.” Total funding of $15,000 was allocated to this project through the board’s 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 local environment work programmes.

Stocktake summary

10. A 2015/2016 stock take of environmental action in Henderson-Massey identified over 200 individual environmental projects and programmes that were completed, planned or underway at the time of the report. This information was summarised in an Environmental Action Report for Henderson-Massey. A copy of that report has been included as Attachment A. This work was funded by the local board to a value of $10,000.

11. Of the 200 projects and programmes, 160 projects (80 per cent) were being actively delivered during the period when the data was collected. Collectively the projects and programmes aligned well with both regional and local environmental priorities.

12. In 2017, a contractor interviewed key council and community stakeholders to identify environmental focus areas for Henderson-Massey, and how these could be progressed. A presentation to the board on the findings from these interviews has been included as Attachment B. This work was funded by the local board to a value of $5,000.

13. Five key environmental opportunity areas were identified (Unlock Henderson, Sustainable Living, Wildlink Wonders, Connected Henderson-Massey, and Healthy Streams, Healthy People). The work also explored the possible formation of an Eco-City Forum, involving both community and council stakeholders as a way to collectively progress the five opportunity areas.

14. A further $9,900 was allocated for the current 2017/2018 financial year. There has been no expenditure against this budget to date, due to potential scope change as outlined in this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Current state

15. In 2017/2018, $9,900 funding was allocated to develop the Eco-City Forum. Funding would support facilitation of key council and community stakeholders to explore the formation of an Eco-City Forum, including its purpose, focus and how it could inform and collaborate with the board to progress the environmental opportunity areas.

16. In the meantime, at least two of the key opportunity areas (Unlock Henderson and North West Wildlink) have advanced considerably and have each developed collaborative stakeholder mechanisms. It is highly likely that the formation of an Eco-City Forum would duplicate these already established models for collaboration between council and community.

17. It is recommended to not progress the Eco-City Forum concept, and to reallocate the $9,900 funding to other environmental projects.

Options for change in scope

18. Four options for investing the funds in high priority environmental action were discussed with the board at a workshop on 6 March 2018. Discussion with the board confirmed that all four project options were aligned with board priorities. One project option, the establishment of a North West Wildlink Henderson-Massey Restoration Network, had a longer lead in time than the other options, and staff could not guarantee delivery and full expenditure of funds within the 2017/2018 financial year. This project will instead be considered by the board for inclusion in their 2018/2019 environmental work programme.

19. Staff have confirmed that the remaining three project options are able to be delivered within the 2017/2018 financial year. These projects are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Projects recommended for reallocation of funds

Project		Budget
Love Your Streams (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	Purchase of 565 additional plants to increase streamside restoration in Sunnyvale.	$2,400
North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu (Community Waitākere)	Contribution towards purchase of pest animal traps for this initiative which aims to involve 776 households on the peninsula in pest control.	$5,000
Pop Up Bike Hub (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	Contribution to enable the Henderson Bike Hub to operate four hours every Saturday from April to end of June 2018 in addition to Tuesday and Wednesday operating hours.	$2,500
Total budget		$9,900

Love Your Streams (EcoMatters Environment Trust)

20. To achieve the key initiatives from the board’s plan ‘we are an eco-city’ and ‘community and business care for local streams and protect our precious coastal environments, the board allocated $24,000 in its 2017/2018 local environment and development work programme to fund the EcoMatters Environment Trust’s Love Your Streams initiative.

21. Love Your Streams engages and supports individuals, businesses, schools and community groups to adopt a proactive approach to pollution prevention of Henderson-Massey waterways.

22. This project enables community streamside weeding bees and planting at priority sites in the local board area, including the Manutewhau Stream and in Sunnyvale. The reallocation of $2,400 towards this project will enable the purchase of 565 additional plants for streamside planting in Sunnyvale in the current financial year.

23. Love Your Streams is also included as one of the EcoMatters initiatives in the board’s 2018/2019 draft local environment and development work programme. The purchase of the 565 plants does not duplicate the work planned for 2018/2019 for this project.

North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu (Community Waitākere)

24. The North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu project was developed by Community Waitākere in 2017 in alignment with Pest Free Auckland. The project plan aims to establish pest animal control (rats and mustelids) with 776 private householders (one in five) on the Te Atatu Peninsula. Community Waitākere is leading the initiative in conjunction with other community organisations and council staff.

25. At the December 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting, the committee approved partial funding towards Community Waitākere’s application for a project coordinator through the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants 2017/2018 funding round, to a value of $20,000 (resolution ENV/2017/190). This project is currently in progress. The reallocation of $5,000 to this project will contribute to the purchase of pest animal traps to support the implementation of this initiative.

26. The Pest Free Te Atatu project is included in the board’s 2018/2019 draft local environment and development work programme. The purchase of the pest animal traps would not duplicate the funding sought for 2018/2019 for this project, which includes further support for coordinator time for the project, as well as support for the He Tohu Aroha Trust to build wooden trap covers to exclude non-target species from the traps.

Pop Up Bike Hub (EcoMatters Environment Trust)

27. EcoMatters Environment Trust and Panuku Development Auckland are collaborating on a Pop Up Bike Hub project to activate a future development site at 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson. The project involves establishing a temporary Pop Up Bike Hub to provide free basic bicycle maintenance and a low cost bike hire service using an existing shipping container-style building at the site. The Pop Up Bike Hub will also recommission bikes otherwise destined for landfill and provide maps and information about bike routes, commuting options and other cycling support.

28. Funding already confirmed from Panuku will enable the Pop Up Bike Hub service to operate four hours per day on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from April 2018 until September 2018. On Tuesdays, the Pop Up Bike Hub will operate from 2.00pm until 6.00pm and Henderson High School students will be invited to participate in bike hub activities after school. The reallocation of $2,500 to this project will enable the Pop Up Bike Hub to operate four hours every Saturday from April 2018 until the end of June 2018, in addition to the Tuesday and Wednesday operating hours. The Saturday opening hours would coincide with the operation of a temporary pump cycle track at the site.

29. The Pop Up Bike Hub project is proposed in the board’s 2018/2019 draft local environment and development work programme. The provision of $2,500 of funding for this project in 2017/2018 will not duplicate the funding sought from the board in 2018/2019. Trialling the Saturday opening hours in the current financial year would provide valuable information about how the service could be optimised in 2018/2019.

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

30. Providing support for the Love Your Streams and Pest Free Te Atatu projects would further enable the environmental work of local community organisations to restore natural habitats within the local board area.

31. The Pop Up Bike Hub would promote use of the Project Twin Streams cycle ways in the local board area. The operation of Bike Hubs in other locations, including the Whau Local Board area, has demonstrated that the Pop Up Bike Hub would provide a service that will complement and provide referrals to local bike-related businesses.

32. The projects noted above align with the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2014 outcome ‘A community that values its environment’.

33. The options for reallocating funds from the Environmental Action Plan project were discussed with the board at a workshop on 6 March 2018, and members indicated their support in principle of the three projects outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

34. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

35. Table 2 below outlines how projects contribute to Māori outcomes.

Table 2. Māori outcome assessment for proposed projects

Project	Māori Outcome Assessment
Love Your Streams (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	Restoring streamside habitat will improve the mauri of the waterways, so healthy ecosystems and biodiversity are sustained.
North West Wildlink – Pest Free Te Atatu (Community Waitākere)	Management of pest animals is of significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of natural environments. Project collaborators include He Tohu Aroha Trust, who will be making trap covers using wood from surplus pallets donated by local businesses.
Pop Up Bike Hub (EcoMatters Environment Trust)	Sustainable resource management is core to the concept of kaitiakitanga. Replacing car journeys with active transport modes reduces greenhouse gas emissions and assists with preserving the climate for future generations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36. The recommended projects can be delivered within existing budgets, as it would involve the reallocation of $9,900 previously approved for the delivery of the Eco-City Forum.

37. The reallocation of $2,400 towards Love Your Streams will bring the total budget for the project to $26,400 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

38. The funding of the proposed projects in the current financial year will not have financial implications for the projects proposed for funding through the local board’s draft 2018/2019 local environment and development work programme. While all three of the proposed projects are included in the board’s draft 2018/2019 local environment and development work programme, the project components proposed for funding in 2017/2018 are separate to those proposed for funding in 2018/2019. Funding the 2017/2018 components of the projects does not commit the board to further funding of the projects in 2018/2019. The draft 2018/2019 local environment and development work programme will be considered for approval by the board by June 2018.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

39. All of the projects recommended for the reallocation of funds are in progress, have robust implementation plans, and are being led by community organisations with a strong track record of quality delivery. As such, all projects can be successfully delivered within the current financial year, should the budget be reallocated towards these projects at the April 2018 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting.

40. If the board does not approve the reallocation of budget towards these projects at its April 2018 business meeting, there is a risk that no projects will be delivered against this budget within the financial year, and the budget will be given up as savings.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

41. Subject to approval at the board’s April 2018 business meeting, the funded components of the projects will be completed by 30 June 2018. Regular reporting on project delivery will be provided through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services contribution to the board’s quarterly performance report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Environmental Action Report 2017	47
b ⇩	Presentation Henderson-Massey; Working Together for Environmental and Social Wellbeing	89

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Robert Sutherland – Low Carbon Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Pratt – Low Carbon Living Team Manager

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04725

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Henderson-Massey 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) delegates the authority to the appointed local board member, to prepare and submit local board views and speak 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 the 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 members 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 member of the Henderson-Massey Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Henderson-Massey Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Auckland Food Alliance

File No.: CP2018/04888

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement for the development and implementation of a pilot Auckland Food Alliance with an initial focus on five local board areas including

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Our existing food system is based on mass production and mass consumption, making it hard to access healthy, affordable and locally produced food. This often comes with unsustainable social, economic and environmental side effects including poor farming practices, small local enterprises unable to compete with large multinationals, high rates of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and obesity, food waste, and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions (19-29% of total emissions globally^{^[7]}).

3. Meanwhile our ability to meet future demand is subject to a range of pressures including rapid population growth, a changing climate, and loss of productive soils to land development.

4. There is currently no holistic strategic direction for Auckland’s food system, however, its cross-cutting nature means that it is partially addressed in several council plans (Attachment A). The Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative have reviewed local, national and international best practice and feedback from internal and external stakeholders to identify options that address policy gaps and improve coordination, across these plans and the wider food system.

5. Based on this analysis, staff propose to develop a pilot Food Policy for council called the Auckland Food Alliance. The Alliance would bring together 10-15 influential stakeholder organisations from across the food system (production, distribution, processing, consumption and waste) to address regional systemic issues and remove the road blocks that can sometimes impede the success and ‘scaling up’ of local initiatives.

6. The Auckland Food Alliance will provide expert strategic advice to council and other stakeholders on inter-related regional food policy development and advocate on national food policy issues.

7. It is proposed that the pilot focus in five local board areas; Waitakere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Mangere-Otahuhu and Manurewa. These areas have been chosen to build on existing momentum of communities who are actively engaged in food initiatives, and because they are within the Healthy Families operational boundaries and therefore have a predetermined need.

8. Workshops held in the pilot local board areas in March 2018 have provided valuable feedback that has informed the recommendations proposed and have established further context, needs and barriers for consideration by the Alliance.

9. This top down policy approach will complement the grass-roots movement of local communities by considering systemic issues that are often difficult to address at a local level such as complex regulation, unsustainable business practices and loss of productive land. Local boards in the pilot area would further benefit from the highlighting of local issues.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) endorse establishment of a pilot Auckland Food Alliance for a period of two years from August 2018,

b) endorse the approach for Auckland Food Alliance, once established, to focus on Henderson-Massey local board during the pilot phase,

c) request a minimum of six-monthly updates from the Alliance on progress.

Problem definition

10. Research and consultation with local boards had identified significant issues with the food system that cut across economic, environment and social wellbeing.

11. For example, in Auckland we have:

· Poor access to affordable fresh and nutritious foods. Research in New Zealand has found that those who are food insecure (i.e., a lack of access to safe, nutritious and affordable food) report higher levels of psychological distress, as well as wider impacts on nutrition and physical health.

· Loss of productive soils to urbanisation – only one per cent of the Auckland Region’s soils are considered Class 1 (elite) and suitable for vegetable production. Approximately 86 per cent of this is in the Pukekohe area, a renowned powerhouse of outdoor vegetable production for New Zealand.^{^[8]} This is also an area under pressure from urban development where 14 per cent of Class 1 soils have been or will be encroached upon by 2040.

· High volumes of food waste (45 per cent of household kerbside collection)^{^[9]} representing missed opportunity to feed people, animals and plants, and producing greenhouse gas emissions.

· Health inequality - high rates of obesity (Auckland = 28 per cent; Asian = 13.4 per cent; European/other = 24.6 per cent; Maori = 44 per cent; Pasifika = 68 per cent)^{^[10]}, non-communicable diseases such as diabetes (Auckland = 7.5 per cent; Mangere = 17.3 per cent)^{^[11]} and malnutrition.

· Environmental degradation due to non-sustainable production methods, particularly water quality, with elevated levels of nitrates in surface and ground water^{^[12]}, and nearly a third of Auckland’s rivers classified as poor on the swimmability scale^{^[13]}.

12. There are already a large number of successful, local activities being undertaken across Auckland by council, community groups, non-profit organisations and government agencies with the support of local boards. These activities are predominantly focused around urban production/community gardens, food waste and health education.

13. However, engagement across stakeholders, including the Sustainable Business Network, EcoMatters, Kai Auckland, Auckland Regional Public Health Service, Healthy Families, Gardens4Health and C40’s global cities network, has highlighted a gap at the regional policy level, with missed opportunities to address regional systemic issues and further support local programmes.

14. Additionally, there are significant and complex underlying issues (such as unsustainable business practices, complex regulation, lack of understanding of resilience across the system) that will require collaboration across stakeholders to address.

Food Policy Councils

15. Internationally there is a growing number of successful food governance structures tackling these issues such as the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, Toronto Food Policy Council, Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Food Policy Council (Seattle), and Melbourne’s Food City.

16. These Food Policy Councils and others like them have been established to bring together stakeholders to examine how a local food system is functioning and develop opportunities to improve it. The councils review and look at the system as a whole, influencing decision makers and remove the road blocks that can sometimes impede the success and ‘scaling up’ of local initiatives to deliver healthy, equitable and resilient outcomes.

17. Based on this analysis, it is proposed that a Food Policy Council be created for Auckland called the Auckland Food Alliance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Auckland Food Alliance proposal

18. The Alliance proposal is for an independent advisory group that provides expert, strategic advice to Auckland Council and other stakeholders, and advocates on national policy.

19. It would operate on the following principles:

· Foster collaboration and innovation among diverse stakeholders.

· Operate on a strategic level, ensuring a holistic overview of regional issues.

· Advise on interrelated policy-making to council and other stakeholders and advocate on national policy issues.

20. Membership would comprise 10-15 member organisations representing a cross-section of Auckland’s food system across public, voluntary and private sectors. Member organisations would appoint a suitable senior representative to participate in Alliance activities.

21. The Alliance would be supported by a smaller working group and secretariat services will be provided by Auckland Council through the Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative.

22. Staff will initially support the Alliance to develop terms of reference, a food charter clearly stating its purpose and objectives to guide its work (in line with international best practice), and a preliminary action plan identifying a small number of discrete actions to focus Alliance efforts.

Pilot areas

23. It is proposed that the initial focus of the Alliance be in five local board areas: Waitakere Ranges; Henderson-Massey; Whau; Mangere-Otahuhu; and Manurewa. These areas were chosen as they are all within the Healthy Families operational boundaries and therefore a predetermined need exists, and because these communities and local boards are actively engaged in local food initiatives.

24. Healthy Families Waitakere is engaged in a programme of community food projects being rolled out across the western local boards including the My Backyard Garden Project, Fresh Choice (recipes and ingredient lists to feed a family of six for under $50), a Food Banks Network and are in the process of forming a Local Food Network group. In addition to these, there are a number of location specific projects led by various community stakeholders, for example:

· Waitakere Ranges – Glen Eden Transition Towns Veggie Swap Meet and composting workshops; Hoani Waititi Marae Maara Kai (edible garden and workshops with a focus on Maramataka, the Maori lunar calendar)

· Henderson-Massey – Vision West’s Social enterprise café, food bank and proposed food store; The Kitchen Project in Henderson; Triangle Park and Woodside Road Community Gardens.

· Whau - Ecomatters community garden and educational workshops; Avondale Community Fridge; Generation Ignite Food Bank including cooking and nutrition training.

25. The Southern Initiative in partnership with Healthy Families South are also involved in a programme of food projects across southern local boards including development of Food and Beverage Guidelines for public facilities, The Kitchen Project, a social supermarket and Fresh Choice South (recipes and ingredient lists to feed a family of six for under $50). There are also location specific projects being undertaken by various community stakeholders including:

· Mangere-Otahuhu – Old School Reserve Teaching Gardens; Cook Island Development Agency New Zealand community garden and community food enterprise support; Fale Kofi social enterprise café at Otahuhu Station

· Manurewa – Manurewa Marae Para Kore and community garden; Manurewa Community Teaching Gardens; Clendon Pride Project Community House teaching gardens and Clendon Shopping Centre community fruit orchard.

26. A targeted focus in the first instance will enable clear direction and an opportunity to deliver regional actions of importance to priority local board areas. However, the Alliance will be established with a clear remit for delivery on wider regional issues in the longer term.

27. A short list of priority policy actions will be identified with the assistance of local stakeholders, ensuring a complementary top down approach that could assist the implementation or upscaling of local initiatives.

28. If agreed, it is proposed that the Alliance will report to the Environment and Community Committee and that the committee is represented on the Alliance to maintain a strong link to decision makers.

Proposed method of communication with local boards

29. Based on feedback from local board workshops, 6-monthly updates to local board business meetings are the proposed method of communication between local boards and the Alliance.

Options analysis

30. From analysis of international and local food policy councils, a key learning has been that form and function vary widely but the most defining success factor is the relationship to a local government entity. That is, how structural ties or the level of support provided, bear on the perceived level of independence from decision makers, the ability to influence decision makers, and the sustainability of a food policy council.

31. As many successful food policy councils have some link to a government entity, two of the options explored (2 & 3) have strong links to council with differing levels of independence. Table 1 provides a summary of options considered.

Table 1: Options Analysis Summary

Option	Description
Options 1: Do nothing	No costs or staff time required, but regional systemic issues are not addressed leading to reduced resilience, environmental, economic and social outcomes.
Option 2: Establish Auckland Food Alliance following the One Voice: Sports and Recreation model (recommended option) Attachment B contains the One Voice terms of reference	This is an independent, voluntary group endorsed by council. The Alliance is accountable to the Environment and Community Committee (ECC) and has ECC representation on the group. It is based on an existing model with demonstrated successes. Independence allows greater flexibility in its work programme and potential to apply for external funding in future.
Option 3: Establish Auckland Food Alliance as an Auckland Council Advisory Panel	This group is embedded within councils existing structure of advisory panels. As such it has a strong mandate from council and visibility of council work programme. The panel has elected member representation and funding is secured through the LTP from the next LTP review cycle. The work programme is more directed, largely based on council’s work programme.

32. Options were assessed against a set of criteria including the flexibility of the work programme, their accountability and reporting requirements, likely funding and administration support, flexibility of operational structure, attractiveness to prospective members and opportunity for community engagement.

33. Option 2, the Auckland Food Alliance based on the One Voice model is recommended because it is independent of council’s structure, enabling more freedom in work plan development (e.g. to advise on regional policy gaps, advocate on national issues and partner with other stakeholders) and is likely to invoke a greater level of trust from the community. This option also includes the key benefits of Option 3 with strong links to decisions makers and support from council staff.

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

34. At the time of writing this report, workshops had been held with Waitakere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Mangere-Otahuhu and Manurewa.

35. The purpose of the workshops was to introduce the concept of food systems thinking, introduce the Auckland Food Alliance proposal and obtain feedback on local issues, potential regional of national policy solutions, local stakeholders and preferred method of communication with the Auckland Food Alliance.

36. Feedback has informed this report and learning will also be integrated into the work programme of the Alliance.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

37. At the time of writing this report, no official consultation with Māori had been undertaken, however, consultation is planned.

38. Initial review of available literature indicates that Māori and Pasifika groups are disproportionately impacted by an ill performing Auckland food system and that food is of significant cultural value.

39. In response, the Auckland Food Alliance concept will be piloted in local board areas representative of high Māori and Pasifika occupancy and adverse food system impacts.

40. Council is committed to working through any impacts of the proposal with Maori and involving Māori in development of the Auckland Food Alliance and in the membership.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

41. The estimated cost to council will be met within existing budgets and primarily involve staff time and provision of secretariat support through the Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative.

42. Ongoing operational costs and staff time will be approximately $1500 per annum and eight hours per month.

43. Additional funds and staff time will be required during the implementation phase of the Alliance (first six months). Estimated costs are $3000 for two facilitated workshops and four days staff time per month.

44. In terms of direct financial implications for local boards, no funding is requested. Broader local board funding decisions with food-related outcomes may benefit from being joined up and aligned with Alliance initiatives to better amplify local impact.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

45. The proposed Alliance is a low risk initiative overall due to the small financial commitment required from council and measures incorporated in the design to support long-term sustainability.

46. The key risk associated with the recommended Option 2 relates to the long-term sustainability of the Alliance due to its independent and largely voluntary structure. It is proposed that this risk be mitigated by adopting best practice and lessons learned from One Voice: Sports and Recreation model (that has been operating for more than 6 years) and analysis of international food policy councils, provision of staff support, and regular ‘fit for purpose’ reviews.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

47. If endorsed, a proposal will be submitted to the Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 and pending approval, implementation will begin in August 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - AC Food Related Plans and Strategies	121
b ⇩	Attachment B - OneVoice_Terms of Reference	125

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Lauren Simpson, Princepal Sustainability & Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board six-monthly update 1 September 2017 - 28 February 2018

File No.: CP2018/04118

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Henderson-Massey Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area for the six months from 1 September 2017 to 28 February 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Panuku was established in September 2015 due to the merger of two Council Controlled Organisations, Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL).

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board update for 1 September 2017 to 28 February 2018.

Horopaki / Context

Local Activities

Development

5. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

6. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery, to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

7. Below is a high-level update on development activities in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area:

8. Unlock Henderson

9. A high level update on the Unlock Henderson priority location below. Unlock priority locations are areas where Council is not necessarily the major land holder and have been identified as requiring Panuku to be the facilitator by using our relationships to break down barriers and influencing others including Council family organisations to create development opportunities.

10. Henderson was chosen as an Unlock location as the result of a council-led assessment across the region’s urban centres. These were chosen based on development potential including scale and impact, key land holdings, commercial viability, partnership opportunities, the ability to leverage off previous investment and proximity to public transport.

11. The Unlock Henderson project area is generally aligned to the Metropolitan Centre zoning and is bounded to the north by Tui Glen Reserve, to the west by Waitematā Rugby Park, the south by the Auckland Film Studios site and to the east by Waitakere Mega Centre.

12. Panuku completed a High Level Project Plan (HLPP) for Henderson in May 2017. An HLPP is a project initiation document used to detail the short, medium and long term goals for an area. It seeks to obtain approval for any additional actions to give effect to the HLPP in Henderson, including site disposals, detailed project planning, design and analysis.

13. The HLPP was approved by the Henderson-Massey Local Board, Panuku Board, Planning Committee and Finance and Performance Committee. The next steps for all Unlock and Transform locations is to prepare a Programme Business Case to priortise the next ten years of work.

Project Update:

14. 2-4 Henderson Valley Road – Subdivision works consent lodgement is imminent. Approval to undertake the proposed onsite road and greenway as part of the Opanuku Link is expected by the end of March.

15. Falls and Alderman car parks – Parking study is complete, AT is assessing to determine upliftment of parking designations. This carpark has been identified as part of the Mayor’s C40 (carbon neutral) initiative.

16. Opanuku Link – This project includes a new path and bridge between Corban Estate and an upgraded playground at Opanuku Reserve. The project funded by the Henderson-Massey local board. Public consultation for this project commences from 14 April for a three week period. Online feedback is sought through the Council, ‘have your say’ website. Feedback from the consultation will inform the final design of the upgraded playground and park layout. The project team is working through initial concept design and geo tech studies. Expression of Interest for artists to join the project team will be sought in April for the pedestrian and cyclist bridge and the upgraded playground.

17. Place Making is a core part of the work we do in Henderson. As part of Place Programme the following initiatives are taking place; The Big Screen Cuisine on 14 April includes an outdoor cinema, food trucks and walking and cycling discovery trail along the Project Twin Streams paths. At 2-4 Henderson Valley Rd in addition to the community gardens there is now a 6 month trial for a Bike Hub managed by Eco Matters Trust and a free to use modular pump track for the month of April.

18. The Commercial Place Making team is working with ATEED and Healthy Families to deliver The Kitchen Project. The project supports food entrepreneurs who are starting out, providing them with affordable commercial kitchen space for product development and mentoring. These businesses will be financially sustainable and bring healthier and diverse food choices to the communities of west Auckland. The first intake closed in March of 2018 and 6 entrepreneurs have begun their mentoring.

Portfolio management

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

20. As at 31 January 2018, the property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

21. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 31 January 2018 was above budget, with a net surplus to council and AT shareholders of $1.1m ahead of budget.

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

Properties managed in the Henderson-Massey Local Board Area

23. Panuku currently manages 23 commercial and 9 residential interests within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

Business interests

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

25. There are currently no managed business interests in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

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

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

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

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

Performance

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

30. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60m disposal recommendations	$30.25m as at 28 February 2018

Process

31. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage ‘rationalisation’ process. The agreed process includes engagement with council, council-controlled organisations (CCOs), the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

32. Properties currently under review in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area are listed below. This list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale, or development and sale by the Governing Body.

Property

Details

adj. 1/18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui

Vacant land that is a local purpose road reserve vested upon subdivision with the former Waitemata City Council in 1985.

AT advised it has no strategic requirement for the subject site to be retained. Council’s Parks department also advised there is no requirement to use the subject site for open space purposes.

The rationalisation process commenced in July 2017. No alternate service uses were identified during the internal consultation.

Panuku attended a workshop with the board in February 2018 regarding the subject site. The board did not raise any concerns regarding the proposed disposal.

adj. 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson

Vacant land that is road reserve vested upon subdivision with the former County of Waitemata in 1974.

AT advised it has no strategic requirement for the subject site to be retained. Council’s Parks department also advised there is no requirement to use the subject site for open space purposes.

The rationalisation process commenced in July 2017. No expressions of interest were received during the internal consultation.

Panuku attended a workshop with the board in February 2018 regarding the subject site. The board did not raise any concerns regarding the proposed disposal.

Acquisitions and Disposals

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

Acquisitions

34. Panuku does not decide which properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of council.

35. Panuku purchased eight properties for open space across Auckland in this financial year (ending 30 June 2018) at a cost of $19.7m, and also bought six properties for storm water use at a value of $4.2m.

36. No properties were purchased in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

37. The disposal team sold eight properties for a total of $10.7m this financial year. The team’s 2017/2018 target is $8.0m for the year. The target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

38. No properties were sold in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

Housing for Older People

39. The council owns 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland, which provides rental housing to low income older people in Auckland.

40. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involved the council partnering with a third-party organisation, The Selwyn Foundation, to deliver social rental housing services for older people across Auckland.

41. The joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing, took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

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

43. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a new multi-year residential development programme.

44. The first new development project is a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site on Henderson Valley Road, Henderson. Once completed in mid-2019, this development will increase the council’s portfolio to 1452 units.

45. The following HfOP villages are located within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Flagstaff Court	6 Flagstaff Place, Massey	27
Jack Smyth village	14 Royal Road, Massey	20
Kaumatua Village	11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu	44

46. Lots 1 & 2, 21-33 Henderson Valley Road (former Wilsher Village land) – Panuku will develop Lot 1 (circa 3,000m2) for social housing for older people, and sell Lot 2 (1.3 hectare) to a development partner to be developed for general housing purposes.

47. Lot 1 - Social Housing for Older People Development – Building consent is now lodged and a process underway to appoint a contractor for Lot 1, to build 40 housing for older people homes in a four-storey building. Upon completion, the units will be managed by the Auckland Council and the Selwyn Foundation joint venture community housing provider Haumaru Housing. The program provides for works to commence on site in May 2018 with the homes ready for occupation mid-2019. Arrangements are being made for a site blessing at the beginning of May before construction commences on site.

48. Lot 2 - 1.3ha vacant land sale for residential housing development – The sale campaign for Lot 2 commenced mid-October 2017 with the tender closing in November 2017. It is the intention that the 1.3 ha. of land is sold to a development partner for the purpose that the site be developed for residential housing. The proceeds of sale will be applied, together with existing funding outlined in the council’s Long Term Plan, to fund the new 40 unit HfOP village on Lot 1. The property sale to housing developer was subject to a conditional contract signed 21 December 2017. The agreement was subject to a vendor due diligence clause which expired beginning of March 2018, however this condition wasn’t satisfied and the contract has subsequently been cancelled. Investigations are now underway as to how the site could be developed as a pilot project for the government’s KiwiBuild initiative.

Regional Activities

Highlights

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

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

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

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

Transform locations

53. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week.

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

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

· The innovation precinct in Wynyard Quarter has expanded with the newly opened five-floor building at 12 Madden Street. The purpose-built home for entrepreneurs offers the latest in flexible co-working spaces. This milestone marks two years since the GridAKL initiative was launched by Auckland Tourism, Events, and Economic Development (ATEED), partnering with Panuku and Precinct Properties to develop the commercial space to house ambitious companies and connecting technologists, designers, digital content makers, product designers and start-ups.

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

54. ‘Transform Manukau’ was the first location to have a Framework Plan completed, outlining the five key moves for the project and the vision for Manukau in 2040. Over the past six months, the emphasis has been on confirming the delivery of an affordable housing development on 5ha of land at 20 Barrowcliffe Place. This project will be Panuku’s largest development of affordable housing and involves the first partnership arrangement with mana whenua in a property development role. Earthworks on the development of over 200 homes will commence soon. Work is also about to commence on the street-scape upgrade of Putney Way, in conjunction with the bus station process led by AT.

55. The high-level plan to ‘Transform Onehunga’, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, was approved in March 2017. The plan was completed involving significant consultation with the community. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The East-West link, which affects the wharf and southern parts of the area, is currently being reassessed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The final board of inquiry decision approving the East-West link was given in January 2018. Panuku is however, expecting amended plans later this year. Working with the local board and key stakeholders, Panuku has advanced plans on the town centre and the Onehunga wharf precinct where possible. The Framework Plan that will guide the transformation is due for completion in April 2018.

Unlock locations

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

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

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

59. The opportunity to revitalise Avondale has been given the green light in November 2017 with the approval of the over-arching plan for its regeneration by the Planning Committee. The vision for Avondale will be enabled through a number of key moves. Panuku will work closely with the local board and community to implement a retail strategy that attracts new businesses, increasing diversity of products and services. The train station, upgraded bus network and new cycleways offer great transport options and we will continue to strengthen connections between these activity hubs and the town. A focus for the regeneration of Avondale is working with developers to build quality residential neighbourhoods that offer a mix of housing types, including terraces and apartments. A number of significant developments are already underway in the area.

60. The Council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June 2017. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the mall, a 2.5ha block of land, which will see the area opened up with a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded carpark and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall, which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

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

Support locations

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

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

63. This report is for the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s information.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

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

67. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 13 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

68. Māori make up 16 percent of the Henderson-Massey Local Board population, and there is three marae located within the local board area.

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Marieke Numan – Senior Engagement Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2018/05090

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To present to the Henderson-Massey Local Board with their most current governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) note the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for April 2018. (attachment A).

Horopaki / Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Program - April 2018	159

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2018

Additions to the 2016-2019 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2018/05341

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Seeking approval for two meeting dates to be added to the 2016-2019 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted the 2016-2019 meeting schedule on 23 November 2016.

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the 10-year Budget 2018-28 were unknown.

4. The board is being asked to approve two meeting dates as additions to the Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule so that the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve two meeting dates to be added to the 2016-2019 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2018-28 timeframes as follows:

· Tuesday, 9 May 2018, 10.00am

· Tuesday, 5 June 2018, 10.00am

b) note the venue for both meetings will be in the Council Chamber (level 2) 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson.

Horopaki / Context

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

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

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

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

7. The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted its business meeting schedule at its 23 November 2016 business meeting.

8. The timeframes for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement which is part of the 10-year Budget 2018-28 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early May and early June to feed into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. The board has two choices:

i) Add the two meetings as additions to the meeting schedule.

ii) Add the two meetings as extraordinary meetings.

11. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However there is a risk that if the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 timeframes change or the information is not ready for the meeting there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled anyway.

12. For option two, only the specific topic 10-year Budget 2018-2028 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process could be considered at this meeting.

13. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend approving these meetings as additions to the meeting schedule as it allows more flexibility for the board to consider a range of issues.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

[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

[7] The Annual Review of Environment and Resources - environ.annualreviews.org

[8] Auckland’s Prime and Elite Soils 2013:TP2013/050, Auckland Council

[9] Most recent draft inventory, Waste Solutions, Auckland Council

[10] http://www.healthyaucklandtogether.org.nz/assets/Summary-Reports/HAT-Monitoring-Report-2017.pdf

[11] https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2016/vol-129-no-1436-10-june-2016/6915

[12] Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in Franklin Surface and Groundwater: A Review: TP2016/015

[13] LAWA: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/about-freshwater/auckland

Chairperson	Shane Henderson
Deputy Chairperson	Peter Chan, JP
Members	Paula Bold-Wilson
	Brenda Brady, JP
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Vanessa Neeson, JP