Agenda of Māngere-ŌtāhuhuLocal 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 March 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

· The passing of Mama Vainemoroa Titaenua who was tragically stuck by a vehicle on Idlewild Road.

· La'aulo Lupesoliai Joseph Parker son of Mangere, recent heavyweight belt holder but recently defeated by English Anthony Joshua last Sunday. We acknowledge his determination and stamina to compete in the Boxing ring in Cardiff Wales representing Samoa and New Zealand. A huge achievement.

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 - STRIVE (Nga Tapuwae Community Centre)

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Phil Davis, Chairperson and Sharon Wilson-Davis, Chief Executive Officer, from STRIVE would like to present to the board their annual presentation as required in their funding agreement.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) thanks Phil Davis and Sharon Wilson-Davis for their attendance and update.

8.2 Deputation - Ōtahuhu Town Hall Community Centre

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Bella Tamotu from the Ōtahuhu Town Hall Community Centre would like to present the centre’s annual report.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) thanks Bella Tamotu for her attendance and update.

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Public Forum - Mangere East Family Services

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Justine Skilling, Regeneration Facilitator and John Belford-Lelaulu, Project Manager from Mangere East Family Services would like to present to the board on plans for the area at the back of the Mangere East Community Centre. This is for a community/sculpture garden/makerspace in collaboration with design students from De La Salle College.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) thanks Justine Skilling and John Belford-Lelaulu for their attendance and update.

9.2 Public Forum - Signage on George Bolt Memorial Drive, Mangere

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Bev Knowles wishes to discuss with the board “district finder signs” assisting to locate historic places and also picnic areas once leaving the Auckland International Airport.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) thanks Bev Knowles for her attendance and presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Local Board Leads and Appointments Report

File No.: CP2018/04094

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This item allows the local board members an opportunity to present verbal and written updates on their leads and appointments meetings.

Organisation	Lead	Alternate
Community Impact Forum for Kohuora Corrections Facility	Makalita Kolo	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Bridge BID	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Town Centre BID	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Makalita Kolo
Mangere East Village BID	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Otahuhu Business Association	Christine O’Brien	Makalita Kolo
South Harbour Business Association BID	Carrol Elliott	Makalita Kolo
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich
Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum	Carrol Elliott	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Youth Connections South Local Governance Group (3 members)	Christine O’Brien, Makalita Kolo, Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich (appointed 15 March 2017)
Maori input into local board decision-making political steering group (1 lead, 1 alternate)	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Te Pukaki Tapu O Poutukeka Historic Reserve & Associated Lands Co-Management Committee	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Ambury Park Centre	Christine O’Brien	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Mountain Education Trust	Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Local Government New Zealand Zone One Committee	Carrol Elliott (appointed 21 March 2018)
Local Board Leads
Infrastructure and Environmental Services lead	Carrol Elliott	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Arts, Community and Events lead	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Christine O’Brien
Parks, Sport and Recreation lead and Community Facilities	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese
Libraries and Information Services lead	Christine O’Brien	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Makalita Kolo
Local planning and heritage lead – includes responding to resource consent applications on behalf of board	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua (Planning) Carrol Elliott (Heritage)	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Transport lead	Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Carrol Elliott/ Makalita Kolo
Economic development lead	Christine O’Brien	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
The Southern Initiative Joint Steering Group	Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua (appointed 17 May 2017)
Liquor Licence Hearings – Delegation to represent	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich (appointed 17 May 2017)
Manukau Harbour Forum	Carrol Elliott (appointed 19 April 2017)	Togiatolu Water Togiamua (appointed 19 April 2017)

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) receive the verbal and written updates from the local board members.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Youth Connections Local Governance Group 2017/2018 bi-annual update

File No.: CP2018/02450

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Youth Connections Local Governance Group (LGG) 2017/2018 work programme bi-annual update report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Youth Connections Local Governance Group (LGG) terms of reference outlines that progress on work programme initiatives are presented to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards every six months.

3. The LGG has representatives from both local boards and has oversight of the delivery and spend for Youth Connections activity across the two local board areas.

4. In 2017/2018, the total operating budget for youth employment activities across both local boards was $140,196. This report covers activity for the 2017/2018 financial year to date.

5. Initiatives during 2017/2018 include driver licensing programmes, JobFest and supporting local youth to receive technical training on a broad range of multimedia skills.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) receive the Youth Connections Local Governance Group (LGG) work programme 2017/2018 bi-annual update report.

Horopaki / Context

6. In 2012, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board jointly established the LGG, comprising of eight elected members from both local boards.

7. The LGG has oversight to ensure that local youth employment programmes are delivered to meet local needs. They collaborate on opportunities and pathways for youth employment to improve social and economic outcomes for local young people and their families.

8. This initiative builds on the work of the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs: supporting Auckland’s young people into local jobs by improving the links between school leavers and local employers.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and adviceLocal Governance Group (LGG) Work Programme 2017/2018

9. The LGG work programme 2017/2018 (Attachment A) comprises of four strategic focus areas:

· Extending Horizons – improving the transition journey from school to employment

· Skills Exchange – Auckland Council family

· Investing in Futures – changing the career conversations

· Youth Connections Regional Strategies – leverage and impact.

10. Highlights from the LGG work programme 2017/2018 include:

· Driver licence programme

o 560 young people have obtained their learners licence in the 2017/2018 year to date. This is an increase from 450 in 2016/2017. Over 70 per cent of entry level employment roles require a driver’s licence and not obtaining a driver’s licence is a known barrier to youth employment. A number of these young people have become the first members in their family to gain a licence.

o a joint initiative with Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT) will also assist 30 young people to obtain their restricted license.

o the following article appeared online highlighting this initiative: https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/manukau-courier/100002663/drivers-licence-helping-south-auckland-youth-into-employment

· JobFest – 11 October 2017

o JobFest was held at Trust Stadium in Henderson. Over 70 businesses and 800 young people attended. Free buses were provided to transport to the venue for around 50 young people from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board areas.

o Young people from the local Passion to Profession programme performed at the chill out zone and acted as the event MC. Youth Connections and #WorkGoals co-designed a work readiness programme for Pasifika youth in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe.

o Twelve local young people participated in the 12 week work readiness pilot; feedback received indicated they gained valuable insights and learnings. Outcomes included participants gaining employment in warehousing, hospitality, retail and roofing.

· Supporting local creativity and entrepreneurships

o Through the Passion to Profession courses young people have received technical training on a broad range of multimedia skills including music and radio production. Using skills learnt students have:

o activated at a number of events, including the Miami Park Family Fun Day

o showcased their work at Volume South at the MIT Gallery

o videoed political party representatives for the 2017 general election.

Financial accountability

11. The operating budget for 2017/2018 is $140,196 including the underspend of $196 from 2016/2017. All income sources for 2017/2018 are detailed below:

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu &Ōtara-Papatoetoe LGG Local Board Youth Connections Income Summary 2017/2018
Opening Balance Sheet as at 1 July 2017 (carried over from 2016/2017)	$ 196.61
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board contribution	$ 60,000.00
Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board contribution	$ 60,000.00
The Tindall Foundation funding	$ 40,000.00
Total	$ 140,196.61

12. The majority of spending for 2017/2018 has been the investment in pathways for youth into employment. Enabling young people to obtain a drivers licence provides positive social or economic outcomes. For example, where young people have become the first members of their families to gain a licence, lowering the possibility of fines from driving unlicensed and able to gain employment enabling contribution to the family income.

13. A detailed breakdown of spend for 2017/2018 is supplied as Attachment B.

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

14. The LGG has representatives from both Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards.

15. The group has delegated authority and oversees delivery and spend for Youth Connections activity across the two local boards.

16. Youth Connections aligns with the following outcomes from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Plan 2017:

o a place where everyone thrives and belongs

o a strong local economy

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. Local rangatahi aged 16-24 years in both local board areas are over represented in statistics of young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET).

18. Sixty three per cent of Auckland’s NEET are Māori or Pasifika. One in four young Māori women are NEET.

19. Youth Connections works with multiple sectors to support youth from secondary education through pathways to employment and or entrepreneurships and creative endeavours. This includes working with rangatahi to enable their work readiness.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. There are no financial implications with the submitting of this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. There are no risks with the submitting of this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

22. No next steps are to be considered with this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	LGG Work Programme 2017/2018	19
b ⇩	Financial Status for LGG 2017/2018	21

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Hainsworth-Faaofo - Youth Connections Specialist Broker

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Māngere-Otāhuhu Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03710

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) adopt the Māngere-Otāhuhu 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 Māngere-Otāhuhu 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 Māngere-Otāhuhu 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 ⇩	Māngere-Otāhuhu Local Board Grants Programme 2018/2019	25

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Road Name Approval: New Subdivision at 102 Princes Street and 19 Albert Street, Otahuhu

File No.: CP2018/04664

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board to name a new private road (right of way) created by way of a subdivision at 102 Princes Street and 19 Albert Street, Otahuhu.

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 and have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region.

3. Following consultation with local iwi, Ngati Tamaoho suggested the following road name options for consideration:

· Pononga Place (/ or Lane)

· Whaiaaio Place (/ or Lane)

· Haumako Place (/ or Lane)

4. On behalf of the applicant (the resource consent holder), agent Design Partners Ltd have also submitted the following road name options:

· Bhagat Place (/ or Lane)

· Nanak Place (/ or Lane)

· Bhagat Ji Place (/ or Lane)

· Bhagat Singh Place (/ or Lane)

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) approve a name from the abovementioned list of options, for the new private road created by way of a subdivision at 102 Princes Street and 19 Albert Street, Otahuhu (Council resource consent reference SUB60219956 and BUN60078998), in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki / Context

5. Resource consent has been obtained for construction of 24 new dwellings on 24 new lots, approved on 31^st October 2017 under Council resource consent references LUC60108005, SUB60219956 and BUN60078998. Access to the development is to be provided via reciprocal rights of way over each lot. This access way requires a new road name.

6. A site plan of the road and development can be found in Attachment A.

7. The subject development site is close to the local Sikh temple (Otahuhu Gurudwara) at 118 Princes St, Otahuhu, so the applicant’s proposed road names are derived from Sanskrit words and Sikhism.

8. Local iwi have also provided Te Reo road name options.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

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

10. Both local iwi and the applicant (consent holder) have proposed road names, summarised in the table below:

Iwi’s Proposed Name & Preference

Meaning

(as described by Ngati Tamaoho)

Acceptable?

Pononga Place

Pononga - meaning disciple, follower; in light of the applicant’s proposed names, the Te Reo equivalent of ‘Bhagat’ (below).

Yes:

Connection to local area.

Name not already in use.

Whaiaaio Place

Whaiaaio – meaning to find peace; with respect to the applicant’s proposed name ‘Nanak Place’, representing the teachings of Sikh Guru Nanak (see below).

Yes:

Connection to local area.

Name not already in use.

Haumako Place

Haumako - meaning rich or fertile; acknowledging the rich & fertile lands & waters that surround Otahuhu

Yes: Connection to local area / environment.

Name not already in use.

Applicant’s Proposed Name & Preference

Meaning (as described by Applicant)

Acceptable?

Bhagat Place

/ or Lane

(preferred)

The subject development is close to the local Sikh temple. The word Bhagat (also called Bhakt) is derived from the Sanskrit word Bhagavata, which means: a devotee of the Lord (Bhagvan) / disciple. Broadly speaking, a Bhagat is a holy person or a member of a community whose objectives involve leading humanity towards God and highlighting injustices in the world.

Yes:

Connection to local area (nearby Sikh Temple).

Name not already in use.

Bhagat Singh Lane

(alternative option)

Bhagat Singh was an Indian nationalist and a significant figure in India’s independence movement, but also a controversial figure, in that he was hanged for shooting a British police officer in 1928.

Partially:

Connection to local area (Sikh temple) but could be considered controversial.

Name not already in use.

First preference of local Sikh Temple.

Nanak Place / or Lane (alternative option)

Nanak: Indian religious leader & founder of Sikhism; known as Guru Nanak, the first of the ten Sikh Gurus. Not seeking to create a new religion, he preached that spiritual liberation could be achieved through meditating on the name of God. His teachings are contained in a number of hymns, which form part of the Guru Granth Sahib.

Yes:

Connection to local area (nearby Sikh Temple).

Name not already in use.

Second preference of local Sikh Temple.

Bhagat Ji Place

/ or Lane

(alternative option)

‘Ji’ is a gender-neutral honorific used as a suffix in many languages of India. ‘Ji' can be used as a term of respect for a person or relationships. Its usage is similar to the gender-neutral Japanese honorific ‘-san’ and Filipino Tagalog language honorific ‘-po’.

Yes:

Connection to local area (nearby Sikh Temple).

Name not already in use.

11. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed the proposed names are acceptable and no duplicates exist.

12. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines. However, the option ‘Bhagat Singh’ could be seen as controversial and would ideally require additional community consultation beyond the local Sikh temple representatives.

13. The road suffix option of ‘Place’ is deemed appropriate, being defined in the road naming guidelines as a ‘short, sometimes narrow, enclosed roadway’. Lane is also deemed an appropriate option, defined as ‘a narrow roadway between walls or buildings’.

14. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment. Ngati Tamaoho suggested five Te Reo names, three of which were acceptable for use (the remaining two being already in use in the Auckland region). These have been included in the tables above for consideration by the local board. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki supported the names proposed by Ngati Tamaoho. Te Ahiwaru Iwi also supported the use of Te Reo names.

15. Community Consultation: The applicant contacted the local Sikh Temple for comment on their proposed names and the President of the Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand responded in support of the names, with their first preference being ‘Bhagat Singh Lane’ and second preference being ‘Nanak Lane’. Although ‘Bhagat Singh Lane’ is the first preference of the local temple, this option could be seen as controversial due to the historical figure it represents (see description table). The applicant also contacted Otahuhu Business Association, but no response was received.

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

16. 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

17. Ngati Tamaoho suggested three Te Reo names acceptable for use (the remaining two being already in use in the Auckland region). These have been included in the tables above for consideration by the local board. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki supported the names proposed by Ngati Tamaoho. Te Ahiwaru Iwi also supported the use of Te Reo names.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. 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 process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand wide land information database, which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Location & Plans (for 102 Princes & 19 Albert Street)	33

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

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

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/04864

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 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (MOLB) and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

· The wider context or a summary of strategic projects or issues effecting the MOLB’s area

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

· A summary of consultation for future Auckland Transport activities.

· Discussion of associated risks and engagement issues.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport’s April 2018 update report.

Horopaki / Context

3. 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 prioritised delivery programme of transport services and activities. Essentially, it is a budget for Auckland’s transport expenditure.

4. 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.

5. 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 MOLB will be informed of these as soon as details are confirmed.

AT’s actions against advocacy plans

6. This section provides a regular report about how Auckland Transport is supporting the MOLB ‘Advocacy Initiatives’. The Board’s ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ are recorded in the MOLB Local Board Plan. In this month’s report the MOLB’s ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ from the 2016-19 term have been recorded in the table below:

Table 1: Advocacy Initiative Status

Advocacy Initiative	Key Initiative	Status
A well-connected area, part of a great, affordable public transport network that makes it easy for all to move around.	Deliver projects with the governing body and Auckland Transport including: 7. Improving street connections between the Ōtāhuhu bus/train station and town centre 8. Upgrading the street environment around Māngere East shopping area and community facilities 9. Completing the Māngere town centre bus station upgrade 10. Support walking and cycling connections around popular parks like Walter Massey and Māngere Centre	Auckland Transport has a range of projects underway supporting this initiative including: · Continuing to deliver Auckland Council’s Otahuhu Streetscape programme and has worked hard to mediate issues that arise. · Work on the section of Route 32 that will run from Mt Wellington to Otahuhu will start soon and the Auckland Transport officers meet with MOLB members to in March to discuss the project. · The MOLB and Council plan to develop upgrade the Mangere-East Town Centre is still in Long Term Plan process.
Attractive, accessible and safe cycle ways and walkways.	Champion and support the Ōtāhuhu Portage route project to open the area for recreation, walking and cycling.	An advocacy issue that Auckland Transport can help support but can’t lead.
	Implement Norana path walkway and fund priority Local Paths projects	An advocacy issue that Auckland Transport can help support but can’t lead.
	Continue supporting Te Ara Mua-Future Streets and identify options to increase use of cycle ways and walkways	In March 2017 two events were supported by Auckland Transport’s Walking and Cycling Team. Auckland Transport supported the Mangere Marae to Maunga Hikoi, which was held at Mataatua Marae on Sunday 18
	Partner with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa to use digital technology to popularise and increase use of new paths.	A MOLB project.
Safe, attractive and well-maintained streets for all.	Develop and deliver improvements to Bader Drive, e.g. a roundabout at the Idlewild Road intersection and road widening near Māngere town centre.	Auckland Transport is currently supporting the MOLB to deliver two LBTCF projects on Bader Drive both projects are progressing well.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. A number of transport related issues are discussed in this part of the report. First a response is provided to MOLB ‘resolutions’. Then analysis and advice about Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects which is followed by discussion of the other local Auckland Transport projects.

Responding to Resolutions

9. The ‘Resolution’ is recorded below in italics and Auckland Transport’s response is below the ‘Resolution’ in normal font.

b)… requests Auckland Transport, as Auckland Council’s agent responsible for managing the Mangere Town Centre carpark and its activities to instruct the Mangere Market Trust to maintain the integrity of the painted pedestrian walkways and to instruct and monitor stallholders to honour these traffic markings.

c)…asks Auckland Transport (as there is no current lease over the Mangere Market Trust) to instruct the Mangere Market Trust to implement this request forthwith.

10. The ‘resolutions’ have been forward to Auckland Transport staff responsible for managing the Mangere Market’s lease. At the time this report was written there has not yet been a response.

11. d) …..request Auckland Transport to provide a report on the status of the Toia carpark adjacent to the Fresh Choice Supermarket as well as ongoing security, rubbish and all day parking issues in that area.

12. Auckland Transport actioned this request immediately and can report the following:

· That this carpark is managed by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Team.

· A records check has been completed and neither Auckland Transport nor Auckland Council has a lease arrangement with the Fresh Choice Supermarket.

· Senior Auckland Transport staff have contacted the owners of the Fresh Choice Supermarket who confirmed that they do not have a lease agreement with either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport.

13. This means that with regards to the concerns raised about management of the car-park:

· General management of the carpark is Auckland Council’s responsibility. Auckland Transport has spoken to the Community Facilities responsible for this work and sent them a copy of the ‘resolution’. The following matters would fall under this team’s remit:

o Lighting.

o Security (i.e. guards and cameras).

o Rubbish bins

· Parking enforcement in any area of car-park leased or owned by a private entity is that group’s responsibility. Auckland Transport does not enforce parking restrictions on behalf of private companies. Publically owned car parks are the responsibility of the Council to manage and Auckland Transport may create and enforce restrictions in these areas if there is a request from Auckland Council.

14. At this time Auckland Transport has completed the required checks and handed the matter to Community Facilities but will continue to liaise with Council.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

15. 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.

16. The MOLB’s funding in this term is approx. $ 2.9 million.

17. Early in this electoral term the MOLB started identifying possible projects and planning workshops have been held and reported on previously. Then on 31 January 2018 the MOLB workshopped initial Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects with Auckland Transport.

18. The current progress of all projects is summarised in the table below:

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

General Overview
Projects	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed
Upgrading the footpaths in and around the Mangere East Town Centre.		Currently ‘on hold’ pending Auckland Council Long Term Plan decision. ‘Rough Order of Cost’ approx. $700,000 - 1,000,000.
Building a two lane roundabout at the intersection of Bader Drive and Idyllwild Road		Project in design. Rough Order of Costs: (21 June 2017) $700,000 - $1 million.
Widening Bader Drive in front of the Cosmopolitan Club		Project in design. Rough Order of Costs: (21 June 2017) $200,000
Ashgrove Reserve Cycle Route		Project ‘on hold’ for MOLB to re-assess priorities. Rough Order of Costs: (16 August 2017) $400,000
Detailed Project Progress Report
*Upgrading the footpaths in and around the Mangere East Town Centre* This project is currently ‘on hold’ while the Long Term Plan discussion takes place. When Council’s position regarding the re-development is ratified the next steps can be confirmed.
*Building a two lane roundabout at the intersection of Bader Drive and Idyllwild Road* Preliminary design is completed and has been shown to MOLB. Formal consultation with teams in Auckland Transport (i.e. Road Safety, Traffic Operations, Public Transport) is finished. The next step is that the issues raised are being mediated between teams. It is expected work will start in the 2018/19 Financial Year.
*Widening Bader Drive in front of the Cosmopolitan Club* Formal consultation with teams in Auckland Transport (i.e. Road Safety, Traffic Operations, Public Transport) is complete and the comments received are have been worked through and are currently being incorporated into the final design by the contractor. The key outcome is a that a speed table will be incorporated into the design to keep traffic speeds low through the roundabout. The final design and ‘Firm Cost Estimate’ are expected soon. Auckland Transport still believe that we are on track to deliver the project by July 2018.
*Ashgrove Reserve Cycle Route* This project is still ‘on hold’ awaiting an MOLB workshop after the Long Term Plan is process is finished to check progress and confirm priorities

Proposed New Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project – Bus Shelters and Seats

19. The MOLB wishes to deliver a project to improve bus facilities in the local area. At the time this report was written the MOLB was identifying a list of potential sites for new shelters or seats. When this list is finished it will be submitted to Auckland Transport who will provide an estimated cost and advice on options if applicable. The MOLB will need to pass a ‘resolution’ to request a quote but this can be done when the list is finalised.

‘Future Streets’ Activation Activities

20. Auckland Transport continues to support encouraging the local community to use the ‘Future Streets’ area. This is done by organising activities for local people in and around the area.

21. An adult bike skills session was held on 15 March 2018 at Mangere Centre Park. It was supported by local cycling promoter ‘Mr T’. More than 30 people participated, including 23 children. This activity was notable because a number of adults were encouraged to try bicycling for the first time

22. Auckland Transport also supported the ‘Mangere Marae to Maunga Hikoi’. The event was was held at Mataatua Marae on 18 March 2017 and was attended by various local marae. The participants walked to Mangere Maunga from Mataatua Marae and discussed whanau wellbeing messages especially focussed on suicide prevention, then took part in whanau games and activities, including bike rides and a bike course offered by ‘Mr T’.

23. Auckland Transport will continue to work hard with the community to encourage walking and cycling in the Mangere community.

Mangere Bridge ‘Safer Community’

24. Auckland Transport is delivering a new road safety initiative that concentrates road safety funding in certain areas. This programme is called ‘Safer Communities’. It means that road safety programmes in these areas will get more funding and deliver larger more transformational projects. The areas are selected based on need and a variety of other social factors.

25. Mangere-Bridge is one of the areas for this initiative. The project is staring to take shape and the area of focus has been identified. The project will focus on Mangere Bridge Village Taylor, Woodward and Church Roads. The aim will be to make walking safer by developing crossings and safer footpaths. Heavy vehicle traffic is another issue that has been identified.

26. The team plans to visit the MOLB soon and provide an opportunity for review of the project and feedback.

Mangere Bridge Community Safety Concerns

27. Concern has been rasied by the Police and Local Community about late night drinking and anti-social behaviour at the old Mangere Bridge particularly near the boat ramp. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council staff have met with Police on three separate occasions. Working together these agenices have developed a plan to respond to this issue.

28. The following steps have been taken already:

· Better lighting in the area – Auckland Transport has increased the wattage of the bulbs, changed the times that they dim and may add some extra lights if required.

· Liquor Ban Signage on Poles – Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Team have installed signs.

· ‘No Parking’ restriction – MOLB requested by resolution that Auckland Transport investigates a ‘No Parking’ restriction on the Mangere Bridge. The initial suggestion was for the time limit was between 10pm and 5am but all the details will be confirmed through a thorough investigation of the area and issues. Auckland Transport staff are currently working on the proposal and should be able to report back with possible options within the next month or two.

29. There are a couple of actions being undertaken that will involve more work and take longer.

· Actions that will require further work:‘Liquor Ban’ signs on the road and footpath - Police have also asked for markings on the road and/or footpath so that it is absolutely clear that the area is liquor free. Auckland Transport Maintenance Team has tentatively approved painting markings and have offered to organise delivery but the work cannot be funded from a ‘transport budget’. A rough a quote for the work has been sent to the MOLB to see if they can fund the work. Auckland Transport will organise delivery.

30. In summary the MOLB has worked together with Police, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to develop a coordinated response to this issue. Both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have moved quickly and are working on other ideas to support the Police’s response.

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

31. Local impacts and local board views have been included in ‘Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice’.

Traffic Control Commitee

32. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions from December and January are included in the table below.

Table 2: Traffic Control Committee Decisions March 2018

Road

Area

Activity

Decision

Market Cove Road, Mahunga Drive

Favona

Cycle Lane, Nsaat, Lane Arrow Markings, Flush Median, Traffic Island, Road Hump, Roundabout, Give-Way

Approved in principle

Coronation Road

Mangere Bridge

Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)

Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

33. In this reporting period one project has required iwi liaison. The Mangere Bridge Safer Community.

34. Auckland Transport has identified and contacted relevant iwi and will involve iwi in the design process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,822,303
Commited to ‘design’ or ‘construction’ in this term.	$ 1,200,000
Amount Available	$ 622,303

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

36. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

Consultations

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

38. In this reporting period, no projects were put forward for comment by the MOLB.

Change names Ben/Jonathan

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04806

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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board endorses:

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

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

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

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

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

11. Projects must be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network. Auckland Transport retains the responsibility for delivering projects 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	53
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	55
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	57

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04421

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has already appointed Local Planning and Heritage leads – which include responsibility for responding to resource consent applications on behalf of the local board. These leads are Deputy Chair Togiamua for planning applications and Member Elliott for heritage applications. The Local Board Chair is the alternate for responding to resource consent applications.

4. This report explores options to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way and an ability to widen resource consents response responsibilities, to include plan changes and notices of requirement, and for the local board representatives to consider future training needs.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. All local board formal views will then be reported to a subsequent business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

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

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

b) request that the local board views are reported back to a subsequent business meeting for endorsement by the local board.

c) request that Member XXXX is offered ‘Making Good Decisions’ training, which relates to resource management and consenting processes, to support local board responsibilities in this area

Horopaki / Context

Notified Resource Consents

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. 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

27. A member or members of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

18 April 2018

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board - update on the community-led response to alcohol licensing February 2018.

File No.: CP2018/02145

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report is an update on the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board’s community-led response to alcohol licensing.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards have resolved to support their local communities to make objections to alcohol licence applications. This report is based on Dr Grant Hewison’s update to February 2018, the consultant leading the implementation of this work programme #2798.

3. A wide network of objectors has developed from the Māngere and Ōtāhuhu local area. With repeated experiences of hearings, the skill levels and confidence of objectors has grown significantly. In addition, objectors are now training each other, passing on experiences and supporting each other through the processes. The Facebook page is proving an excellent means of keeping the community informed of notifications.

4. A highlight in the last period has been objections to the renewal of tavern-style licences where the primary activity is gambling. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act requires that the business of a tavern must be principally providing alcohol and other refreshments and not gambling.

5. An earlier decision of the Auckland District Licensing Committee (DLC), Copper Lounge (Papakura) (Q/ONL/2012/4632) refused to renew a tavern style licence because the premises were primarily for gambling and not providing alcohol and other refreshments.

6. Members of the community have been making observations of taverns and objecting where the principal activity appears to be gambling. Objections and hearings have resulted in the closure of The Opal Lounge (South Otahuhu) and Graces Place (Mangere East). However, the decision in the Curlew Bar (South Otahuhu) to allow a new pokie-tavern to open in place of The Opal Lounge has been very disappointing.

7. A further highlight has been the objections and further work of the Māori Wardens across both local board areas, especially in raising the negative harm caused by alcohol to the Māori community. The Wardens have also lodged a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal that the Crown has not upheld its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect Māori in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Again, the decision in the Curlew Bar has been very disappointing by saying that the obligations of the Auckland Council under the Treaty of Waitangi do not also bind the Auckland DLC.

8. After five years of development and hearings, on 12 October 2017, Auckland Council provided its amended Local Alcohol Policy to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. However, two appeals have been lodged, they are Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Countdown etc.), and Foodstuffs North Island Ltd (New World, etc.). Redwood Corporation Ltd Symond St. registered, (a brothel owner) has lodged a ‘precautionary appeal'. This appeal does not specifically detail concerns about any of the changes to the Alcohol Policy.

9. Otara Gambling and Alcohol Action Group (OGAAG) has been recognised as an interested party. Council officers have indicated that the Auckland Local Alcohol Policy may not take effect until 2019.

10. Louisa Wall’s Private Member’s Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (attachment B) has been drawn from the Parliamentary ballot. The Bill provides that a licence may be refused, and conditions imposed where the renewal of the licence would be inconsistent with any relevant Local Alcohol Policy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) notes the report on the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board’s community-led response to alcohol licensing.

Horopaki / Context

11. On 18 December 2013, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (‘Act’) came into force. The Act gives communities more of a voice over the sale and supply of alcohol in their area. In particular, it expands the criteria upon which communities may object to a licence application.

12. In July 2014, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board resolved to support their local communities to make objections to alcohol licence applications (including new applications and renewals) with the idea of limiting new applications and seeking better conditions with regard to existing licences (such as a reduction in advertising and ‘No Single Sales’). In June 2017, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board resolved to continue this support for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018.

13. In April and May 2017, reports were received by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board on the activities of the community-led response to alcohol licensing for the prior year.^{^[7]} This Report provides an Update.

Alcohol Licensing

14. Since March 2017, objections have been made to the following notifications made for new and renewal licences in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local area:

Status	Name	Address	Date received
New Tavern	Hi Sport Bar	5/1 Savill Drive, Mangere East	25 January 2018
Renewal	Pacific Bar and Restaurant	12 Tidal Road, Mangere	18 January 2018
	Thirsty Liquor Vine Street	64 Vine Street, Mangere East	18 January 2018
	Kingsford Superette	65 Raglan Street, Mangere	23 November 2017
	Mangere Cut Price Liquor	743 Massey Road, Mangere	17 August 2017
	Pak n Save Mangere	44 Orly Ave, Mangere	22 August 2017
	Mangere Bridge Tavern	123 Coronation Road, Mangere	19 October 2017
	The Bottle O Mangere East	10/6 Savill Drive, Mangere East	2 November 2017

15. The objections heard or negotiated (from March 2017 to March 2018) have been:

Name	Address
Mangere Cut Price Liquor	743 Massey Road, Mangere
The Bottle O Mangere East	10/6 Savill Drive, Mangere East

16. One decision was available at the time of writing this report: The recent decision in the Curlew Bar (South Otahuhu) to allow a new pokie-tavern to open in place of The Opal Lounge has been very disappointing. That decision has also said that the obligations of the Auckland Council under the Treaty of Waitangi do not bind the Auckland DLC.

Community Empowerment

17. A wide network of objectors has developed, with regular objectors covering Māngere and Ōtāhuhu local areas. With repeated experiences of hearings, the skill levels and confidence of objectors has grown. In addition, objectors are now training each other, passing on experiences and supporting each other through the hearings processes.

18. All license notifications are being identified and posted on Facebook, with people coming forward to make objections.

19. This experience, now over the past three years, has however, led to increasing frustration from the community and a view that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 has not led to any change from the previous Sale of Liquor Act 1989 in terms of off-licences.

Conditions and Undertakings

20. Following DLC decisions from late 2015, objectors had begun to take an approach of making an objection but making it clear that the objection would be withdrawn if the applicant was willing to sign the usual undertakings. However, more recently the DLC has decided not to accept this approach. It seems the DLC is saying that unless there is direct and strong evidence of poor practices by the applicant they will not accept Undertakings. As a consequence, community objectors have stopped taking this approach. Nonetheless, where conditions were achieved, a similar approach is being taken to retain the conditions.

Supermarkets

21. Although objections have been made to several supermarket renewal licences, these were on hold awaiting a Court of Appeal and further High Court decision, but now these are being resolved through negotiations between objectors and the supermarkets.

Auckland Provisional Local Alcohol Policy

22. Finally, hearings had been held of the Auckland Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (PLAP), at which community members from Mangere and Otahuhu gave evidence for Alcohol Healthwatch and submissions were made by the Otara Gambling and Alcohol Action Group (OGAAG). The experiences of hearings, the skill levels and confidence of objectors developed through the community-led response to alcohol licensing made a significant difference in the evidence they could give.

23. On 12 October 2017, Auckland Council provided its amended Local Alcohol Policy to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. However, two appeals have been lodged. Council officers have indicated that the Auckland Local Alcohol Policy may not take effect until 2019.

24. A more recent update indicates that PLAP remains subject to appeals lodged in the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority and judicial review proceedings in the High Court.

25. Appeals filed in the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority will have a preliminary hearing on 13 April 2018.

26. Supermarket companies lodged the judicial review proceedings. They also intend to apply for a stay of hearings on the appeals until a determination has been made on the judicial reviews. (A stay of proceedings means that the Authority could not progress the appeal proceedings until given leave to do so from the High Court.) Any application for a stay would be heard on 12 April 2018.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill

27. Louisa Wall’s Private Member’s Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill has been drawn from the Parliamentary ballot.

28. The Bill (attachment B) provides that a licence may be refused where the renewal of the licence would be inconsistent with any relevant Local Alcohol Policy. In addition, it provides that conditions may be imposed consistent with any relevant Local Alcohol Policy on the renewal of a licence. At the appropriate time, the Local Boards may wish to make submissions to this Bill.

29. The Māngere and Ōtāhuhu Local Board’s new Local Board Plan 2017 - 2020, highlights the board’s focus to reduce alcohol harm in its local board area through the local board plan’s outcome 6 “A place where everyone thrives and belongs”. The board may consider supporting the Bill. A submission would need to be co-ordinated and submitted by the 9^th April 2018 with the views of other local boards and Governing Body.

30. As the explanatory note of the Bill says, there is no rational base on which existing off-licence renewals should not be assessed against a local alcohol policy (LAP) or for conditions to be imposed to bring the operation of a licence into conformity with a local alcohol policy; that is trading hours, particular licences, a one-way door restriction.

31. Under the bill, consideration of a LAP will be one of several factors to be considered by a district licensing committee (DLC) on renewal of a licence. It will not be the only factor, nor is it likely to be the dominant factor. In practice, it means that district licensing committees can take the LAP into account when assessing renewals. The board have contributed vastly into the LAP, and would likely want DLCs to adhere to the LAP.

32. With regard to section 133(2) of the bill, while it is similar to the existing section, it is still useful in that it more clearly provides that DLCs may impose particular conditions on any licence renewed if the renewal without those conditions would be inconsistent with a local alcohol policy (LAP).

33. The Bill also offers the community and council the ability to raise concerns through submissions more generally about the LAP process and DLC processes with Parliament.

Conclusions

34. Community members, supported by the local boards, have achieved success together with Auckland Council alcohol inspectors in opposing tavern licences where the main activity is gambling/pokies.

35. However, the recent the decision in the Curlew Bar is a major setback. There also remains frustration from the community at the slow progress of the Auckland Local Alcohol Policy. There are also concerns that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 has not led to any change from the previous Sale of Liquor Act 1989 regarding off-licences.

36. Community objectors are suggesting the Act needs to be amended to address these concerns.

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

37. The board see value in the continuation to progress in matters relating to objections made to alcohol off-licence applications in the local area, build local capacity to submit objections on liquor licensing, supporting community groups to drive liquor licence objections, and advocating to reduce the number of liquor outlets in the area through stricter conditions.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memo - Changes to Provisional Local Alcohol Policy	71
b ⇩	Sale & Supply of Alcohol Renewal of Licences Amendment Bill	73

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Daniel Poe - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

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

[2] Based on Statistics NZ 2011 population estimates

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

[4] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

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

[7] Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board (Resolution number MO/2017/84), Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Resolution number OP/2017/56).

Chairperson	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Deputy Chairperson	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Members	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich
	Carrol Elliott, JP
	Makalita Kolo
	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese, JP
	Christine O'Brien

Authors	Rina Tagore - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager