Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

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

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i. A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii. A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 9 May 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

6.1 David Mitchell, Architect

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. For the Kaipātiki Local Board to acknowledge the recent passing of David Mitchell.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. David Mitchell was born in 1941 and passed away aged 77 on 26 April 2018. David was a celebrated Auckland architect who received the 2005 New Zealand Institute of Architects gold medal in recognition of his 50 years of architectural achievements.

3. Kaipatiki is fortunate to have an example of one of David Mitchell’s earlier designs in the Northcote Library building which is now recognised as category B scheduled building (refer Attachment A). As a result, the board looks forward to seeing how this building can be celebrated as a feature of the Northcote redevelopment.

4. The architectural firm of Hill Manning and Mitchell were appointed in 1974/1975 to draw up sketch plans and estimates for the new Northcote library building. The working drawings were completed in 1976.

5. The building was completed in 1982 and David Mitchell’s design was featured in the NZ Architect that year

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) acknowledge the passing of David Mitchell and express its condolences to his family.

Attachments

a Schedule of Buildings, Objects and Places of Heritage Significance.......... 301

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 Kaipātiki 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.

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

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.

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Land owner application for the installation of storm water infrastructure within Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay.

File No.: CP2018/06424

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Kaipatiki Local Board for:

a) the land owner application from Lola Dorokhova for the installation of a storm water pipe and outlet structure in Kaka Street Reserve (R 20 Kaka Street, Northcote).

b) the land owner application from Sarah Gibbs for the installation of a storm water pipe and outlet riprap structure within Little Shoal Bay (R 20 Council Terrace).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Kaka Street Reserve land owner application

2. The owners of 33 Martin Crescent have applied for land owner approval to install a storm water line and outlet structure on Kaka Street Reserve to serve a new property being developed at 33 Martin Crescent.

3. The proposed location of the new property at 33 Martin Crescent does not allow for any alternative storm water management options, as this would involve pumping storm water which is not permitted under council’s Stormwater Code of Practice.

4. The land is held as a classified recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and zoned as open space - conservation in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part).

5. It is recommended that the Kaipatiki Local Board grant land owner approval for the installation of the storm water infrastructure on Kaka Street Reserve, Northcote.

Little Shoal Bay land owner application

6. Sarah Gibbs, the applicant and owner of 14 Seaview Avenue, is seeking land owner approval to install an approximately 11 metre long storm water pipe and associated outlet riprap structure within Little Shoal Bay (R20 Council Terrace) to assist with storm water discharge from 14 Seaview Avenue.

7. Council’s Development Engineer and Healthy Waters department have confirmed discharge to the creek is the only viable option available to the applicant for storm water disposal.

8. Staff recommend that the Kaipatiki Local Board grant land owner approval for the installation of the pipe and outlet structure within Little Shoal Bay, as it will ensure the efficient and effective disposal of storm water from the applicant’s property whilst not adversely affecting Little Shoal Bay.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipatiki Local Board:

a) approve the application from Lola Dorokhova for the installation of a storm water pipe and outlet structure in the Kaka Street Reserve (R 20 Kaka Street, Northcote)

b) approve the application from Sarah Gibbs for the installation of a storm water pipe and outlet riprap structure within Little Shoal Bay (R 20 Council Terrace).

Horopaki / Context

Kaka Street Reserve land owner application

9. The owners of 33 Martins Crescent have proposed to construct a new dwelling to the south-east of the existing dwelling.

10. As a result of this new dwelling and increased impervious surface on site, a storm water system needs to be created.

11. The existing dwelling formerly relied on an on-site soakage pit. This however is no longer sufficient for the calculated amount of storm water discharge due to the increased impervious surface.

12. The proposed storm water system involves the installation of a 5000 litre retention tank at 33 Martins Crescent which will hold the storm water from both the existing and proposed dwellings. This retention tank will have a 50 millimetre diameter overflow pipe which is proposed to run under the Kaka Street Reserve and enter the Awataha Stream through an outlet structure which is depicted in Attachment A.

13. Kaka Street Reserve is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve and is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

14. The storm water pipe will be thrusted from the private property underneath Kaka Street Reserve. The only disturbance to the surface of the reserve will be the excavation for the outlet structure which is situated in close proximity to the stream channel. The outlet structure is designed to dissipate all energy from the pipe and avoid erosion.

15. Two alternatives have been explored during early assessment, including discharge into the ground through a rain garden and pumping the discharge to the kerb. The geology of the area does not allow a rain garden as it is predominantly clay and does not filter and absorb discharge. The location of the property would require pumping of storm water uphill to the road corridor which is not permitted under council’s Stormwater Code of Practice.

16. The Kaka Street Reserve is part of the proposed Awataha Greenway Plan. The proposed development of the Kaka Street area is minor and involves a walking track through the reserve and the potential for riparian planting along the open stream edge. The installation of the proposed outlet structure will not affect this development.

17. If approved, the storm water infrastructure will be vested in council and will become a public asset.

Little Shoal Bay land owner application

18. Sarah Gibbs, the applicant and owner of 14 Seaview Avenue, is seeking land owner approval to install an approximately 11 metre long storm water pipe and associated outlet riprap structure within Little Shoal Bay (R20 Council Terrace) to assist with storm water discharge from 14 Seaview Avenue. The applicant has advised that they are seeking to improve the storm water discharge method from their property, which has previously been on-site soakage and resulted in geotechnical and stability issues at 14 Seaview Avenue.

19. The applicant has advised that the proposed storm water pipe will be located above-ground in order to avoid any underground excavation that will damage tree roots and vegetation located within Little Shoal Bay. Underground excavation has also been avoided in order to prevent any further geotechnical and stability issues at the applicant’s property and within Little Shoal Bay, given its steep topography and evidence of existing landslips.

20. The pipe will be a novaflow pipe, approximately 100mm in diameter. The applicant has advised that they will lay coconut matting over the pipe to assist with mitigating any potential adverse amenity effects associated with the pipe being located within Little Shoal Bay. The pipe will be designed and implemented in accordance with all relevant council requirements, including the Auckland Unitary Plan and Stormwater Code of Practice.

21. The outlet riprap structure will be situated in close proximity to the stream channel and, as with the pipe; the outlet structure will be designed in accordance with all relevant council requirements, including the Auckland Unitary Plan and Stormwater Code of Practice, to ensure best practice design.

22. The applicant has not provided any plans or design drawings at this stage, however have advised that they will do so at the consenting and engineering approval stage where they will ensure the design of the proposed infrastructure is in accordance with the council requirements. Council’s Healthy Waters department have stated that they accept the concept of the applicant discharging to the creek given the surrounding topography and storm water network resulting in this being the only feasible option, but that formal approval can only be granted through the consent process where plans will be required. At this stage however, the concept in principle is accepted.

23. The proposal aligns with the Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017, specifically Outcome 2: Our natural environment is protected for future generations to enjoy, by providing an efficient and effective storm-water disposal system that does not adversely affect Little Shoal Bay. This will be ensured through the consenting and engineering approval stage of the proposed infrastructure where the applicant will be required to comply with council’s Stormwater Code of Practice, and in particular, ensuring the required environmental protection measures are implemented.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Kaka Street Reserve land owner application

24. The options available to the local board are to approve or decline the land owner application.

Option 1: The local board approves the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Kaka Street Reserve.

25. The advantage of approving the land owner application is:

· The applicant will be able to efficiently and effectively discharge storm water from their property.

· The proposal will not adversely affect the use of or access to Kaka Street Reserve.

· The applicant will be required to comply with council’s Stormwater Code of Practice through the engineering approval process, therefore the infrastructure will be of a high compliance standard.

· The proposal aligns with the Kaipatiki Local Board Plan, as previously discussed, by allowing for the discharge of storm water via a method that does not adversely affect the surrounding environment.

· The only disturbance to the surface of Kaka Street Reserve will be the excavation for the outlet riprap structure which is situated in close proximity to the stream channel.

26. There are no obvious disadvantages of approving the land owner application.

Option 2: The local board declines the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Kaka Street Reserve.

27. There are no obvious advantages of declining the land owner application.

28. The disadvantages of declining the land owner application are:

· The applicant will not be able to subdivide and construct a new dwelling at 33 Martin Crescent. The applicant has invested money for the concept plans and designs.

· Declining the approval would not allow the applicant to contribute to Auckland’s housing stock.

· The existing dwelling uses a soakage method to dispose of their storm water. This is not an effective method of disposing of storm water.

· As the applicant will not be able to dispose of their storm water effectively, the proposal will not align with the Kaipatiki Local Board Plan by not protecting the surrounding environment.

Recommended option

29. It is recommended that the Kaipatiki Local Board supports option one, this being to approve the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Kaka Street Reserve, for the following reasons:

· The council development engineer has informally assessed the design of the outlet structure and the energy dissipation measures. The development engineer is supportive of the proposal as there is no alternative option to remove storm water from site. Formal assessment will be undertaken during the engineering approval process which is contingent on land owner approval.

· The proposal will allow the applicant to be able to efficiently and effectively discharge storm water from their property.

· The proposal will not adversely affect the use of or access to Kaka Street Reserve.

· The only disturbance to the surface of Kaka Street Reserve will be the excavation for the outlet riprap structure which is situated in close proximity to the stream channel.

· Any adverse effects of the proposal can be mitigated by conditions placed on any land owner approval issued.

Little Shoal Bay land owner application

Options

30. The options available to the local board are to approve or decline the land owner application.

Option 1: The local board approves the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Little Shoal Bay.

31. The advantage of approving the land owner application is:

· The applicant will be able to efficiently and effectively discharge storm water from their property.

· The proposal will not adversely affect the use of or access to Little Shoal Bay.

· The applicant will be required to comply with council’s Stormwater Code of Practice through the engineering approval process, therefore the infrastructure will be of a high compliance standard.

· The only disturbance to the surface of Little Shoal Bay will be the excavation for the outlet riprap structure which is situated in close proximity to the stream channel.

32. There are no obvious disadvantages of approving the land owner application.

Option 2: The local board declines the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Little Shoal Bay.

33. There are no obvious advantages of declining the land owner application.

34. The disadvantages of declining the land owner application are:

· The applicant will not be able to adequately dispose of storm water from their property as there are no other feasible options for storm water discharge as confirmed by council’s Healthy Waters department and council’s development engineer. This has the potential to result in further stability issues at the applicant’s site and at Little Shoal Bay.

· As the applicant will not be able to dispose of their storm water effectively, the proposal will not align with the Kaipatiki Local Board Plan by not protecting the surrounding environment.

Recommended option

35. It is recommended that the Kaipatiki Local Board supports option one, this being to approve the land owner application for storm water infrastructure in Little Shoal Bay, for the following reasons:

· Council’s development engineer and council’s Healthy Waters department have confirmed discharge to the creek is the only viable option given the surrounding topography and storm water network.

· The proposal will allow the applicant to be able to efficiently and effectively discharge storm water from their property.

· The proposal will not adversely affect the use of or access to Little Shoal Bay.

· The only disturbance to the surface of Little Shoal Bay will be the excavation for the outlet riprap structure which is situated in close proximity to the stream channel.

· Any adverse effects of the proposal can be mitigated by conditions placed on any land owner approval issued.

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

36. The Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay applications as discussed above, both strategically align with the local board objective of protecting our natural environment for future generations to use as they provide for the efficient and effective storm water management in a way that ensures the natural environment is protected.

37. The local board has previously approved similar proposals, for example in 2016 for the installation of a storm water line and outfall structure on Ayton Reserve, Totara Vale (resolution number KT/2016/37).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

38. There are no sites of value or significance to mana whenua identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan for both the Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay applications. Iwi consultation was therefore not undertaken as this application refers to the installation of operational infrastructure.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. There are no financial implications for the local board as the installation of the storm water infrastructure at Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay will be privately funded. Council will be acquiring the infrastructure so there may be financial implication around the ongoing maintenance. These maintenance costs are considered to be minor and operational.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40. There is a risk to the local board and council given that the proposed infrastructure at Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay will be vested in council upon completion along with the maintenance responsibilities. The design of the infrastructure will however be required to comply with council’s Stormwater Code of Practice, and as such it is anticipated that ongoing maintenance will be minimal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

41. If the local board approves the proposal, the next steps for the Kaka Street Reserve and Little Shoal Bay applications involve issuing a formal land owner approval letter to the applicant with associated conditions. Such conditions will include, but not be limited to:

· the requirement for vegetation protection during works;

· a health and safety plan being implemented during the works taking place;

· the implementation of silt and sediment controls;

· the requirement for all other necessary consents and permits being obtained; and

· the implementation of accidental discovery protocols.

42. Following the land owner approval process, the applicant will seek the required consents, after which the storm water infrastructure will be installed.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Storm water infrastructure	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Joseph Bywater - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Hilders Park play boat renewal

File No.: CP2018/06387

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board to proceed with the renewal of the Hilders Park play boat by modifying and renewing the existing boat to become a play item on parkland at Larking’s Landing.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Hilders Park play boat, more commonly known by the community as “Frank Larking’s Boat” requires renewal (resolution number KT/2016/96), and due to public safety risks cannot be renewed in its original tidal location (resolution number KT/2017/105).

3. Stellar Projects Limited assessed the feasibility of seven renewal options for the play boat (refer to Attachment A), each aimed at providing similar and safe service outcomes.

4. The seven options were assessed and ranked in terms of desirability, taking into account community and play values, cost, existing site conditions and consenting requirements.

5. Due to the community support and a high desirability rating, option three (to renew the Hilders Park play boat by modifying and renewing the existing boat to become a play item on parkland at Larking’s Landing) has been identified as staff’s preferred renewal option for the Hilders Park play boat.

6. Option three can be funded through the existing Community Facilities renewals budget. A tentative figure of $280,000 has been included in the 2018/2019 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme to implement this option.

7. Once the board approves its preferred option, the Community Facilities Investigation and Design team can set up a project steering group that includes the relevant stakeholders, community groups and interested mana whenua.

8. The steering group can then progress the local board’s preferred option through the design, consultation, consent and physical works processes.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve option three in Attachment A to the agenda report, which is to renew the Hilders Park play boat by modifying and renewing the existing boat to become a play item on parkland at Larking’s Landing.

b) request Community Facilities staff establish a steering group comprised of relevant stakeholders, community groups and interested mana whenua to implement option three.

c) approve allocation of $280,000 for the project “Hilders Park - remove and store boat and investigate options” as part of the 2018/2019 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme.

Horopaki / Context

1. The Hilders Park play boat, more commonly known by the community as “Frank Larking’s Boat” is at the end of its asset life and has been approved for renewal by the Kaipātiki Local Board (resolution number KT/2016/96).

2. On 21 August 2017 the Kaipātiki Local Board approved the removal of the boat from the Hilders Park foreshore, due to the public safety risks identified in regards to the boat condition and current tidal location (resolution number KT/2017/105).

3. In the same resolution, the local board approved to undertake investigations into the feasibility of renewal options, in order to provide similar and safe service outcomes to that of the existing play boat at Hilders Park.

4. Community Facilities staff commissioned Stellar Projects Limited to investigate the feasibility of seven renewal options for the play boat (refer to Attachment A).

5. The options investigated include:

Option one	Modify and renew the existing boat to become a community artwork or sculpture
Option two	Build a replica boat to become a permanently floating pontoon
Option three	Modify and renew the existing boat to become a play item on parkland in Hilders Park / Larking’s Landing
Option four	Build a replica boat to become a play item on parkland
Option five	Provision of a new purpose-built boat themed playground at Hilders Park / Larking’s Landing
Option six	A swimming / jumping aspect to the Hilders Park recreational wharf
Option seven	Remove boat from Hilders Park.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. The renewal options and feasibility report assesses the seven options in regards to the associated community and play values, cost, existing site conditions and consenting requirements.

7. The seven options were then ranked in order of most desirable to least desirable.

8. Option four and five were identified as the most desirable options, followed by option three and seven.

9. Option two and six were identified as feasible, however these two options are not supported by staff due to a number public safety risks identified for these options - including drowning due to tidal currents and jumping into shallow water depths.

10. Option one was also feasible but did not offer the play values that the existing boat provides.

Community and stakeholder engagement

11. During the feasibility investigations, a site visit was held on 31 October 2017 with various stakeholders and community groups present to discuss the seven options. These included members of the Kaipātiki Local Board, the Beach Haven Place Making Group, the “Save Frank Larking’s Boat Campaign”, Beach Haven Birkdale Residents Association and Spencer Larking (nephew of Frank Larking).

12. Option three was the preferred option by all stakeholder groups present, as it kept the iconic boat in the community, in a location close to where it has been for the last 40 or more years.

13. Renewing the boat at the Larking’s Landing location was also preferred over the Hilders Park location.

14. Following completion of the feasibility report, the groups again signalled their support for option three, including expressing an interest in being involved throughout the project to restore the boat and turn it into a play item.

15. In particular, the Beach Haven Place Making Group has communicated that they are “very willing to work with Auckland Council and the Kaipātiki Local Board to take on the project of moving “Frank’s Boat” onto Larking’s Landing and restoring the boat to a safe and functional condition for use as a static play structure”.

Staff preferred option

16. Due to the community support and high desirability rating given to option three, option three appears to be the most suitable renewal option for the Hilders Park play boat.

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

17. A workshop was held with the Kaipātiki Local Board on 11 April 2018 to discuss the play boat renewal options as presented in Attachment A.

18. The local board indicated their support for option three, in particular due to the community support shown for this option.

19. The local board also supported the involvement of the community stakeholders groups in the delivering option three, through the formation of a project steering group that included the Beach Haven Place Making Group, the “Save Frank Larking’s Boat Campaign”, Beach Haven Birkdale Residents Association, Spencer Larking (nephew of Frank Larking), interested mana whenua, and any other interested groups.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents: the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

21. No specific impacts to Māori were identified for the renewal options for Hilders Park play boat as different from the general community, therefore iwi were not directly engaged in regards the feasibility of option.

22. Engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in the Kaipātiki Local Board geographical area will be required in order to implement option three, and those interested iwi will also be invited to participate in the project steering group.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. The budget required to implement option three can be funded through the Community Facilities renewals budget, which sits in the local board’s asset based services budgets.

24. Attachment A identifies a cost estimate of $150,000 to implement option three.

25. This cost estimate assumes the boat will stay intact after being moved. The potential cost for this option could be higher if the boat does break during movement and additional restoration is required. Therefore, additional contingency budget should be allowed for as part of budgeting for this option due to the associated risk.

26. A tentative budget of $280,000 has been included in the 2018/2019 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme for the implementation of option three as part of the project “Hilders Park - remove and store boat and investigate options”.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. As previously identified in the preceeding section, there is a risk that the boat may break when being moved for refurbishment or when relocating it to Larking’s Landing.

28. If the boat does break this may incur a larger cost for renewal in order to restore the boat. This has been allowed for as a contingency sum in the renewal budget of $280,000, allocated to the project.

29. If this figure should escalate higher than the budget allocated, Community Facilities shall report back to the local board prior to proceeding.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. The project steering group can then progress option three through the design, consultation, consent process, to identify an agreed design for construction.

31. Once the local board approves the renewal of the Hilders Park play boat by modifying and renewing the existing boat to become a play item on parkland at Larking’s Landing, the Community Facilities Investigation and Design team can engage relevant stakeholders, community groups and interested mana whenua to form a project steering group.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hilders Park Boat renewal options	23

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Cherie Veza - Stakeholder Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/07283

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal local board feedback on the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, the draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and the draft Contributions Policy 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) sets out a 10-year capital and operating programme for transport in Auckland. It covers transport activities delivered by Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Auckland Council and KiwiRail.

3. The draft RLTP has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA. Legislation requires that the RLTP is revised every six years and reviewed after three years. It has been agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full revision of the RLTP.

4. The RLTP will be consulted with the public between 1 and 14 May 2018.

5. Alongside the RLTP, Auckland Council is consulting the public on a draft Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) proposal. The council consulted on a fuel tax to fund transport improvements as part of the 10-year Budget. The regional fuel tax, if introduced, would add 10 cents a litre (plus GST), and generate approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years for transport projects in Auckland. At the time, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) were still under review, so the projects proposed to be funded by a regional fuel tax could not be identified. The draft RFT proposal sets out the programmes and projects that the regional fuel tax would fund.

6. The draft RFT proposal is conditional on the enactment of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill which is currently passing through the Parliamentary process.

7. The council is also consulting on a draft Contributions Policy 2018. This policy proposes an increase in development contributions to reflect additional investment, including for parks.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board give formal written feedback on:

a) the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

b) the draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal

c) the draft Contributions Policy.

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan

8. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires that the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) prepare an RLTP every six years, which sets out the region’s transport priorities for the next 10 years and must contribute to the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act and be consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

9. At its meeting on 24 October 2017, the Auckland Transport Board agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full review of the RLTP. Since the 2015 RLTP was prepared, Auckland’s population growth has increased at a much faster pace than was envisaged. By 2028, the population of Auckland is expected to be around two million people; four years earlier than projected in 2015. Significant investment in transport infrastructure and services will be required to meet the increasing needs of these additional people, both to service new housing required to match growth and to service many more customers.

10. The draft RLTP (refer to Attachment A) has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA and on 1 February 2018, was considered by the Regional Transport Committee (a committee comprised of the Auckland Transport Board and a representative of the NZTA convened to adopt the RLTP). This was subsequently approved by the Chair and Deputy Chair under delegation.

11. Preparation of the draft RLTP and consultation were delayed as the GPS and ATAP were still under review, leading to some uncertainty about project priorities. Both the GPS and ATAP have now been released and have informed the draft RLTP.

Regional Fuel Tax

12. In preparing the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, the council considered a range of funding options for its activities. The consultation on the 10-year Budget signalled that, to achieve the level of investment that Auckland needs to address its transport issues, new funding mechanisms for transport were required. An RFT of 10 cents per litre plus GST was proposed, subject to central government providing a legislative basis for such a tax.

13. While the RFT, as a funding mechanism, was the subject of consultation, there was no ability to identify the projects that might be funded from the RFT at that time, due to the review of the GPS and ATAP.

14. The government has initiated the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. If passed, this will enable Auckland to levy a regional fuel tax of up to 10 cents per litre, plus GST, from 1 July 2018.

15. A draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal (refer to Attachment B) has been developed based on the requirements of the draft legislation. While the legislation is still to progress through the full Parliamentary process, the transitional provisions in the legislation mean that Auckland Council can develop a draft proposal, consult with the public and submit to the responsible ministers (the Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport) for consideration, once the legislation has been passed.

Contributions Policy

16. Development contributions enable the council to charge developers for a portion of the cost of growth infrastructure needed because of development. The current Contributions Policy expires on 30 June 2018. The policy needs to be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the RLTP.

17. Over the next 10 years, the council needs to fund additional infrastructure to enable construction of 120,000 dwellings to house an expected 300,000 additional Aucklanders. The 10-year Budget also allowed for an increase in investment in parks.

18. The proposed Contributions Policy 2018 (refer to Attachment C) proposes an increase in both urban and greenfield prices to reflect this additional investment.

19. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use development contributions to fund public swimming pools and libraries. It is not certain when this legislation will be passed so provision for the inclusion of public swimming pools and libraries has not been included in the draft Contributions Policy 2018. Once the legislation has been passed, the council can consider amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure, or to prioritise within the expenditure programme for community infrastructure.

20. The timetable for this process is very compressed. Public consultation on the draft RLTP, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy will run for two weeks between 1 May and 14 May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. Consultation material for the following documents has been attached for consideration of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. Formal feedback on these consultation documents is being sought from local boards through this report:

· draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan;

· Regional Fuel Tax proposal; and

· draft Development Contributions Policy.

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

22. The RLTP sets out a 10-year regional programme. Early engagement with local boards has taken place to ensure that projects of interest to local communities could be taken into account in the prioritisation process by which the programme was developed.

23. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to give formal feedback on the capital and operating programmes and any other aspects of the RLTP, including projects of interest to local communities. In particular, feedback from local boards is sought on whether the RLTP places the appropriate emphasis on the priority areas.

24. The draft RFT proposal reflects the priority projects in the RLTP, along with a few specific local board priorities.

25. The draft proposal signals the council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the regional fuel tax, in line with council’s submission on the draft legislation and subject to the legislation being amended accordingly. The consultation will also signal council’s advocacy in support of rebates being enabled for fuel that is purchased for off-road use, an issue which has been raised by a few local boards.

26. The draft Contributions Policy price varies by location, depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The capital expenditure programme to be funded by development contributions was included in the draft 10-year budget and local boards can provide feedback on the proposed programme through the long-term plan process.

27. Local boards have been invited to attend a briefing on the draft RLTP on 30 April 2018, followed by a full day of informal hearings-style sessions on 7 May 2018 with representatives of the Auckland Transport Board giving verbal feedback. This report enables boards to provide formal feedback to inform further decision-making on the RLTP.

28. The draft RFT proposal and draft Contributions Policy will also be covered in the briefing. Formal feedback from local boards will be considered by the Governing Body and/or the Finance and Performance Committee when making their decisions on the RFT and the 10-year budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. Many components of the RLTP are of importance to and impact on Māori. The RLTP is one of the tools that can enable and can demonstrate responsiveness to Māori. Early engagement with mana whenua took place throughout the region during the development of the draft.

30. The introduction of a RFT will negatively impact some lower socio-economic communities who do not have access to alternative transport options and rely on their private vehicles. Māori tend to represent a high proportion of these communities. However, many of the projects that will be funded by the RFT are targeted at improving transport access to jobs and education for these communities, as well as providing greater public transport alternatives. In the longer term, this should have a positive impact for these communities.

31. The impact on Māori for the changes to development contributions will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers. The council’s Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund provides grants to support marae and papakāinga development and can be used to fund development contributions. The Contributions Policy treats kaumatua housing the same as retirement villages, which generally place lower demands on council services.

32. There is a need to continue to build relationships between the council, transport agencies, mana whenua, and where relevant, the wider Māori community. Ongoing engagement will assist the council and agencies in understanding priorities for Māori, and can encourage Māori participation in decision-making processes.

33. Appropriate engagement on the RLTP, RFT proposal and Contributions Policy are planned for the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34. The financial implications of the draft RLTP, RFT proposal and Contributions Policy are set out in those documents. There are no specific financial implications from seeking local board feedback.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35. This report seeks local board feedback on draft regional proposals, which is part of the local board role. There are no specific risks from this process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36. Possible changes to the RLTP, RFT proposal, and Contributions Policy will be considered following public consultation.

37. The RFT proposal will be considered by the Governing Body for adoption and submission to Government on 31 May 2018.

38. Decisions on the Contributions Policy will also be made on 31 May 2018, with the final policy document planned to be adopted on 27 June 2018.

39. The final RLTP document will be considered by the Auckland Transport Board for approval prior to 30 June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan for consultation (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Draft Contributions Proposal and Contributions Policy 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections

File No.: CP2018/07377

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Kaipātiki Local Board an opportunity to give formal feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s representation arrangements have to be reviewed this year. The outcome will apply at the 2019 elections.

3. The Governing Body finalised the process for conducting the review in December 2017, following consultation with local boards.

4. The Joint Governance Working Party established by the mayor will develop a proposal for reporting to the Governing Body in July 2018.

5. The local board is now invited to provide its formal feedback on the review, for consideration by the Joint Governance Working Party.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) endorse the general approach to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, which is to make changes on an issue-by-issue basis and to not seek significant change.

b) endorse the Joint Governance Working Party’s position on the following matters with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections:

i. that all Governing Body members are to continue to be elected by ward as decided by the Governing Body

ii. that the current number of members in each ward is retained

iii. that the Waitematā and Gulf ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by reducing the size of the isthmus part of the ward on both the east and the west of the ward as in ‘Option 1’, with the resulting changes for neighbouring wards as set out in that option

iv. that the Rodney ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

v. that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not have a community of interest with Warkworth, and that the Rodney Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the alternative options for subdivision arrangements.

c) endorse the following recommendations with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, noting that they have yet to be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party:

i. that the Botany subdivision non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by moving the southern boundary of the Howick ward southwards and that the Howick Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the two alternative options

ii. that the Manurewa-Papakura ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

iii. that the Waitematā Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the board area are appropriate

iv. that the Upper Harbour Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the Board area are appropriate.

d) provide any other feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

e) delegate authority to the Chairperson to represent the board’s views on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections should the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during the consideration of submissions following public notification.

Horopaki / Context

There are statutory deadlines

6. All councils must, under the Local Electoral Act 2001, review their representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, must conduct a review of its representation arrangements no earlier than the 2013 elections and no later than September 2018.

7. The Governing Body considered conducting a review for the 2016 elections but resolved to defer this.

8. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the following timeline and process:

· public notice of the council’s proposals by 8 September 2018

· consideration of submissions

· public notice of the council’s final proposals within six weeks of the closing date for submissions.

· if there are no objections or appeals, the council’s proposals stand and are implemented

· if there are objections or appeals, they are forwarded to the Local Government Commission for a decision.

9. Staff are planning to report the Joint Governance Working Party’s proposals to the Governing Body meeting on 26 July 2018.

Role of the Joint Governance Working Party and the process for developing the Auckland Council proposal

10. In 2017, the Governing Body endorsed a process for the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections that was then recommended to local boards. Local board feedback, which was generally supportive of the proposed process, was reported back to the Governing Body in December 2017.

11. The Governing Body, after considering local board feedback, made the following decision:

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the feedback from local boards.

b) note the mayor’s appointments to the Joint Governance Working Party as follows:

Cr Cathy Casey (Central), Cr Linda Cooper (West), Cr Daniel Newman (South), Cr Wayne Walker (North), Angela Dalton (South), Phelan Pirrie (Rural North), Richard Northey (Central) and Shane Henderson (West).

c) approve the draft terms of reference for the Joint Governance Working Party for inclusion in the Auckland Council Committee Terms of Reference.

d) approve the following process for conducting the review of representation arrangements:

i) the Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements and present it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments before the Governing Body makes the statutory resolution for public notification for submissions.

ii) the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals.

iii) the Governing Body will review the process for hearing submissions under (ii) at the time the initial proposals for change are known.

12. The rationale for (d)(iii) in the decision was to respond to some local board feedback regarding the hearing of submissions. The legislation requires a final proposal to be publicly notified within six weeks of the submission closing date. This may require a centralised process. However, this will be reviewed once the nature of changes being proposed is known.

Representation arrangements that may be reviewed

13. For the Governing Body, it is possible to review for members other than the mayor:

· whether members are elected by ward or at-large or by a mixture

· if by ward, the number of wards, names, boundaries and number of members for each ward.

14. For each local board it is possible to review:

· whether members are elected by subdivision or at-large or by a mixture

· if by subdivision, the number of subdivisions, names, boundaries and number of members for each subdivision

· the number of members for the local board

· the name of the local board.

Matters that are required to be taken into account

15. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act) requires the council to take into account:

· the effective representation of communities of interest

· fairness of representation.

16. Other requirements in the Act include:

· ward boundaries should align with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

· boundaries must align with mesh-block boundaries

· when the council gives public notice of its proposal, it needs to give reasons for any changes from the 2016 elections.

17. The concept of effective representation of communities of interest can be explained by considering a single electorate which has two quite different communities and two elected representatives. The outcome of each election might mean that both representatives are elected by one of the communities with the result that the other community will not be represented. This might be solved by splitting the total electorate into smaller electoral areas, each having one representative. In the case of territorial local authorities, those smaller electoral areas are known as ‘wards’ and in the case of local boards, those smaller areas are known as ‘subdivisions’.

18. The concept of fairness means that the ratio of population to elected member for wards, in the case of the Governing Body, and subdivisions, in the case of local boards, should not vary across the region or local board area respectively. The legislation allows for a variance of up to 10 per cent. It further allows the council to not comply if compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest. The final decision on a proposal to not comply is made by the Local Government Commission.

19. A practical consideration is the distribution of voting documents. Each voter receives a pack of voting documents which is relevant to that voter (the pack contains voting papers for the Governing Body positions and local board positions relevant to that voter). Misalignment of boundaries can create additional combinations of Governing Body and local board positions. This leads to additional cost in terms of voting documents. This reinforces the legal requirement for ward and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The general approach is to not make significant change

20. The Local Government Commission determined the current arrangements in 2010, following 736 submissions on its first proposal. There was a lot of public interest and the process was robust. There are no significant issues with the current arrangements.

21. There have been discussions at local board cluster meetings and by the Joint Governance Working Party. Significant change has been considered (such as some Governing Body members being elected at large) but the outcome of these discussions to date is to basically retain the status quo except where changes are required.

22. One significant issue though, which has been considered by the Governing Body, is the number of Governing Body members. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets this at 20 members, in addition to the mayor. All other councils are able to review the number of councillors.

23. The Governing Body, when it considered conducting a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, decided instead to seek legislative change to allow it to review the number of Governing Body members. It also sought provision for re-aligning local board boundaries with ward boundaries, should ward boundaries need to change, and if there was support from local boards to keep boundaries aligned.

24. This submission was not successful. The Governing Body is not able to review the number of Governing Body members. Local board boundaries are not able to be changed other than through the separate process of applying for a local government reorganisation.

25. The council is continuing to advocate change, however any legislative change in the short term is unlikely to be effective for the 2019 elections.

Wards

Wards that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

26. Based on statistics provided by the Local Government Commission (being a 2017 estimate) population ratios are as follows:

Ward	Population	Members	Population per member	Difference from quota	% Difference from quota
Rodney Ward	64,300	1	64,300	-18,560	-22.40
Albany Ward	169,800	2	84,900	2,040	2.46
North Shore Ward	156,800	2	78,400	-4,460	-5.38
Waitākere Ward	176,500	2	88,250	5,390	6.50
Waitematā and Gulf Ward	119,100	1	119,100	36,240	43.74
Whau Ward	84,700	1	84,700	1,840	2.22
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward	172,200	2	86,100	3,240	3.91
Ōrākei Ward	91,500	1	91,500	8,640	10.43
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward	79,700	1	79,700	-3,160	-3.81
Howick Ward	150,200	2	75,100	-7,760	-9.37
Manukau Ward	168,900	2	84,450	1,590	1.92
Manurewa-Papakura Ward	148,900	2	74,450	-8,410	-10.15
Franklin Ward	74,600	1	74,600	-8,260	-9.97
Total	1,657,200	20	82,860

27. Final statistics will eventually be based on data provided by Statistics New Zealand at mesh-block level. Staff expect that final statistics will be very close to those that have been used in the review to date.

28. As stated above, one of the matters that must be taken into account in the review is fairness of representation. The legislation requires that the ratio of population to member should not vary by more than 10 per cent unless there are reasons for not complying with this requirement (on the basis of splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest).

29. There are four wards that do not comply:

· Waitematā and Gulf ward

· Rodney ward

· Ōrākei ward

· Manurewa-Papakura ward.

Review of the Waitematā and Gulf ward and neighbouring wards

30. The Waitematā and Gulf ward has a population approximately 28,000 above the 10 per cent quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options to address this (maps are in Attachment A):

· Option 1: boundaries on both the east and west of Waitematā are moved

· Option 2: the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

· Option 3: the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward.

31. Each option has different flow-on effects to neighbouring wards.

32. The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 1. The other options disrupt communities of interest to a greater extent.

33. For example, Option 2 takes areas around Ponsonby and Grey Lynn away from the central city into the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

34. Option 3 places large areas of Ōrākei into Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. In the Local Government Commission’s first proposal for wards, Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were combined. Following submissions, the Local Government Commission determined that Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were distinct communities of interest and created separate wards. The commission took into account socio-economic differences and voting patterns.

35. The effect of Option 1 on the 10 per cent rule is as follows:

Ward	% Difference from quota
Whau	9.5%
Waitematā and Gulf	9.5%
Albert-Eden-Roskill	9.8%
Ōrākei	11.0%
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	10.6%
Waitākere	6.5%

Review of the Rodney ward

36. The Rodney ward needs to gain about 10,000 population to be only 10 per cent under the quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options (maps are in Attachment B):

· Option1: the area north of the Whangaparaoa peninsula which is currently in the Albany ward is moved into Rodney (Orewa, Hatfields, Waiwera)

· Option 2: the southern boundary of Rodney ward is moved southwards

· Option 3: the council proposes the status quo, which is not complying, on the basis that any options to increase the population in the Rodney ward split communities of interest.

37. The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 3. Both Option 1 and Option 2 split communities of interest.

38. In Option 1, the area from Orewa to Waiwera shares a community of interest with the Hibiscus Coast.

39. Option 2 is difficult to achieve without splitting a community of interest. Option 2 as shown, moves the Rodney ward boundary south to include Whenuapai and Paremoremo and it borders Ranui and Westgate. The Whenuapai area is assumed to be south-looking rather than north-looking; for example, residents in Whenuapai would tend to go south for key activities like retail shopping or business, rather than north. Another option for a boundary is along the Upper Harbour motorway. However, this splits the Hobsonville community.

40. Further reasons for keeping the status quo include:

· ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable)

· the current boundaries are the boundaries originally set by the Local Government Commission as representing communities of interest

· population is increasing and will continue to increase over time.

Review of the Manurewa-Papakura ward

41. The Joint Governance Working Party has not yet considered options for changing the Manurewa-Papakura ward boundaries.

42. In order to be only 10 per cent different to the average population to member ratio, the ward needs to gain a population of about 250. The Franklin ward cannot lose population, or it will become non-complying. Any change to the ward boundary will need to be at the northern end.

43. Staff have provided two options for local board comment back to the Joint Governance Working Party, in Attachment C:

· Option 1: move the northern boundary of the ward on the western side of SH1 motorway up to Cavendish Drive

· Option 2: move the northern boundary of the ward on eastern side of SH1 motorway northwards, just over the Redoubt Road ridge

· Option 3: the status quo, which would need to be promoted to the Local Government Commission on the basis that it is not possible to achieve compliance without splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest.

44. Staff recommend Option 3, given it is the least disruptive option, and that the degree of non-compliance is minimal. It also means that the ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable).

Review of the number of members in wards

45. Wards are currently either single-member or double-member wards.

46. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered larger wards; for example, a southern ward based on the current Manukau, Howick and Manurewa-Papakura wards and having six members. Implications include:

· the cost of a by-election across such a large ward if a vacancy occurs

· voter turnout – those elected will tend to be elected by areas with higher turnout, meaning there will not be as much a spread of representation as there is now

· the cap on campaign expenditure is increased

· each of the six members will have the same large electorate to service.

47. The Joint Governance Working Party also considered splitting current double-member wards into single-member wards. If this was done using local board boundaries as defining communities of interest, only the Manukau ward, if split into two, would continue to comply. The Joint Governance Working Party is recommending no change to current ward arrangements.

Local boards

Local board population

48. The following table provides the population for each local board and the number of board members:

Board	Population	Members	Population per member
Rodney	64,300	9	7,144
Hibiscus and Bays	104,500	8	13,063
Upper Harbour	65,300	6	10,883
Kaipātiki	94,000	8	11,750
Devonport-Takapuna	62,800	6	10,467
Henderson-Massey	122,300	8	15,288
Waitākere Ranges	54,200	6	9,033
Great Barrier	1,000	5	200
Waiheke	9,630	5	1,926
Waitematā	108,500	7	15,500
Whau	84,700	7	12,100
Albert-Eden	109,200	8	13,650
Puketāpapa	63,000	6	10,500
Ōrākei	91,500	7	13,071
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	79,700	7	11,386
Howick	150,200	9	16,689
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	81,100	7	11,586
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	87,800	7	12,543
Manurewa	94,500	8	11,813
Papakura	54,500	6	9,083
Franklin	74,600	9	8,289
Total	1,657,330

49. This table is provided for information. There is no legal requirement that the number of members should reflect the size of population. The 10 per cent rule only applies between internal boundaries of subdivisions. Staff are not aware of any reasons for changing the existing number of board members.

Local board subdivisions that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

50. A table showing local board subdivisions in relation to the 10 per cent rule is in Attachment D.

51. There are two subdivisions that do not comply:

· Botany subdivision of the Howick Local Board (at 16.84 per cent, which needs to reduce its population)

· Wellsford subdivision of the Rodney Local Board (at -10.69 per cent, which will be addressed in response to a suggestion to change the Warkworth subdivision).

Review of the Botany subdivision in the Howick Local Board area

52. Maps showing the current subdivision boundaries and two alternative options are contained in Attachment E.

53. It is clear that the only way for the Botany subdivision to lose population is through the Howick subdivision extending southwards. There are two options proposed for consideration by local boards.

54. One option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on the eastern side of Botany Road only, while the second option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on both sides of Botany Road. Each option results in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

55. The Howick Local Board is invited to indicate its preferred option. This would be the option which has the least disruptive effect on existing communities of interest.

Review of the subdivisions in the Rodney Local Board area

56. A submission has been received from a resident, Mr Grant Kirby, living near the Kaipara Harbour, pointing out that the Warkworth subdivision extends from coast to coast. Mr Kirby was a former chair of the Local Government Commission. The submission states that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not share a community of interest with Warkworth and suggests extending the Kumeu subdivision boundary northwards, to follow the Helensville electoral boundary.

57. Maps showing current subdivisions, the option of extending the Kumeu subdivision northwards and an option of extending the Wellsford subdivision southwards, are contained in Attachment F. Both options result in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

58. The Joint Governance Working Party agrees that those near the Kaipara Harbour do not share a community of interest with Warkworth and invites the Rodney Local Board to recommend its preferred option in view of its knowledge of current communities of interest.

Waitematā Local Board subdivisions

59. A suggestion has been received that the Waitematā Local Board should have a central subdivision. A map is contained in Attachment G showing what this might look like.

60. The Waitematā Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created in order to promote more effective representation of communities of interest and, if so, whether it supports the proposed option.

Upper Harbour Local Board subdivisions

61. A suggestion has been received that the Upper Harbour Local Board should have subdivisions to ensure there was representation from the western end of the local board area. A map is contained in Attachment H showing an arrangement of three subdivisions that complies with the 10 per cent rule.

62. The Upper Harbour Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created to improve effective representation of communities of interest and if so, whether it supports the proposed option.

Review of local board names

63. Staff noted comments at local board cluster meetings and other meetings that some current names may not be appropriate. These include:

(i) Howick Local Board and Ward: ‘Howick’ is only part of the local board area

(ii) Waitematā Local Board and Ward: Some people associate ‘Waitematā’ with a different area (for example the area of the Waitematā District Health Board)

(iii) Ōrākei Local Board and Ward: ‘Ōrākei’ is only part of the local board area

(iv) Albany Ward: ‘Albany’ is only part of the ward area.

64. The Great Barrier Local Board has recommended adding ‘Aotea’ to its name. This acknowledges a recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngati Rehua - Ngatiwai ki Aotea.

65. Apart from the Great Barrier Local Board proposal, staff are not aware of any other specific proposals and are not researching alternative names. Local boards should note that a name change has the potential to confuse the electorate and there are budgetary implications with changing associated stationery and signage.

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

66. The Auckland Council’s review of representation arrangements for the 2019 elections has implications for local boards. These are discussed in the body of the report. The report also provides comments on changes that affect the Governing Body, for local board information and feedback.

67. Local boards have supported a process where a Joint Governance Working Party develops the Auckland Council proposal for presentation to the Governing Body. The Joint Governance Working Party has joint local board and Governing Body representation. The Governing Body will make the resolution required by the legislation which will be notified for public submissions.

68. Following the closing date for submissions, the Governing Body must make the final statutory resolution within six weeks. The Joint Governance Working Party will consider submissions. So that the working party may liaise effectively with local boards, the local board is invited to delegate authority to the Chairperson or another member to represent the board’s views on the review. This is in the event that the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during consideration of submissions following public notification.

69. There will be an opportunity for the Governing Body, when it makes its first resolution, to further consider a process for local board involvement in commenting on submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

70. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for councils to establish Māori wards for electing Governing Body members. There is no similar provision for local board elections. The process for electing local board members is no different for Māori as for others.

71. The Auckland Council Governing Body has considered the possibility of creating a Māori ward. A resolution to do so was required by 23 November 2017. The Governing Body supported the creation of a Māori ward in principle but decided not to proceed further until the number of Governing Body members was able to be increased.

72. When considering subdivisions and communities of interest within its area, it may be relevant to take into account tribal rohe boundaries.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

73. The review process is supported in-house. There will be costs associated with public notices and a payment to the Local Government Commission for preparing plans of boundaries and having them certified by the Surveyor-General. These costs are budgeted city-wide.

74. There are no financial implications for local boards. There will be down-stream council costs if the total number of local board members is increased (salary and support costs) or if there are changes to local board names resulting in costs associated with changing signage and stationery.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

75. The legislation requires deadline dates for certain decisions and public notification. Auckland Council has the greatest number of governance entities in the country (one Governing Body and 21 local boards) and there is a risk of not meeting these deadlines due to the need to involve all entities in the review.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

76. The Joint Governance Working Party will consider local board feedback in June 2018 and develop proposals for consideration by the Governing Body at its July meeting, when it will make its statutory resolution for public notification. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to have input.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitemata ward boundary options	161
b ⇩	Rodney ward boundary options	163
c ⇩	Manurewa-Papakura ward boundary options	165
d ⇩	Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule	167
e ⇩	Botany subdivision boundary options	169
f ⇩	Rodney Local Board subdivision options	173
g ⇩	Waitemata Local Board subdivision option	177
h ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option	179

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Unlock Northcote Work Programme 2018/2021

File No.: CP2018/06957

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland Unlock Northcote work programme 2018/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Late in 2015, Auckland Council’s Auckland Development Committee endorsed Northcote as a priority development location included in the Panuku ‘unlock’ category.

3. In March 2016, the Northcote town centre renewal High Level Project Plan was approved by the Auckland Development Committee.

4. Based on existing planning documents (Northcote Central Concept Plan 2005 and Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010) a vision for the project is: “Northcote is a growing community with a lively and welcoming heart that celebrates culture and where business thrives and everyone’s needs are met”.

5. The project scope consists of:

· The town centre (5 ha) where council has direct control of the development due to council's ownership of the sites.

· The wider neighbourhood (83 ha) where council alongside Housing New Zealand can promote wider renewal benefits.

6. In 2016 the Unlock Northcote Framework Plan was approved by Panuku Board with support from the Kaipātiki Local Board and was published November 2016.

7. Panuku identified four key strategic moves that will unlock the opportunities at Northcote. The key moves and associated outcomes are:

Key move	Associated outcome
The town centre	Creating a vibrant heart
Lake Road	Creating a neighborhood boulevard
Greenway	A network of public open space amenity
Housing	Increasing density, choice and tenure mix

8. Progress on delivery of projects over the next three years depends on the outcome of Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and also securing sufficient funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.

9. It is anticipated that once executed the project will deliver the following benefits:

· a vibrant thriving local commercial and community hub;

· improved economic performance of the centre as it responds to renewal and market perception;

· provision of new warm, dry homes with wider tenure choice;

· reconnecting the centre with its wider community through enjoyable people friendly walk and cycle ways;

· an exciting, active and safe town centre;

· improved infrastructure capacity including storm water, waste water and roads;

· attractive and better connected reserves and public spaces providing places for people to linger, learn and play; and

· positive social and health and wellbeing outcomes.

10. It is noted that any redevelopment activity that may directly affect existing council community facilities or services will be subject to liaison with the affected business owners and the Kaipātiki Local Board, which may require further approval by council as required.

11. In December 2017 the local board endorsed the high level concept design and principles for the Awataha Greenway Project and noted the level of recent and past engagement undertaken with the community and stakeholders.

12. Engagement with the local board and stakeholders is ongoing and is part of this work programme.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) endorse Panuku Development Auckland work programme 2018/2021.

b) note there will be further opportunities for feedback and engagement.

Horopaki / Context

13. Northcote has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a town centre which requires renewal. The immediate project area has an old town centre with established community facilities and a neighbourhood retail centre, including a supermarket, surrounded generally by low density residential housing, two schools and a high concentration of Housing New Zealand (HNZ) social housing.

14. Council owns the freehold interests in the town centre subject to over 20 perpetually renewable ground leases. The buildings were mostly built in the early 1960s. The current town centre fabric is largely in a poor condition in part attributed to the ground lease structure.

15. The regeneration of Northcote town centre has been envisaged for over 20 years. The Northcote Central Concept Plan 2005 and Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010 both involved substantial community engagement, and the work undertaken by Panuku builds on the principles articulated in these previous plans.

16. The High Level Project Plan (HLPP) and the proposed outcomes were endorsed by the Auckland Development Committee in March 2016. The HLPP allows Panuku to undertake further detailed project planning, design and analysis.

17. The HLPP:

· outlines the context for the project, including the strategic rationale for undertaking the project;

· provides an overall description of the proposed project and project objectives, including any anticipated high level outcomes or benefits;

· provides a description of the major phases and stages to be undertaken to complete the project; and

· identifies strategic moves to help unlock the opportunities, namely partnering for desired outcomes, revitalising and developing the centre and reconnecting it with its surroundings.

18. The Unlock Northcote Framework Plan was approved by the Panuku Board and was published in November 2016. The Framework Plan is a non-statutory guiding document that builds on the HLPP to achieve desired outcomes. The Framework Plan identifies four key moves, which are described in the analysis and advice section below;

19. In June 2017 Panuku and Home, Land and Community (HLC) commissioned the Isthmus Group to prepare a Greenway Design Guide (design guide) that will provide a high-level concept design vision;

20. The Greenway will link up Northcote’s existing parks and open spaces, and will include a shared cycle and walking path, planted native corridor, play trails and play destinations.

21. Controlled daylighting of the historic Awataha Stream will occur along some sections of the Greenway.

22. The Greenway development will continue to be informed by community concepts gathered in the past. Extensive engagement and consultation with the local board, mana whenua, stakeholders and the wider community has been undertaken to inform the design guide.

23. Panuku has been working and will continue to work closely with the council and HLC to ensure integration with development of the Northcote area as a whole.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

24. The rationale for selecting Northcote Town Centre and surrounds as an ‘unlock’ project consists of council’s majority ownership of the town centre, a significant partnership opportunity with HLC, Northcote’s close proximity to the city centre, and direct access to the motorway.

25. The council, together with HLC, is investing in a number of large infrastructure projects in Northcote including Trunk Sewer 8 and safe cycle route and storm water works.

26. Unlock Northcote project aims to facilitate the regeneration of the town centre and wider Northcote central area and to contribute to Auckland Council’s strategic objectives. The key moves set out below deliver on these objectives.

Key move 1: Town centre, creating a vibrant heart

27. The redevelopment will include:

· providing a vibrant shopping destination including a greater variety of retail and hospitality outlets whilst building upon the existing strong ethnic food offering;

· enhanced public spaces including a new town square as a dedicated, lively and safe space for events, activities and celebrations; and

· a new multi-purpose community building.

28. Progress over the next three years depends on securing funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.

Key move 2: Lake Road, creating a great urban street

29. Lake Road is the busy main connection between the town centre and the rest of Auckland, and acts as a spine through the Unlock Northcote project area. Currently it creates a significant physical barrier with the focus being vehicle movement rather than delivering any place qualities, despite its role as the main approach to the town centre. The road severs the connection between the town centre and Greenslade Reserve, the main green open space for the community, and generally creates a divide between neighbourhoods.

30. The project will transition Northcote to a city suburb where walking, cycling and public transport will be preferred choices.

31. The first step in the 2018/2021 work programme is to create a welcome zone inviting visitors into the town centre, as well as providing a better connection between Greenslade Reserve and the town centre. Progress depends on securing funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.

Key move 3: Greenway, a network of public open space

32. The Greenway will comprise a series of ‘connected’ spaces to form a contiguous and public space network through Northcote. The Greenway also assists with the attenuation of stormwater flows, reducing flooding and reconnecting the community to the historic Awataha Stream. The proposal will ‘fill in the gaps’ between existing and proposed public amenity with the 10 spaces that make up its length consisting of reserves, walkways and streetscapes. They become a series of experiences embedded in the local community.

33. At its December 2017 business meeting the local board endorsed the Greenway High Level Design Guide and noted past and recent engagement that was undertaken to develop the Greenway Design Guide.

34. Projects under this key move to be progressed in the 2018/2021 work programme are:

· Greenslade Reserve involving:

o storage of overland flows in Greenslade Reserve by excavating to mitigate flooding restrictions for the Northcote town centre redevelopment,

o design and construction by Healthy Water including, excavation of the reserve (average 1m),

o day–lighting a section of the existing 750mm diameter stormwater pipe and wastewater diversions,

o floodwall along north and east boundaries (0.8m highest),

o landscaping of the elements in the reserve outside the sports field turf, and cycleway-walkway and lighting, stream design and terrace seating.

· ‘Schools Edge’ Greenway (in partnership with HLC) involving:

o concept and developed design for a holistic ‘schools edge’ solution,

o controlled flow daylighting of a portion of the historic Awataha stream,

o landscape amenity including 3m cycle/walkway, lighting, retaining, play elements and seating, and

o associated planting.

35. · Ongoing Placemaking activities associated with the Greenway, such as:

o Community cleanup and restoration at Jessie Tonar Scout Reserve,

o Small scale activations with an environmental focus, and

o Community seed collection and plant propagation.

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

36. The local board has been involved through an agreed engagement process on a fortnightly basis and a bimonthly workshop with the project team.

37. The local board views and feedback have been integrated into developing the Greenway Design Guide.

38. The local board will be provided with the opportunity to be involved in all community and stakeholder engagement sessions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

39. Northcote is steeped in environmental and cultural history. It can trace its lineage back to the Awataha Stream and surrounds and those ancestors that occupied this area.

40. The Unlock Northcote project presents an opportunity to reacquaint the community with the surrounding natural environment.

41. Reserves and open spaces contribute to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Appropriate engagement and involvement will be undertaken with tangata whenua and mataawaka throughout this process.

42. Engagement with Maori was undertaken through the development of the Greenway Design Guide to ensure their concerns and aspirations were acknowledged and integrated into the high-level concept design.

43. Design themes and principles are strongly embedded in Te ao Māori (a Māori world view), demonstrated by the use of Te Aranga Māori Design Principles.

Implementation

44. It is anticipated that over the coming three years (2018-2021) progress will be made in relation to the identified key moves as follows:

Key move	Details
Greenway	Construction well underway.
Town centre	The new multi-purpose community facility subject to securing funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.
Lake Road	A welcome zone will be the first step. Progress depends on securing funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.
Housing	Progress on housing in the town centre depends on securing funding to acquire the remaining ground leases.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

1. The Unlock Northcote project will require funding for ground lease acquisitions and capital works. The scale of transformation envisaged can be achieved through the following funding sources:

· Long Term Plan 2018-2028;

· reinvest the proceeds from development agreements for sites in the Northcote project area to fund projects and initiatives to deliver agreed HLPP outcomes;

· optimisation, which is a development approach targeted at dealing with council’s under- performing assets, and

· use of targeted rates, which is a way for communities to collectively fund things which they would like to do in and around their centres but for which no money is available. It is an enabling tool which will open the door to significantly better outcomes for centres

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

45. Insufficient funding for the remaining ground lease acquisitions.

46. Insufficient funding from the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

47. Ongoing engagement (monthly update) with the local board.

48. Ongoing engagement and placemaking activations with stakeholders.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carlos Rahman - Senior Engagement Advisor

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Manager Stakeholder Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Draft Sunnynook Plan

File No.: CP2018/05733

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to consult on the Draft Sunnynook Plan from 8 June 2018 to 8 July 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The purpose of this report is to gain approval to consult on the Draft Sunnynook Plan (draft plan). The draft plan contains a vision, guiding principles, six outcomes and actions that seek to achieve those outcomes.

3. The draft plan was developed together with the Sunnynook Plan working party with input from internal stakeholders, Auckland Transport and mana whenua. Ideas from public feedback and school workshops were also used to inform the development of the draft plan.

4. An engagement strategy for consultation on the draft plan is summarised in this report. Board members will be invited to all public engagement events.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the Draft Sunnynook Plan as set out in Attachment A to this agenda report for public engagement commencing 8 June 2018.

b) delegate authority to council officers to make minor amendments to the Draft Sunnynook Plan prior to commencement of public engagement.

Horopaki / Context

5. In August 2017, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Kaipātiki Local Board endorsed the commencement of the Sunnynook Plan project and the establishment of a working party to guide the development of the plan. The working party is comprised of two members from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, one member from the Kaipātiki Local Board and two members from the Sunnynook Community Association.

6. Public consultation was held over a five-week period in September and October 2017 to gather ideas on what the community would like to see in the 30-year plan for Sunnynook, Totara Vale and Forrest Hill. There were two public engagement events and a static display at the Sunnynook Community Centre over the consultation period. In addition to these events, three workshops were held with students from Target Road Primary School, Wairau Intermediate School and Sunnynook Primary School. The key themes that emerged from community consultation were:

· people value the parks and open spaces in the area;

· better footpaths and walkways were needed, including pedestrian access to Sunnynook Bus Station;

· the Sunnynook town centre could be improved; and

· support for safety improvements, such as more lighting and intersection upgrades.

7. A hui was held with Ngāti Maru, Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki and Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua in November 2017 to discuss their aspirations for the area and how the iwi groups can be involved in the decision-making process for the plan. Improving water quality and the stream environments within the Wairau catchment was a key theme.

8. Feedback from everyone involved to date has helped shape the Draft Sunnynook Plan.

9. The purpose of the plan is to build on Sunnynook, Totara Vale and Forrest Hill’s many attractive and valued qualities through a range of short to long-term actions. The draft plan sets out a vision, a set of guiding principles, six outcomes and a range of actions under each of the outcomes. The draft vision is: “Sunnynook, Totara Vale and Forrest Hill will continue to develop as one of Auckland’s most attractive, connected, social and liveable neighbourhoods for a diversity of cultures and ages.” The six outcomes are:

· Outcome 1: The natural environment and waterways are attractive, healthy and resilient

· Outcome 2: The area is accessible, safe and easy to get around with a range of transport choices and a strong focus on walking and cycling

· Outcome 3: Attractive parks and open spaces are connected by leafy green streets to cater for a wide range of activities for everyone

· Outcome 4: Sunnynook town centre is the lively retail and social heart of the Sunnynook, Totara Vale and Forrest Hill communities

· Outcome 5: A quality built environment that caters for the diverse needs of the community

· Outcome 6: Mana whenua are recognised as kaitiaki.

10. A range of actions are identified for achieving each outcome. These actions are identified in the implementation strategy as being short (0-5 years), medium (6-10 years) or long-term (11-30 years) actions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The public engagement period on the Draft Sunnynook Plan is proposed to be from Friday 8 June to Sunday 8 July 2018. School holidays begin on Monday 9 July.

12. A series of events are proposed, including:

· Sunnynook Bus Station on Monday 11 June, 7am to 8.30am;

· The mobile library bus will be parked in front of the league club on Sycamore Drive on Saturday 16 June, 10am to 4pm;

· Inside the Sunnynook Community Centre on Thursday 21 June, 3pm to 7pm; and

· Sunnynook Shopping Centre outside Countdown on Saturday 30 June, 10am to 2pm.

13. Local board members will be invited to each of the engagement events.

14. The draft plan is proposed to be summarised and combined with a feedback form. There will be feedback boxes at the Sunnynook Community Centre, Glenfield Library and Takapuna Library. Feedback can be provided via email to the Sunnynook Plan inbox (sunnynookplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) or returned via freepost. An online version of the feedback form will also be available. Hard copies of the full document will be available for viewing at these locations and at Meadowood Community House. The public will be encouraged to access the digital version of the draft plan on the council’s website.

15. The summary and feedback form will also be translated into Simplified Chinese. A Mandarin-speaking interpreter will be present at two of the events (16 June and 21 June) to assist Mandarin-speaking members of the community.

16. In addition, there will be an information board at the Sunnynook Community Centre throughout the consultation period. A story will be placed in Our Auckland June edition and digital version, and an advertisement will be placed in the North Shore Times. A3 posters will also be handed out to businesses, schools and childcare centres in the area.

17. Feedback received from this round of public engagement will be reviewed and the draft plan will be updated as appropriate. The reporting team will work with the working party to update the draft plan in advance of the final plan being reported to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Kaipātiki Local Board for adoption in August 2018.

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

18. The Sunnynook Plan is sponsored by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and the Kaipātiki Local Board. Both local boards have representation on the Sunnynook Plan working party. Additionally, two members from the Sunnynook Community Association are on the working party to ensure local views are adequately considered when drafting the plan.

19. The project team had four meetings with the working party prior to the draft plan being finalised. In addition, members from the project team met with three Kaipātiki Local Board members in late-March to provide an update on progress. At the most recent working party meeting on 13 April 2018, the draft plan and the consultation schedule were presented to the working party for comment and discussion. Comments received from the working party have been taken on board in shaping the Draft Sunnynook Plan.

20. The delivery of the actions proposed in the Sunnynook Plan will have a broad range of positive economic, social and environmental impacts for a growing community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. All 14 iwi groups with interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the project. A hui was held on 14 November 2017 with representatives from Ngāti Maru and Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki. Subsequent meetings were held with representatives from Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki separately. The importance of improving water quality was a key theme that came through from discussions with these groups. Opportunities for storytelling by incorporating Māori design in public art and opportunities to implement dual signage were also supported.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. The Draft Sunnynook Plan identifies a number of actions that contribute to achieving the six outcomes and the vision. The timeframe identified for delivering each action is based on advice provided from relevant council departments and Auckland Transport. Some projects identified in the 2018/19 local board work programme may contribute to the actions identified in the Sunnynook Plan. As the local board work programme is currently being finalised, the details of the relevant projects will be included in the final version of the Sunnynook Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. For longer term spatial plans such as the Sunnynook Plan, there is a significant strategic and reputational risk of not maintaining momentum for the implementation of actions. To avoid this risk, an implementation plan and monitoring programme will be developed so that the relevant delivery agents remain accountable for, and committed to, following through on the plan’s short, medium and long-term actions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. Following public consultation, the Sunnynook Plan will be finalised. The project team will continue working with the relevant parts of the council family, local boards, mana whenua, community groups and key stakeholders during the final phase of plan preparation. Approval for the Sunnynook Plan will be sought from local boards in August 2018. An implementation plan will be prepared after the Sunnynook Plan is adopted. It will be used as a guidance tool to deliver the actions.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Sunnynook Plan	191

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Emily Ip - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Kaipatiki Local Grants, Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2018/06268

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 (refer to Attachment B and Attachment C).

3. The Kaipātiki Local Board adopted the Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 19 April 2017 (refer to Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $200,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board has allocated a total of $102,806 as part of Local Grants rounds One and Two, leaving a total of $97,194 to be allocated to Local Grants Round Three.

5. Eighteen applications were received for Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018, requesting a total of $97,233.

6. Twelve further applications were also received as multiboard applications, requesting a total of $85,651.25.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 applications as outlined in the following table:

Application ID	Applicant	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1808-301	Calliope Athletic and Harrier Club	Towards enabling junior and senior members to participate in New Zealand athletic meetings.	$1,000	Ineligible
LG1808-302	Northcote Toy Library	Towards toy librarian wages for Terms two to four 2018.	$2,000	Eligible
LG1808-303	Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust	Towards the cost of purchasing projector and a hall hire.	$1,996	Eligible
LG1808-306	60's Up Movement of New Zealand Incorporated (Glenfield Branch)	Towards the operating expenses for the 2018-2019 financial year.	$1,000	Eligible
LG1808-308	Literacy Auckland North	Towards tutor costs and administration costs for a Digital Literacy Group programme.	$5,400	Eligible
LG1808-314	Action Education Incorporated	Towards costs of delivering 15 spoken word poetry workshops in schools of Kaipātiki area.	$7,000	Eligible
LG1808-316	KidsCan Charitable Trust	Towards costs of food for children in need.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1808-317	Northart Society Incorporated	Towards costs of materials in advertising Northart events.	$9,095	Eligible
LG1808-319	Kaipatiki Project	Towards the costs of facilitators' wages for the Kapatiki project	$7,500	Eligible
LG1808-320	Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated	Towards the graffiti artwork supplies and the artist's wages.	$1,565	Eligible
LG1808-321	Changing Minds Trust	Towards the materials and operational costs for “Breathing Space” workshops, and the facilitators' fees.	$8,435.00	Eligible
LG1808-322	Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated	Towards the costs of a marquee, Saint Johns, staff hours and koha for the kaumatua and Maori wardens at the Birkdale Beach Haven Matariki Kapahaka Festival 2018 held 22 June 2018	$4,843	Eligible
LG1808-323	Conscious Kid Northcote	Towards the costs of equipment, facilitators and staff salary on “Nature Play Community Day” workshops.	$5,200	Eligible
LG1808-324	Birkenhead United Football Club	Towards a salary for the Birkenhead United Football Club operations manager.	$20,000	Ineligible
LG1808-325	Urban EcoLiving Charitable Trust	Towards costs of engaging teachers to deliver the Tread Lightly Caravan programme to Windy Ridge and Manuka Schools, for eight days	$2,250	Eligible
LG1808-326	Olga Tarasenko	Towards the costs of a two hour game, run for school children aged seven to 12.	$965
LG1808-327	North Harbour Hockey Association	Towards costs of delivery kits and venue hire.	$2,520	Eligible
LG1808-328	Children's Autism Foundation	Towards the cost of holding a two hour community workshop, one social skills programme and 10 family outreach consultations.	$11,464
Total			$97,233

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline the multi-board applications in the Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 applications, as outlined in the following table:

Application ID	Applicant	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1802-205	The Kids for Kids Charitable Trust	Towards venue hire and production costs of a youth choir performance.	$3422.87	Eligible
LG1808-318	Chinese New Settlers Services Trust	Towards the tutor fees, venue hire and advertising costs to run arts and cultural sessions for children and youth at Glenfield Community Centre.	$6,000	Eligible
LG1808-309	North Shore Women's Centre	Towards the portion of social worker's wage at North Shore Women's Centre.	$4,958.85	Eligible
LG1808-304	Age Concern North Shore Incorporated	Towards operating expenses for the 2018-2019 financial year.	$30,000	Eligible
LG1802-203	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Towards a proportion of the operating costs for the six month period from July 2018 to December 2018.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1806-207	Harbour Sport Trust	Towards costs to run the Mud Rush event, specifically changing room and stage hire, ambulance hire, bins and liners and printing costs.	$3,000	Eligible
LG1806-234	Kelly Group (NZ)	Towards coaching fees and resources kits to deliver a traditional Maori games programme to 29 schools in Auckland.	$24,692.40	Eligible
LG1802-218	Dance Therapy NZ	Towards programme facilitation fees, supervision costs, programme coordination, administration and equipment to run “Dance 4 Us and STARS” north shore workshop sessions.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1802-232	Gymnastics Community Trust	Towards the purchase of new equipment.	$2,000	Eligible
LG1802-210	Yes Disability Resource Centre	Towards "community connectors' wages, resources and administration costs for the weekly drop in clinics and workshops.	$2,000	Eligible
LG1808-311	Neighbourhood Support North Shore	Towards materials, operational costs and wages for a trainer for Neighbourhood Support training	$5,000	Eligible
LG1815-212	Project Litefoot Trust	Towards the overall cost of the project,tagged towards the cost of materials, equipment, advertising and promotion.	$1752	Eligible
Total			$85,651.25

Horopaki / Context

7. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

8. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities;

· lower priorities for funding;

· exclusions;

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close; and

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Kaipātiki Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 19 April 2017 and will operate three local grants rounds for this financial year.

10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the Local Board Plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the Kaipātiki Local Board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

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

12 Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Kaipātiki Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the Kaipātiki Local Board grant programme.

13 The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

14. A summary of each application received through Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants, Round Three is attached, (refer to Attachment B and C).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

17. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $200,000 for the local grants rounds in the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $102,806 was allocated in Local Grants, rounds One and Two 2017/2018, leaving a total of $97,194 to be allocated.

18. Eighteen applications were received for Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018, requesting a total of $97,233.

19. Twelve further applications were also received as multiboard applications, requesting a total of $85,651.25.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

20. Following the Kaipātiki Local Board allocating funding for round three local grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Kaipatiki Grants Programme 2017/2018 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Kaipatiki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Kaipatiki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018 multiboard grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Lincoln Papali'i - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

16 May 2018

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Kaipātiki Local Board for FY 2016-2017

File No.: CP2018/05809

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Kaipātiki Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated business associations for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information on which the local board will recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for these two BID programmes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) programme supports business associations by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a grant to the relevant business association (BID).

4. The BIDs are incorporated societies that are independent of council. For council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, council requires the BIDs to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

5. The BID Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of BID committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members.

6. This report indicates that both Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date.

7. Staff therefore recommend that as the BIDs have met the requirements of the BID Policy, that the local board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates sought by the BIDs.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) recommends to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2018-2019 for the following business improvement district (BID) programmes:

· $120,000 for Northcote Town Centre Incorporated; and

· $187,000 for Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated.

Horopaki / Context

8. Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and disestablishing BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements. Please see Attachment A for a review of key elements of the BID programme.

9. BID targeted rates are applied to all commercially-rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct. Those funds are transferred to the business association operating the BID programme.

10. There are currently 48 BID programmes throughout Auckland which represent more than 25,000 businesses and a combined $17.5 million in targeted rates investment. Please see Attachment B for current and proposed targeted rates budgets for all BIDs.

11. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

12. Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019 and striking of the targeted rate.

13. This report is a requirement of the BID Policy (2016).

Compliance with the BID Policy

14. The BID Policy is the means for council to ensure accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourage good governance. This is achieved by requiring regular reporting by BID-operating business associations specifically by providing to council the following documents, and staying in touch with their local board(s) at least once a year:

· Current Strategic Plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rates funds responsibly.

· Annual Report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted ratepayers.

· Business Plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the Strategic Plan, to be achieved and resourced.

· Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. The council BID programme team monitors compliance with the BID Policy on an ongoing basis, and provides governance advice to BID-operating business associations as needed or requested.

16. As BID programmes are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent corporate status, the policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. Officers, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

17. Both Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date.

18. Staff therefore recommend that as the BIDs have met the requirements of the BID Policy, that the local board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates sought by the BIDs.

19. The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy by Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. Please see Attachments C and D for details.

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

20. Recommending that the Governing Body strikes the targeted rates for Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated in the Kaipātiki Local Board area means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their strategic plans.

21. By continuing these services and programmes, Northcote Town Centre Incorporated and Birkenhead Town Centre Association Incorporated should better serve their town centres and members, and support business growth.

22. The Kaipātiki Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the BID programmes last year (resolution number KT/2017/57), as did the 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their areas.

23. Several local boards provide additional funding to local business associations, but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24. This decision will have no adverse effects on, or particular benefits to, the Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that district. Council’s financial role is only to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association on a quarterly basis.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. There are reputational risks to council if ratepayer funds are misused, but this is rare. Otherwise, there are no direct financial risks to the local board or council that could result from this recommendation to approve the BID targeted rates.

27. The requirements of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds, by requiring each BID to plan for the intended use of funds, report on its activities to its members, and to have its accounts audited.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. If the local board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rates be struck as stated in the recommendation as part of its approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Annual Report to Local Boards on BID Policy Compliance	261
b ⇩	Attachment B: Two Year Comparison of BID Targeted Rates Revenue for All BIDs (exc. GST)	263
c ⇩	Attachment C: Birkenhead Village BID programme	265
d ⇩	Attachment D: Northcote Town Centre BID programme	267

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Thompson - BID Programme Specialist

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	John Gillon
Deputy Chairperson	Danielle Grant
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Kay McIntyre, QSM
	Anne-Elise Smithson
	Adrian Tyler
	Lindsay Waugh

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki	· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara
· Ngāti Paoa	· Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei
· Te Akitai Waiohua	· Ngāti Tamaterā
· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua	· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua
· Ngāti Whanaunga	· Ngāti Maru
· Te Kawerau a Maki

Proposed names	Meaning
Taruke Crescent (preferred)	Pots that were used to catch crayfish. The pots were made from young maanuka stems, which were bent around a frame of vine and maanuka, and then tied with flax and vines.
Kaharoa Crescent	Large drift net used for fishing.
Kararu Crescent	The mud snail - an air breathing mollusc which lives in a habitat that is intermediate between the land and the sea. A very common univalve mollusc on tidal mudflats. Has a wrinkled looking shell and was eaten in large quantities.

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager