Agenda of Rodney Local Board

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 March 2018, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney 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 Mahurangi Sport and Recreation Collective

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Representatives from Mahurangi Sport and Recreation Collective will be in attendance to give an update on the activities of the collective. They will also present the concept plans for the Mahu Bike and Skate Park project.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Mahurangi Sport and Recreation Collective for their update on the activities of the collective, and also for the presentation of the concept plans for the Mahu Bike and Skate Park project.

8.2 Mahurangi Wastebusters

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Representatives from Mahurangi Wastebusters will be in attendance to outline a proposal for the Kowhai Festival in Warkworth to be a zero-waste event.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Mahurangi Wastebusters for their presentation on a proposal for the Kowhai Festival in Warkworth to be a zero-waste event.

8.3 Friends of Warkworth Library

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Representatives from the Friends of Warkworth Library will be in attendance to address the local board on their activities. In particular the representatives wish to speak about the constraints on space in the Warkworth Library.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from the Friends of Warkworth Library for their update on their activities.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Rodney Local Board

19 April 2018

Request for an alcohol ban at Baddeleys and Campbells Beach, Millon Bay, North Rodney

File No.: CP2018/03642

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To decide whether to adopt an alcohol ban on the beach and adjoining park areas at Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach in Millon Bay, North Rodney.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable a decision whether to adopt an alcohol ban on the beach and adjoining park areas at Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach, staff assessed three options:

· Option one: Status quo – no alcohol ban

· Option two: December and January weekend and holiday alcohol ban (7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas / New Year holiday period)

· Option three: 24-hours, seven days a week alcohol ban.

3. Staff recommend the local board adopt a December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban (Option two). Taking this approach may help address alcohol-related incidents in a way that is more appropriate, proportionate and a justified limitation in light of the evidence.

4. If the local board adopts a December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban (Option two), there is a risk that alcohol consumption could move to residential addresses with no decrease in incidents. This risk could be mitigated through continued use of surveillance cameras, Auckland Council response to noise and litter complaints, and Police response using existing powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 and Crimes Act 1961.

5. If a December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban is adopted (Option two), staff will notify affected residents of the decision, install new alcohol ban signage and update the council website.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) adopt a December and January weekend and holiday alcohol ban (7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas / New Year holiday period) on the beach and adjoining park areas at Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach, Millon Bay, North Rodney as shown in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the alcohol ban in Attachment A to the agenda report to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Horopaki / Context

Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Ratepayers Association has requested an alcohol ban

6. On 19 February 2018, the Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Ratepayers Association requested a 24 hour, seven days a week alcohol ban (Attachment B).

7. The request relates to the beach and adjoining park areas at Baddeleys Beach and Campbells Beach in Millon Bay, North Rodney (Attachments A and E). The two beaches adjoin each other and are separated by a reef that is approximately 150 metres wide.

8. The request is in response to alcohol-related incidents. The request notes that there are three surveillance cameras in the area and that the New Zealand Police (Police) have been called to respond on a number of occasions.

Alcohol bans prohibit alcohol, are adopted by local boards and enforced by the Police

9. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified public places (areas) during specified times.

10. The Rodney Local Board has delegated authority to make alcohol bans under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) (GB/2014/121).

11. Local Government Act 2002 and Bylaw criteria (Attachment C) include the requirement that:

· the alcohol ban responds to documented evidence of a high level of crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· the alcohol ban be an appropriate and proportionate response to the evidence

· the alcohol ban be a justifiable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

12. The Police enforce alcohol bans using powers of search, seizure, arrest, and $250 infringement fees^{^[1]}. Police also have powers to address incidents of crime or disorder under the Summary Offences Act 1981 and Crimes Act 1961, whether or not alcohol is involved.

Evidence has been provided from the requester, Police and noise control

13. Evidence from the requester (Attachment B) and Police record 27 incidents over eight months from July 2017 to February 2018. Of those,15 incidents had links to alcohol. The timing of the incidents equates to fewer than one incident a month during winter, and almost daily incidents during the December holiday period (Table 1).

14. The nature of the incidents ranged from disorder (litter, broken glass bottles, excessive noise, damage to public and private property) to threatening behaviour (dangerous driving while intoxicated, verbal threats of violence, intimidation, death threats, abusive language).

15. Police were called to nine incidents in the Campbells Beach area.

Table 1: Summary of alcohol-related crime or disorder at Baddeleys and Campbells Beach

Number and location of incidents	Type of incident	Month, day and time of day
3 (2 at Campbells and 1 at both Campbells and Baddeleys beaches)	Nuisance (3)	· June, October, November 2017 · Friday – Sunday, late evening
1 (Baddeleys Beach)	Nuisance (1)	· August 2017 · Tuesday, late evening
8 (Campbells Beach)	Nuisance (3) Threatening behaviour (5)	· December 2017 · Friday – Sunday and Public Holidays · Late morning to late evening
2 (Campbells Beach)	Threatening behaviour (2)	· December 2017 · Tuesday and Thursday, midday
1 (Campbells Beach)	Threatening behaviour (1)	· January 2018 · Public Holiday, late afternoon

16. Seven excessive party noise complaints were made between 25 August 2017 and 6 March 2018. Of those, two incidents in the Baddeleys Beach area referred to noise in public places.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Three options have been identified

17. The following three options in response to the alcohol ban request have been identified:

· Option one: Status quo – no alcohol ban

· Option two: December and January weekend and holiday alcohol ban (7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas / New Year holiday period)

· Option three: 24-hours, seven days a week alcohol ban.

18. Table 2 below provides a comparative assessment of the three options against the criteria in paragraph 11. An assessment of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of each option is provided in Attachment D.

Table 2: Comparative assessment of options to respond to alcohol ban request

Criteria	Option One: Status quo	Option Two: Dec-Jan ban	Option Three: 24/7 ban	Summary
Alcohol ban responds to documented evidence of a high level of crime or disorder	û	ü	û	· there is sufficient evidence of a high level of disorder on weekends and public holidays in December and January (Option 2) · the evidence does not support a 24/7 alcohol ban (Option three) - less than one incident a month between July and November 2017 is not a high level · Option one would rely on existing surveillance cameras and police powers which to date have not addressed the requester’s current or future concerns.
Alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate response to the evidence	û	ü	û	· Option two would be appropriate and proportionate because it targets the times that there is evidence of incidents. · a 24-hours, seven days a week ban would not be appropriate or proportionate in light of this evidence (Option three). · Option one would rely on existing actions that have not addressed requesters concerns.
Alcohol ban is justifiable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.	ü	ü	û	· Option one imposes no limitations on people’s rights and freedoms · the concentration of incidents on weekends and public holidays in December and January justifies Option two · Option three would have significant limitations on people’s rights and freedoms that are not justified by the evidence.

Staff recommend Option two: December and January weekend and holiday alcohol ban

19. Based on the legislative and bylaw criteria, staff recommend Option two: December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban for the following reasons:

· an alcohol ban may assist in reducing alcohol-related harm

· there is sufficient evidence of a high level of alcohol-related disorder in the area on weekends and public holidays in December and January

· the times of the alcohol ban is appropriate, proportionate and a justified limitation on people’s rights and freedoms in light of the evidence submitted with the request

· community-focussed solutions already exist (surveillance cameras)

· Police and the ratepayers’ association support an alcohol ban.

20. Option one would rely on existing surveillance cameras and police powers which to date have not addressed the requester’s current or future concerns.

21. Option three imposes limitations on people’s rights and freedoms that are not justified by the evidence submitted with the request.

Police views

22. Police have indicated in correspondence that they are supportive of the request and would patrol the area.

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

23. The Rodney Local Board last made decisions on alcohol bans in 2015. The local board reviewed all the alcohol bans in its local board area using targeted community engagement. The outcome of the review was a decision to retain 13 of the then 14 alcohol bans (resolutions RD/2015/60 and RD/2015/93).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24. Managing alcohol-related harm increases opportunities for health and well-being, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan. Iwi have been widely consulted on the use of alcohol bans and have to date been supportive of their use.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. The local board is responsible for any costs to notify the decision and signage.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. If the local board adopts a December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban (Option two) there is a risk that alcohol consumption could move to residential addresses with no decrease in incidents.

27. This risk could be mitigated through continued use of surveillance cameras, Auckland Council responses to noise and litter complaints, and continued Police responses using existing powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 and Crimes Act 1961.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. If the local board adopts a December and January weekend and public holiday alcohol ban (Option two), staff will:

· notify affected residents of the decision

· install new alcohol ban signage

· update the council website.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed alcohol ban area	15
b ⇩	Alcohol ban request	17
c ⇩	Legislative and bylaw requirements	29
d ⇩	Options assessment of advantages, disadvantages and risks	31
e ⇩	Aerial map of Millon Bay	33

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 April 2018

Amendment to resolution number RODPC/2017/28 for the grant of a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall to the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated

File No.: CP2018/04058

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve an amendment to resolution number RODPC/2017/28 relating to the grant of a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall to the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated to include the additional area within the hall complex occupied by the volunteer library.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At its business meeting of 14 December 2017, the Rodney Local Board Parks and Recreation Committee granted a licence to occupy the Point Wells Hall to the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated (resolution number RODPC/2017/28).

3. The Point Wells volunteer library is accommodated within the Point Wells hall complex and the library’s operations are overseen by the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated. As such, the association has formally requested that the area occupied by the Point Wells volunteer library is included in the licence to occupy and manage.

4. The deed of licence to occupy and manage has not yet been signed, sealed or executed by council, thus subject to the committee’s approval to the amendment, a fresh deed would be prepared which would include the area occupied by the volunteer library.

5. This report recommends that the Rodney Local Board approve an amendment to resolution number RODC/2017/28 relating to the grant of a licence to occupy and manage to Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated for the Point Wells hall to include the area occupied by the volunteer library.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the amendment of resolution number RODPC/2017/28 relating to the grant of a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall on Point Wells Reserve (Attachment A to the agenda report) to the Point Wells Community and Ratepayers Association Incorporated to include the additional area within the hall complex occupied by the volunteer library (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Horopaki / Context

6. This report considers the licensing issues with respect to the management of the hall and volunteer library on Point Wells Recreation Reserve.

7. The local board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community licensing matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Land, hall complex and volunteer library

8. The Point Wells Recreation Reserve is located in the coastal village of Point Wells, on the eastern side of the Whangateau Harbour. Point Wells Recreation Reserve comprises 1.043 hectares and consists of two parcels of land legally described as Lots 20 and 21 DP 32632. The land is held in fee simple by Auckland Council, classified as recreation reserve and is subject to the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

9. The Point Wells Recreation Reserve Management Plan adopted 24 June 2010 contemplates (under “uses/leases”) the community hall, further, the community library located in the hall and run by volunteers.

10. Auckland Council and its predecessor Rodney District Council has managed the Point Wells hall since1October 2008. In April 2017 the Point Wells Hall Committee, a sub-committee of the association, formally requested to take on the management of the hall under a community-led model. This requires a licence to occupy and manage to the association. As the association over-sees the volunteer library’s operations, it has formally requested that the volunteer library area is brought under the licence (Attachment C to the agenda report).

History of the volunteer library

11. In the late 1950's a small Lending Library was established in a corner of the hall. Original books were donated by residents. In 1979 local residents added a new extension to the Hall to accommodate the Library. In 1975, a local lady (now in her 90s) took over the library operations for the following nine years. She started with 25 members and had 100 by the time she finished.

12. A van from Hamilton used to visit every three months to supply the library with exchange books. The library was also supplied with discarded books from the Warkworth Library.

13. When Mahurangi East Library was formed the Point Wells volunteer library operations were transferred under its umbrella. Historically, up until midway through 2015, a team of three volunteers would travel to Mahurangi East Library every quarter, select books then return and catalogue ready for the shelves. Currently the library sources its supply of books from Titirangi every quarter which, the volunteers collect from Mahurangi.

14. The volunteers hold annual book fairs and monies go to purchasing new books. The library’s DVD collection ($1.00 each to rent) also gets an update from the funds generated by the annual fair. The volunteers estimate the library’s annual running costs are approximately $500.00.

15. Since 2012, the volunteers have painted the interior of the library, culled extremely old books, gained a lot of new shelving from Mahurangi East Library and increased the size of the junior area.

16. In 2015, Auckland Libraries approached the volunteers enquiring what may be needed in the way of fixtures and fittings. The library received a couple of chairs and magazine racks. In 2016, Auckland Libraries erected new book shelves in the front room of the library.

Public notification

17. The hall complex comprising hall, kitchen, toilets, storage, volunteer library and deck (Attachment D) is located on land classified for recreational use, which is incorrect for such local purpose activities. Due to the incorrect land classification council staff completed the required statutory processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987 respectively, of public notification and engagement with iwi about its intention to grant a new community licence to occupy and manage.

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

18. At its business meeting of 21 September 2017, the Rodney Local Board resolved to approve the public notification of Auckland Council’s intention to grant a licence to occupy and manage the Point Wells Hall (Resolution number RD/2017/151).

19. At its business meeting of 14 December 2017, the Rodney Local Board Parks and Recreation Committee resolved to grant a new licence to occupy and manage to the association for the Point Wells hall. (Resolution number RODPC/2017/28).

20. The recommendations within this report support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2017 outcome for:

· our communities are influential and empowered: communities have the capacity, skills and support they need

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. In October 2017, engagement was undertaken with mana whenua identified as having an interest in land in the Rodney Local Board area about the proposed licence to occupy.

22. Engagement involved:

· a presentation at the Mana Whenua Forum held at Orewa on 4 October 2017

· email contact containing detailed information and inviting iwi representatives to hui and or for a Kaitiaki site visit to comment on any spiritual, cultural or environmental impacts with respect to the proposal.

23. Mana whenua representatives did not raise any specific concerns regarding the licence to occupy proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. The costs associated with public notification and engagement with iwi about council’s intention to grant a licence to occupy and manage to the association were approximately $900.00. This cost was borne by the Arts, Culture and Events department.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25. During the statutory processes of engagement with mana whenua and public notification about the proposed licence to occupy, the licence area was indicated as 421m² (more or less) being the hall area only. The area of the hall complex including the volunteer library is 460m² (more or less).

26. Council’s Reserves Act specialist provided guidance to council staff to proceed with the licence to occupy proposal for 460m² as council staff had met the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977, as follows:

· both iwi and the public had been notified of the hall and volunteer library activities when the reserve management plan was notified

· council staff had completed independent engagement with iwi and public notification.

27. Should the local board resolve not to amend resolution number RODPC/28, this decision may affect the volunteer library’s security of tenure and therefore its ability to provide a valuable service and opportunities for the community of Point Wells and its surrounds.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

Subject to the local board’s approval to the amendment of the resolution to include the area occupied by the volunteer library in the licence to occupy and manage, council staff will work with the association to finalise the deed

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Karen Walby – Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 April 2018

Classification of reserve and lease to NZTA for the Ara Tūhono (Puhoi to Warkworth) project

File No.: CP2018/03957

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend the classification of reserve land at Puhoi as local purpose (works depot) reserve and to seek approval to grant an agreement to lease to the New Zealand Transport Agency to enable the Ara Tūhono (Puhoi to Warkworth) project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The NZTA Puhoi to Wellsford project (known as “Ara Tūhono”) is a 38km extension of the Northern Motorway (State Highway 1) from the Johnstone’s Hill tunnels at Puhoi, to north of Wellsford.

3. The section of State Highway 1 between Pūhoi and Warkworth is a key transport link connecting the freight triangle of Auckland, Waikato and Tauranga. The route is part of the Roads of National Significance programme that central government has established to improve transport connection in and between major centres more safely and efficiently.

4. The Ara Tūhono project requires New Zealand Transport Agency to temporarily occupy council land at Puhoi for construction purposes. The council land required is currently unclassified reserve administered under the Reserves Act 1977.

5. The Reserves Act 1977 requires all reserves to be classified for one of the seven primary purposes set down in the Act. The nature of New Zealand Transport Agency’s work requires that the reserve be classified in order for council to grant leases and comply with the Reserves Act.

6. This report recommends that the land be classified and that an agreement to lease be entered into for a short time to enable the New Zealand Transport Agency to occupy the area for works purposes until the formal classification process is completed.

7. On completion of the reserve classification process it is further recommended that a lease be approved for a term of six years with one right of renewal for a further term of five years.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the classification of Section 1 SO 427029 located at Puhoi as local purpose (works depot) reserve pursuant to section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act, subject to iwi consultation with no objection

b) approve an agreement to lease under section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977 for occupation of Section 1 SO 427029 to NZTA on the following terms and conditions:

i. term – eleven months commencing May 2018.

ii. rent - current market value as assessed by an independent registered valuer.

ii. upon the classification of Section 1 SO 427029 as referred to in a) above, the Lease referred to at c) below takes effect.

c) grant a lease, under section 61 the Reserves Act 1977 to NZTA for local purpose (works depot) at Section 1 SO 427029, depicted in Attachment B to the agenda report, on the following terms and conditions:

i. term – six years, less the period completed under resolution b), commencing from the date of classification of the land, with one right of renewal for a term of five years.

ii. rent - current market value as assessed by an independent registered valuer.

Horopaki / Context

8. Northern State Highway 1 (SH1) is the main inter-regional route between Northland and Auckland. The section of SH1 between Pūhoi and Warkworth is a key transport link connecting the north to the upper North Island freight triangle of Auckland, Waikato and Tauranga. The Ara Tūhono project is part of the Roads of National Significance programme that central government has established to move people and freight between and within major centres more safely and efficiently. National and regional benefits expected are:

· Enhanced safety and motorway resilience

· More reliable travel times

· Supporting economic and population growth

· Improved freight connections

9. Ara Tūhono has been split into two sections, Puhoi to Warkworth and Warkworth to Wellsford. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) publicly consulted on the Puhoi to Warkworth section in 2010. A preferred route was developed based on technical work and consideration of public feedback. An independent Board of Inquiry appointed by the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed the designation and resource consents for stage one in 2014. The confirmed route for stage one is shown in Attachment A.

10. The designation area for stage one covers around 673 hectares and multiple areas of land were acquired by the NZTA for the proposal from 46 landowners, including 18 crown owned parcels.

11. The project requires that NZTA temporarily occupy a strip of council owned land for construction purposes, namely a depot and staging point, for the duration of the works. The land required by NZTA is currently unclassified reserve held under the Reserves Act 1977. The nature of NZTA’s work requires that the reserve be classified in order for council to grant a formal lease and comply with the Reserves Act.

12. This report recommends that an agreement to lease be entered into for a short time to enable the NZTA to occupy the area until the land classification process is completed. On completion of classification process it is recommended that a new lease be approved for a term of six years with one right of renewal for a further term of five years.

13. NZTA have indicated that the project may require a permanent acquisition of airspace above the reserve to contain the future viaduct and four lane state highway. The exact permanent project requirements remain unknown at this time. NZTA’s potential acquisition requirements will be brought to the local board as and when further information comes to hand. This report deals with NZTA’s temporary occupation request only.

14. The delegated decision to classify the land and to lease the reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 rests with the local board. Public consultation is not required under the act for either decision and in particular, following the extensive public consultation undertaken as part of the Board of Inquiry designation process. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 however, requires that consultation with iwi on any reserve classification and this is supported by council policy. Therefore iwi consultation will need to be undertaken before any classification process can proceed.

15. The recommendation to classify and lease the reserve at Puhoi does not trigger council’s significance policy. The recommendations support council to comply with the Reserves Act and aligns with the 2017 Rodney Local Board Plan outcome to ‘get around easily and safely - our transport infrastructure keeps pace with the needs of our communities’.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. The Reserves Act 1977 requires all reserves to be classified for one of the seven primary purposes set down in sections 17 to 23 of that Act. This is to ensure the control, management, development, use, maintenance and preservation of reserves for their appropriate purposes. Once classified, each reserve is held and administered for the purpose (or purposes) for which it is classified and for no other purpose.

17. Section 1 SO 427029 is unclassified fee simple land, vested in council under the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) in 2014 for reserve purposes. The land is held and administered under the Reserves Act 1977. The full area of Section 1 rests within the NZTA confirmed designation for project construction and enabling works. As per NZTA’s standard practice it is likely that most of the designation area will be rolled back following the project’s construction.

18. The confirmed designation effectively protects land subject to the designation for the purpose and land use required - however NZTA must secure formal landowner approval for any temporary occupation. As the land is designated, council cannot realistically decline NZTA’s proposed occupation, but it can impose reasonable conditions relating to said occupation such as the receipt of compensation, and any reinstatement or operational requirements that are deemed appropriate.

19. A plan of the required strip of land is detailed as a hatched area in Attachment B. The 7,474m2 of land is formed as an esplanade area immediately adjacent to the Puhoi River and surrounding an NZTA owned parcel of land. All works and activity undertaken on the required land by NZTA and its contractors will be subject to compliance with the designation and consent conditions. On completion of works NZTA will be required to remove any improvements, plant and equipment that NZTA or its contractors installed or used; and to reinstate the land to its prior state before commencement of the occupation.

20. On termination of the lease council would then reclassify Section 1 pursuant to section 24A (1) of the Reserves Act from a local purpose (works depot) reserve to a local purpose (esplanade) reserve.

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

21. The Rodney Local Board supports the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway extension, as stated in the Rodney Local Board Plans dated 2011 and 2014 respectively:

22. “The Rodney Local Board also sees the construction of the extension of State Highway 1 from Puhoi to Wellsford as pivotal in delivering on its vision of increased economic development for the eastern side of the local board area. This road of national significance will not only make travel north safer for residents, visitors, business and freight traffic, it will be a modern alternative to the existing State Highway 1 route...”

23. The Puhoi to Wellsford motorway will provide a direction connection to and through Auckland. It will make travelling through Rodney safer and more efficient. This road with off ramps at Puhoi is a priority for Rodney residents, businesses and visitors…”

24. NZTA and their contractors have consulted regularly with the Rodney Local Board regarding planning and construction matters for the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway. NZTA attended workshops with the Rodney Local Board between 2011 and 2013. Rodney Local Board views were sought and included in council’s submission to the NZTA notices of requirement (NoR) in 2014 and presentations to the local board by NZTA took place during its procurement phase in 2015.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. In 2010 NZTA formed an alliance with the mana whenua of the project area known as “Hōkai Nuku”. The alliance has representatives from mana whenua Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Mauku o Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rango o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua iwi, with the support of Ngāti Paoa.

26. Aside from providing cultural advice to the NZTA on the Ara Tūhono – Pūhoi to Wellsford project, Hōkai Nuku collaborates on cultural, social, environmental and economic issues of mutual benefit and engages in partnerships with local and central government agencies.

27. The draft NoR conditions for the project provide for an ongoing role for Hōkai Nuku in many aspects of the design and construction of the Project, and protect culturally significant sites.

28. The alliance arrangement is in place for the delivery phase of the project and Hōkai Nuku have been heavily involved in many aspects of the project, such as

· Board of Inquiry conditions “Iwi Advisor”, for which specific consultation is required with Hōkai Nuku in order for the NZTA contractor to comply with the conditions.

· Kaitiaki involvement for on-site geotechnical investigations

· Input into the Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Management Plan

· Preparation of the Pā Management Plan for the Pūhoi pā site

· Survey of permanent and intermittent streams

· Ecological restoration and relocation of fauna

· Input into the Urban Landscape and Design Framework

· Identification of cultural indicators

· Advising on areas of cultural significance along the proposed route with the intent of providing mechanisms to protect and manage such taonga for future generations.

29. The Conservation Act 1987 requires consultation with iwi on any reserve classification and this is supported by council policy. Therefore wider consultation will need to be undertaken before any classification process can proceed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

30. The recommendations in this report do not give rise to any major financial risks. Costs associated with responding to the NZTA project requirements will be recovered from NZTA under the provisions of the PWA.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31. There are no significant risks associated with the proposed decision in this report. Any significant project risks will be managed and addressed by NZTA through the relevant consenting and construction processes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

32. In November 2016, NZTA awarded a public / private partnership (PPP) contract to the Northern Express Group (NX2) for the project. Under the PPP contract, the NX2 will finance, design, construct, manage and maintain the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway for the 25 years that will follow the expected five-year period to build the motorway.

33. Full ownership of the highway will remain with the public sector. The Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway will open to traffic in late 2021. Table 1 below sets out the key milestones for the project, and indicates estimated dates for the recommendations in this report:

Table 1 – Key Project Milestones

Date	Event
Jan-17	Start of enabling works
Oct-17	Start of bulk earthworks
Jan-18	Start of structures
Apr-18	Rodney Local Board consider classification and agreement to lease matter
May-18	Agreement to lease to NZTA commences
Apr-19	Classification process concludes
May-19	Lease commences with NZTA
Nov-19	Start of pavement works
Nov-20	Earthworks completed
Oct-20	Structures completed
Sep-21	Pavements completed
Oct-21	Works completed
LATE 2021	Motorway open to traffic
2021 +	Potential land purchase discussions, legalisation and handover of leased land back to council. Reclassification of reserve to esplanade reserve.

34. In order to minimise risk and disruption to the project, NZTA is keen to enter into an agreement to lease as soon as possible. Independent valuations to assess the annual compensation due for the temporary occupation are underway. Compensation will be assessed pursuant to the PWA.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puhoi to Warkworth Map	45
b ⇩	Puhoi Land Requirement Plan	47

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Natasha Fredericksen – Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04643

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal feedback from the Rodney Local Board on options for the future size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital fund and on the proposal to increase advisory support for the fund from Auckland Transport staff.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

4. Staff have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population model, a model applying the Local 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 local transport capital fund, with an additional amount of $10 million being added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their preferences.

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney 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’^{^[2]}”.

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

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

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

12. The fund was initially set at $10 million per annum (since adjusted for inflation, and now sitting at $10.8 million) and is currently split between the local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive two per cent and one per cent of the fund respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have remained at 2012^{^[3]} 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 2016-2017 financial year was $17 million, as local boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. It has delivered 286 projects over the five year period.

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

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

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

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

Distribution methodology

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

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

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

· Option 3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards, as well as a variable component based on the Local 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^{^[4]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

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

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

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

26. Following the establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local 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 (Attachment 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 (Attachment C) the option of applying this fixed/variable costs model to the distribution of the LTCF.

Assessing the options

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

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

· recognising the role of local boards as leaders of place shaping 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 local boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island local boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local 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 local boards, with the highest funded local board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded local board (excluding the island local boards).

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

Options 2a and 2b – Local 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^{^[5]}, five percent deprivation^{^[6]}and five per cent land area^{^[7]}^.

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 local boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

43. Reviewing the projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of the local boards’ focus has been on “people centred” transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the principles underpinning the Local 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 local boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all local boards receive the proposed level of baseline funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.

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

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

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

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

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

49. The results of this distribution are similar to those of applying the Local 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 local boards and also brings all local 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. Local boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high quality proposals.

56. It is recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional opex funding in support of the LTCF to be used to develop a more systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the application of the LTCF. This will include supporting local 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 local boards differently.

59. Growth was raised by some local boards as a factor that should be considered. The view of staff 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 local 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	57
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	59
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	61

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04444

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. That the Rodney Local Board delegate the responsibility of providing formal views on resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement at any hearing to a local board member.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

5. Rodney Local Board already delegated the ability to provide feedback on resource consent applications to Member Pirrie. It is recommended that this delegation be extended to provide the local board views at any resource consent, notified plan changes or Notice of Requirement hearings.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / Context

Notified Resource Consents

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

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

15. 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.

16. 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

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

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

19. Rodney Local Board already delegated the ability to provide feedback on resource consent applications to Member Pirrie. It is recommended that this delegation be extended to provide the local board views at any resource consent, notified plan changes or Notice of Requirement hearings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25. 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

26. The appointed member of the Rodney Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Rodney 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 – General manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

[1] Section 169 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Alcohol Ban Breaches) Regulations 2013

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

[3] Based on Statistics NZ 2011 population estimates

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

[5] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

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

Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Deputy Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Members	Brent Bailey
	Tessa Berger
	Cameron Brewer
	Louise Johnston
	Allison Roe, MBE
	Colin Smith
	Brenda Steele

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Beth Houlbrooke – Rodney Local Board chairperson
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager