Agenda of Howick 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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Howick Local Board:

a) confirm the minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Monday, 19 March 2018, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

7.1 Petition - Ti Rakau Drive, changing white lines

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

Colin Pratt, a resident at Dale Crescent, Pakuranga will be in attendance to present a petition on the removal of the keep clear and changing white lines on Ti Rakau Drive by Auckland Transport.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the petition regarding the removal of Keep Clear and changing white lines on Ti Rakau Drive and thank Colin Pratt for his attendance.

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Highbrook Watersports Centre Project

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

Members of the Auckland Rowing Association and the Auckland Region Outrigger Canoe Association will be in attendance to present to the board on the Highbrook Watersports Centre Project.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from the representatives of the Auckland Rowing Association and the Auckland Region Outrigger Canoe Association and thank them for the presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

Auckland Transport Monthly Update - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/04809

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

· Responses to recent HLB ‘resolutions’.

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

· A summary of consultation for future Auckland Transport activities.

· Discussion of associated risks and engagement issues.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) note or receive Auckland Transport’s February 2017 update report.

Horopaki / Context

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

New Network

4. The Eastern New Network is a public transport plan that simplifies bus routes across Howick. The Eastern New Network became operational on 10 December 2017. The plan is to simplify public transport routes increasing reliability because there are more buses servicing each individual route.

5. The most significant issue related to the New Network were the changes made to school bus routes. Now it is almost the end of the first school term and this problem appears to have been managed. Schools started for the year in February and at that time a number of schools reported scheduling issues but these have now been addressed and the number of complaints has decreased.

6. Around the world, the introduction of new bus networks tends to start with a reduction in patronage. New Network services are monitored and reviewed regularly and this was not the case in East Auckland where patronage rose. In January, a 5 % increase in patronage was recorded. The 5 % increase in patronage equates to about 5000 extra trips being made per month. This is a good result. In coming months Auckland Transport will provide more information as it becomes available.

AMETI

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

8. The AMETI project team briefed the project stakeholder group (including HLB representation) on 12 March 2018. The most important news was that Auckland Council has approved resource consent and recommended approval of the Notice of Requirement. This decision brings the Panmure to Pakuranga stage of AMETI a step closer it follows a detailed consultation process and the independent Notice of Requirement hearing.

9. Communication with the community continues to be a focus, information sessions are going well, and the general response from the public has been positive. There are a few more public events in April and more are planned for later in the year.

Ti Rakau Drive Buslanes

10. Bus lanes and intersection improvements are planned for Ti Rakau Drive between Botany and Pakuranga. The intersections are being modified to improve traffic flow. Overall, the aim is to improve the reliability of bus services on this stretch of road.

11. The project is broken into six parts as follows:

· Introduce peak hour bus lanes on Ti Rakau Drive, between Wheatley Avenue and Gossamer Drive.

· Remove right turns at the Edgewater Drive (east) intersection with Ti Rakau Drive.

· Introduce two right turn traffic lanes into Gossamer Drive from Ti Rakau Drive.

· Extend the two left turn traffic lanes into Botany Road from Ti Rakau Drive.

· Extend the left turn lane into Ti Rakau Drive by changing the layout of Te Irirangi Drive at the Countdown entrance.

· Introduce two left turn traffic lanes into Chapel Road from Ti Rakau Drive.

12. At this time the plan is to start construction of the first three sections in December 2018. This is a planned start date and is subject to the next design stage, temporary traffic management and approvals. Auckland Transport doesn’t anticipate starting the other work until after July 2019.

13. The project will not remove lanes of traffic (i.e. there will still be two lanes of normal traffic in each direction) but will provide a clear, congestion free lane for buses.

RLTP

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

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

16. RLTP consultation is scheduled for late April and early May 2018. It is very important that all Local Boards participate in the consultation and make their feelings about Auckland Transport’s work programme known.

17. Details of the process are as follows:

· RLTP consultation will begin on Monday 23 April 2018 and close on Sunday 6 May 2018.

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

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

· There will be a number of public information sessions and the HLB will be informed of these as soon as details are confirmed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

18. First responses are provided to ‘Resolutions’ made by the HLB last month. Then a number of transport related issues are discussed in this part of the report. Analysis and advice about Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects is followed by discussion of the other local Auckland Transport projects.

Responding to Resolutions

19. The ‘Resolutions’ are recorded below in bold. Auckland Transport’s response is below the ‘Resolutions’ in normal font.

a)….request Auckland Transport to remove the bus stop from 43 Cook Street, Howick.

a) ….request Auckland Transport to review the bus stop changes flagged by the board at the workshops on 18 and 25 October 2017. Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

20. Auckland Transport has responded to these ‘resolutions’ with a letter from the senior manager responsible for the Eastern New Network project.

21. The letter is included as Attachment A.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

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

· Be safe.

· Not impede network efficiency.

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

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

24. On 15 February 2018, Auckland Transport reviewed the HLB’s current work programme for its Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Auckland Transport staff provided information, updates about projects, and provided ‘quality advice’ to the HLB about delivery of a range of projects. Auckland Transport strongly encourages all Local Board’s to identify potential projects as early as possible to ensure delivery within the current electoral term.

25. The fund is intended to allow local boards to build transport focused local improvements in their areas. Ideally, projects would be completed during the term of the local board that initiated them. However, for those boards who have yet to commit funding to projects this is increasingly unlikely.

26. This is because projects take time to investigate, design and build and are allocated to project managers and contractors on a first come, first served basis. Local boards that delay allocating their Local Board Transport Capital Fund may not see their projects built during this term.

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

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

General Overview
Project	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed
Half Moon Bay Ferry Pier and Bus Turnaround		Providing better facilities for ferry passengers at Half Moon Bay Funding for this project was allocated last term.
Buckland’s Beach Walkway Improvements		At this stage, the roundabout is ‘on hold’. Expert advice has been provided that it is not practical to build the roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads. Work continues on the project to improve pedestrian facilities on ‘The Parade’.
Howick Village Centre Plan		Supporting the Howick Village Centre Plan. Currently ‘on hold’.
Cascades Walkway		Building a footpath on Cascade Road that will provide access under the bridge on the western edge of the golf course to the walking track that follows the stream.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarize the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and on budget. Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved. Red - An major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved Black – The project has been investigated and the HLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.
Detailed Project Progress Report
*Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal* The pier is complete and was opened on 7 April 2017. The next step is building a bus turn around area. The contract has now be let and work will start in May 2018. The planned completion date is the end of June 2018.
*Bucklands Beach Update* Auckland Transport recently reported to the HLB about both projects: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads A Rough Order of Cost for each of these projects was provided in August 2017 and design work continues. The Rough Order of Costs provided are: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade - Approx. $ 80,000 · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads – Approx $ 450,000 An independent contractor has reviewed building a round-about at the intersection of Buckland’s Beach and Whitcombe Road and concluded that this is not practical. The HLB has disputed the report and a meeting is being organized with the contractor to discuss the report. The project manager is still working on detailed costings for improving pedestrian facilities on ‘The Parade’. The project manager has been contacted by the Elected Member Relationship Manager and is organizing the contractor to discuss the report.
*Howick Village Centre Plan* Rough Orders of Cost were requested for four projects to support the Howick Village Centre Plan in October 2017. Roogh Orders of Cost for three of the four projects have been provided: · Improving the pedestrian linkages between Howick Village and Stockade Hill : Approx. $320, 000 · Footpath Upgrade on Uxbridge and Selwyn Road : Approx. $370- $920,000 depending on specifications · Picton Street Improvements: Approx.$1.5 – $2.7 million depending on options. Auckland Transport suggested that starting ‘detailed design’ would provide the resourcing to run a comprehensive and inclusive planning process involving Council, local shop owners and other stakeholders. The HLB did not support authorizing Auckland Transport to start ‘detailed design’.
*Cascades Walkway* The project is currently undergoing internal consultation and the resource consent process is starting. This will require an arborist’s report to complete. Auckland Transport plans to have the ‘Firm Cost Estimate’ ready by the middle of 2018. The Rough Order of Cost has been updated to $298,000 and the cost of design work to date is $7,221.25.

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

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

Consultations

29. Auckland Transport provides the HLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this Local Board Area. Last month three projects were circulated for comment. Attachment C lists them.

30. Normally Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions from March 2018 would be included in this report but this information was not available at the time this report was drafted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35. No significant risks have been idenitifed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

Consultations

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A	21
b ⇩	Attachment B	27

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

Land owner approval for the demolition of a redundant garage at the Eastgate Community Trust Facility on Lloyd Elsmore Park

File No.: CP2018/03951

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request that the Howick Local Board grant land owner approval to the Eastgate Community Trust for the demolition of a redundant council owned garage at the Eastgate Community Trust leased facility at 427 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Eastgate Community Trust currently hold a community lease and operate a support service for young people with disabilities from the tenant-owned building on Lloyd Elsmore Park, 2R Bells Road, Pakuranga (also known as 427 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights).

3. An existing garage at the site is to be demolished as it is obstructing the construction of a fence which will isolate the trusts leased area from the adjacent carpark.

4. The land is held as a classified recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and zoned as open space – sport and active recreation in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

5. It is recommended that the Howick Local Board approve the land owner application as the garage is in average to poor condition in some localised areas and requires a structural upgrade.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) grant land owner approval to the Eastgate Community Trust for the demolition of the garage at the Eastgate Community Trust leased facility at 427 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga.

Horopaki / Context

6. The Eastgate Community Trust is a charitable organisation that offers support services to young people with intellectual and physical disabilities. They currently support 35 young people and provide support to around 20 people daily. The trust has operated from Lloyd Elsmore Park since 2001, initially using a former council house.

7. In 2016, the trust was granted approval to construct an additional 301 square metre building comprising of a kitchen, toilet, laundry, meeting room, sick room, portico and single car garage. This approval included a 56 square metre deck.

8. There is a garage situated on the boundary of the trust’s leased area as depicted in Attachment A. This is obstructing the trust from constructing a fence on the boundary of their leased area and the adjacent carpark.

9. A condition assessment report of the garage was completed on 1 November 2017 (Attachment B). This assessment concluded that the garage condition was average and poor in some localised areas. The location of the garage is not appropriately orientated with the previously approved and consented extension. If the garage was to be reinstated to a safe and presentable condition; it would require relocation to an appropriate site on Lloyd Elsmore Park.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. It is recommended that the land owner approval be granted to allow the trust to remove the garage and construct the previously approved fence. If approved, the demolition will be completed to council standards and comply with all relevant health and safety legislation.

11. If the proposal is declined, the trust will not be able to construct the fencing on the boundary of the leased facility. This may have health and safety implications being adjacent to a carpark.

12. There is no benefit to holding this asset as it would require a structural renovation and would need to be relocated to an appropriate site. The need for covered car parking in this area is low and the cost of renovation and relocation is not justifiable to council.

13. The council maintenance delivery coordinator and community lease advisor have been consulted and are supportive of the proposal.

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

14. The proposal was presented to the local board at a workshop in December 2017. The board is supportive of the garage removal.

15. The proposal strategically aligns with the local board objective of optimising the use of new and existing facilities. This proposal will also maximise the use of parks space and community facilities which is an objective in the Howick Local Board Plan 2017.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. There are no sites of value or significance to mana whenua identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan on Lloyd Elsmore Park.

17. Iwi consultation was not undertaken as this application refers to the removal of an existing building.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. There are no financial implications for the local board unless the trust attempts to gain funding from the local board post-approval.

19. There are no financial implications to council as the cost of demolition will be covered by the trust.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20. There is no foreseeable risk to the local board associated with this garage removal. There is a risk to council that the trust does not meet its health and safety responsibilities during the demolition. This will be mitigated by a pre-construction meeting where the trust will provide a health and safety plan to the maintenance delivery coordinator.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. If approval is given, the trust will remove the garage and construct the previously approved fence inside their leased area.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan	33
b ⇩	Condition assessment report	35

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Joe Bywater - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

Road Name Approval for the countryside living subdivision by Templeton CTZ Limited at 315 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

File No.: CP2018/03128

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for confirmation of road name for the extension of Michael Bosher Way as part of a subdivision.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ was determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria for the extension of this existing road.

4. The name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ proposed by the applicant is considered for approval by the Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ proposed by the applicant, for the new road created by way of subdivision at 315 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush meet the road naming criteria.

Horopaki / Context

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

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

7. The residential subdivision will be serviced by the extension of the existing legal road named Michael Bosher Way (Lot 500 shown on Land Transfer Plan 517616). As the new length of road is an extension of the existing road, the name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ is proposed by the applicant for approval by the local board.

The applicant has proposed the following name for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 315 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Lot 500)	Significance
Preferred Name	Michael Bosher Way	The Bosher family have owned land in the eastern Flat Bush area for many years and, until recently, have owned the land at 315 Flat Bush School Road. The current road name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ has been in use since 1998 as approved by the former Manukau City Council.

Figure One: Location and layout of the new road in relation to the existing legal road Michael Bosher Way.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

9. The road name ‘Michael Bosher Way’ (the applicant’s preferred name) was determined to meet the road naming criteria.

10. The new section of road is a continuation of an existing road (Michael Bosher Way) and there are no intersecting roads which could otherwise demarcate any change in road name (were this to have been proposed). The standard of formation has been designed to tie into the existing road formation so as to be a self-evident continuation of the same road.

11. As an extension of an existing road, the applicant has not undertaken consultation with New Zealand Post or with local iwi as the road name is in current use and no changes the name or its use is proposed.

12. As the applicant’s preferred name (Michael Bosher Way) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval, while noting that no alternative road names have been provided.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

17. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that the decision is communicated to the relevant council teams for record management and further dissemination purposes.

18. No new road name signage will be required to be installed for this road as it is the continuation of an existing road.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Christopher Oliphant, Senior Planner

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Prosperous Land Company Limited at 477 Ormiston Road and 17 Shepherds Lane, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2018/03736

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for new road names for three roads created by way of subdivision at 477 Ormiston Road and 17 Shepherds Lane, Flat Bush.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Piriho Road,’ ‘Whakahoki Road,’ ‘Whakaora Road’ and ‘Pirihonga Road’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Te Ahiwaru Waiohau and Te Kawerau a Maki. Te Kawerau a Maki and Te Ahiwaru Waiohau both deferred interest to Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, though Te Ahiwaru Waiohua did recommend two names. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki opposed many of the original recommended names and offered four alternative names.

5. The names ‘Piriho Road,’ ‘Whakahoki Road,’ ‘Whakaora Road’ and ‘Pirihonga Road’ are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the:

a) Howick Local Board pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names ‘Whakahoki Road’ and ‘Pirihonga Road,’ for the new roads created by way of subdivision at 477 Ormiston Road and 17 Shepherds Lane, Flat Bush while noting that ‘Whakaora Road’ and ‘Piriho Road’, also meet the road naming criteria.

b) Name ‘Tinaku Road’ be applied to the extension of the relevant road (Road 3).

Horopaki / Context

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

7. The residential subdivision is located to the south of Ormiston Road and between Tamure Road and Shepherds Lane, Flat Bush. The subdivision will be accessed via new roads off Shepherds Lane and Tamure Road.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the roads created as part of the development at 477 Ormiston Road, and 17 Shepherds Bush Lane, Flat Bush.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Road 1)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Erema Road	Te Reo for Elm. The subdivision consent sought to retain all Variegated Elm trees within the Shepherds Lane road reserve.
First Alternative	Whakahoki Road	Te Reo meaning to take back, return or give back
Second Alternative	Whakaora Road	Teo Reo meaning to save rescue, revive, restore to health

Preference	Proposed New Road Name (Road 2)	Meaning
Preferred Name	Piriho Road	Te Reo for “fleece-o”. The previous owner kept alpacas and sheep on the site.
First Alternative	Pirihonga Road	Te Reo meaning to always be around, to be faithful
Second Alternative	Rangai Road	Te Reo meaning to elevate.

Road	Road name extension
Road 3	Tinaku Road

Figure One: Location and layout of new road.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

10. The road names were referred to NZ Post and LINZ who confirmed that the names were acceptable, but did not recommend that ‘Rangai Road’ and ‘Erema Road’ are approved as they could be confused with existing roads, Rangi Road (which is fairly close to the subject site) and Erima Avenue. NZ Post and LINZ both confirmed that the other names were acceptable.

11. Local iwi groups were consulted and responses were received from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Te Ahiwaru Waiohau and Te Kawerau a Maki. Te Kawerau a Maki and Te Ahiwaru Waiohau both deferred interest to Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, although Te Ahiwaru Waiohau offered the names ‘Piriho Road’ and ‘Hoheria Road.’

12. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki were opposed to ‘Erema Road’ as it is a transliteration and ‘Piriho Road’ as the Maori is incorrect and they advised that they do not support suggestions from other iwi in their prime area of interest.

13. The names ‘Whakahoki Road,’ ‘Whakaora Road,’ ‘Pirihonga Road’ and ‘Rangai Road’ were recommended by Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki.

14. Given the above, ‘Rangai Road’ and ‘Erema Road’ are not considered to be consistent with guideline 14 of the road naming guidelines as they are too similar in spelling and/or sound to existing road names. The remaining names are considered to be consistent with the guidelines.

15. The proposed suffix of ‘Road’ is considered to be acceptable as it accurately reflects the characteristics of the roads.

16. The applicant’s preferred name for Road 1 (‘Erema Road’) is not considered to be acceptable as it does not meet the road naming criteria, and the preferred road name for Road 2 (‘Piriho Road’) may not be appropriate, given Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki’s opposition to it. It is noted that the alternative names proposed by the iwi (‘Whakahoki Road,’ ‘Whakaora Road’ and ‘Pirihonga Road’) are considered to be appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Danielle Ter Huurne – Intermediate Planner

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

Community Places 2018/2019 venue for hire fees

File No.: CP2018/03438

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the 2018/2019 venue hire fees.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local boards are responsible for setting local fees, charges and subsidies for council run venues.

3. In April 2015, Howick Local Board approved that legacy hirers would incur a transitional increase on their special legacy fee (HW/2015/1). The increase was capped at 10 per cent each year until the standard venue hire fee that was recommended through the Hire Fee Framework was met.

4. In April 2017, it was discussed that 2017/2018 would be the final year that the special legacy fee was going to apply for legacy hirers. This completes a three year transition of the legacy hirers benefitting from using a special legacy fee.

5. At a workshop, on 21 February 2018, staff updated the local board on the venue hire fees to be applied in 2018/2019. The local board discussed the option of extending the use of the special legacy fee for 2018/2019.

6. Staff have considered the options for extending the use of the special legacy fee, these are summarised in the report. Staff recommend to conclude the use of the special legacy fee on 30 June 2018 and apply the standard venue hire fee from 1 July 2018 onwards for all new, existing and legacy hirers.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) adopt the 2018/2019 venue hire fees (Attachment A to the agenda report) for all new, existing and legacy hirers from 1 July 2018 onwards.

Horopaki / Context

7. Local boards are responsible for setting local fees, charges and subsidies for council run venues.

8. In 2014, council adopted the Hire Fee Framework, an operational policy which guides the setting of fees and charges and subsidies across the network of council operated community centres and venues for hire. The framework includes financial incentives aimed at enabling community outcomes.

9. In April 2015, the local board approved a transitional arrangement of a 10 per cent increase for legacy hirers with a special legacy fee until they reach the full standard venue hire fee recommended through the Hire Fee Framework.

10. There are 20 legacy hirers who currently receive a special legacy fee when hiring a council run venue. The transition of their special legacy fee from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018 is as shown in Attachment B

11. Staff attended a workshop on 26 April 2017 to discuss the venue hire fees to be applied in 2017/2018. The local board supported the venue hire fees recommended through the Hire Fee Framework and that 2017/2018 would be the final year that the special legacy fee with a 10 per cent transitional increase will apply for the legacy hirers.

12. In June 2017, letters were sent to the legacy hirers advising that the increase to the special legacy fee will be capped at 10 per cent for 2017/2018, that it was going to be the final year where the special legacy fee will apply and that at the commencement of 2018/2019 all hirers will be charged the standard venue hire fee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. On 21 February 2018, staff attended a workshop with the local board to provide an update on venue hire fees to be applied for 2018/2019, as per Attachment A. At the workshop, staff learned that informal correspondence was sent to a legacy hirer about receiving the special legacy fee for a further 12 months. This prompted a discussion with the local board about the possibility of extending the special legacy fee and the impacts.

14. Staff considered the options and the impacts, as outlined in the table below:

Option One:

End the use of the special legacy fee on 30 June 2018 and the standard venue hire fee will apply from 1 July 2018 onwards

Option Two:

Extend the use of the special legacy fee for 2018/2019 for a) 6 months or b) 12 months

Impacts

· All hirers (new, existing and legacy) will be charged the standard venue hire fee from 1 July 2018 onwards.

· Legacy hirers received formal correspondence in June 2017 that they will be charged the standard venue hire fee for 2018/2019.

· Seventeen legacy hirers are eligible for the local board priority rate which grants 50 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee within the hire fee framework.

· Three legacy hirers are eligible for the regular rate which grants 20 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee within the hire fee framework.

· The impacts for each individual legacy hirer is as outlined in Attachment C. In summary of the individual impacts:

o four legacy hirers will not experience an increase in their fees

o five legacy hirers will experience an increase in their fee ranging from 1 to 11 per cent

o six legacy hirers will experience an increase in their fee ranging from 26 to 46 per cent

o five legacy hirers will receive an increase of more than 50 per cent.

· The local board can further subsidise a group through grant funding that is accessible to all in the community.

· Twenty legacy hirers will continue to benefit from a subsidised rate (special legacy fee) that is not available to all in the community.

· Legacy hirers will receive an increase on their special legacy fee which will be capped at 10 per cent for 2018/2019.

· Four legacy hirers will no longer require a special legacy fee because after the 10 per cent increase it will move them to or past the standard venue hire fee recommended within the hire fee framework.

· The local board will need to allocate money from LDI funding to cover the cost of providing use of a venue with a reduced fee.

· The amount to be allocated from LDI funding will depend on how long the extension will be. The two options are:

a) to extend for a further six months, ending 31 December 2018, a top up of $2017 is required

b) to extend for a further twelve months, ending 30 June 2019, a top up of $4034 is required.

· The local board can further subsidise a group through grant funding that is accessible to all in the community.

15. On consideration of the impacts, staff recommend option one as it is consistent with the Hire Fee Framework which is accessible to all in the community. It also corresponds with the advice provided by the local board on 26 April 2017 which the staff actioned in June 2017 and it completes a three year transition of the legacy hirers benefitting from using a special legacy fee.

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

16. The local board supports activities contributing to community outcomes such as those offered by not-for-profit and community groups, particularly if hosting an event or running at an activity that costs no more than $5 per person to attend.

17. At the workshop held on 21 February 2018, the local board discussed the possibility of extending the use of the special legacy fee. The local board indicated that its preference is for a six months extension ending 31 December 2018 and then the standard venue hire fee will apply from 1 January 2019 onwards for the legacy hirers.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

18. The venue hire fees and charges including the subsidies for council run venues is not specifically targeted for Māori populations. However, it aims to be clear and transparent to all users and enable all Aucklanders, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19. The recommendation to end the use of the special legacy fee on 30 June 2018, will not require additional funding to be allocated from LDI.

20. To extend the use of the special legacy fee for the legacy hirers, the local board will need allocate additional funding from LDI to cover the cost providing use of a venue at a reduced fee. The amount to allocate will depend on how long the extension is for:

· to extend for a further six months, ending 31 December 2018, a top up of $2017 is required from LDI.

· to extend for a further twelve months, ending 30 June 2019, a top up of $4034 is required from LDI.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. For 11 of the legacy hirers, there is a potentiral risk that they will no longer be able to run their activity in the council run venue due to a signicant increase in their venue hire fee.

22. For the remaining nine legacy hirers, there is no associated risk as they do not experience a significant change to their venue hire fee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23. On receiving confirmation of a decision by the local board, staff will implement the appropriate administration arrangement for the 2018/2019 venue hire fees.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Venue Hire fees and charges FY19 update	57
b ⇩	Special legacy fee transition FY16 to FY18	61
c ⇩	Special legacy fee FY19 LDI allocation	63

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Melody Sei - Manager Venues for Hire

Authorisers

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

Howick Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03621

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Howick 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 Howick Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 for adoption (see attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Howick Local Board:

a) adopt the Howick 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 Howick 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 Howick 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 Maori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Maori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Maori 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, Maori and iwi organisations

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	67

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04672

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 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Howick 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’ ”.

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 levels.

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

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

Quantum of funding

16. When the LTCF was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded according to Auckland Transport and 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^{^[1]}^. 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^{^[2]}, five percent deprivation^{^[3]}and five per cent land area^{^[4]}^.

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	79
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	81
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	83

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

16 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04656

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Howick Local Board delegate 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

That the Howick Local Board:

a) delegate the authority to Local Board Member XXX, 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 / ContextNotified 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 adviceOptions 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	16.	· 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

17. 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.

18. 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

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

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. 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

25. The appointed member of the Howick Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Howick Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

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

[2] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop record 7 March 2018	91
b ⇩	Workshop record 8 March 2018	93
c ⇩	Workshop record 14 March 2018	95
d ⇩	Workshop record 15 March 2018	97
e ⇩	Workshop record 21 March 2018	99
f ⇩	Workshop record 22 March 2018	101
g ⇩	Workshop record 29 March 2018	103
h ⇩	Hearing record 28 March 2018	105

Author	Nichola Painter - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager