Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 6

8 Deputations 6

8.1 Dan Bidois, MP for Northcote 6

8.2 Kiwi Play Safe 6

8.3 Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society 7

8.4 Jesse Jensen - Mural Artist 7

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Monarch Park Toilet Feasibility 9

12 Tamahere Reserve Playspace 45

13 Normanton Reserve - approval of detailed design for new play space 53

14 Approval of the 2018/2019 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme 77

15 Landowner approval for construction and ongoing maintenance of a community sensory garden at 134 Birkdale Road 101

16 Land owner approval application to paint murals on practice tennis court walls at John G Kay Park and Rotary Grove 117

17 New Road Name for Subdivision at 21 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead 129

18 Auckland Transport Monthly Update 135

19 Kaipātiki Local Board: Glenfield Town Centre Research Report
151

20 Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report 187

21 Members' Reports 193

22 Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update 207

23 Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board - June 2018 209

24 Governance Forward Work Calendar 217

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

26 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 223

C1 Acquisition and exchange of open space land - Northcote 223

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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, 20 June 2018, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Dan Bidois, MP for Northcote

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Newly elected Member of Parliament, Dan Bidois, will be in attendance to address the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the deputation.

b) thank Dan Bidois for his attendance.

8.2 Kiwi Play Safe

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Kaipātiki Local Board regarding plans to redesign the Jean Sampson playground.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Founder of Kiwi Play Safe, Jacquelyn Collins, will be in attendance to address the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Kiwi Play Safe.

b) thank Jacquelyn Collins for her attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Kiwi Play Safe presentation ................................................................ 227

8.3 Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Kaipātiki Local Board regarding Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Chairperson Jo Knight, Keith Salmon and David Roberts, will be in attendance to address the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society.

b) thank Jo Knight, Keith Salmon and David Roberts for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Submission to KLB from PFK for immediate action on Kauri
Reserves.............................................................................................. 233

8.4 Jesse Jensen - Mural Artist

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this deputation is to address the Kaipātiki Local Board regarding mural art in the Kaipātiki area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Jesse Jensen, Mural Artist, will be in attendance to address the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the deputation.

b) thank Jesse Jensen for his attendance and presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Monarch Park Toilet Feasibility

File No.: CP2018/10984

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Kaipataki Local Board to install a single pan toilet block at Monarch Park, 68 Moore Street, Hillcrest.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Three location options were assessed for a new toilet facility at Monarch Park.

3. An engineering assessment concluded that all three options are technically feasible and can be connected to the available services.

4. All three options have an estimated cost that exceeds the approved project budget currently allocated to the project.

5. Staff consider the best location to be Option 1, located inside the Moore Street entrance to Monarch Park. This option provides the easiest connection to available services, is the lowest cost option, and can be located to maximise the available surveillance and safety features that this location provides.

6. A consultation exercise was undertaken with local residents in May 2018 on the preferred Option 1 location.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Kaipatiki Local Board:

a) receive the Monarch Park Toilet Feasibility report.

b) approve Option 1 (Moore Street entrance) as the most suitable location for a new public toilet at Monarch Park if provision of a toilet is desired by the board.

c) increase the locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital budget allocated for the project to $235,000 (an increase of $70,000 from the amount allocated in 2016/2017), in line with the estimates contained within the agenda report.

d) request as part of the implementation of the project that toilet wayfinding signage be placed at the playground within Monarch Park to promote the location of the toilet.

Horopaki / Context

7. Monarch Park is classified as a local neighborhood park. In the Auckland Unitary Plan Monarch Park is zoned as Open Space – Informal Recreation which provides for toilets as a permitted activity.

8. The Kaipatiki Local Board allocated locally driven initiative (LDI) capital funding of $165,000 in 2016/2017 for the installation of a new toilet.

9. Two options for the location of the toilet were identified in 2016 through investigation work by council staff. One option was located at the Moore Street entrance to the park adjacent to the dairy and bus stop; and a second option was located in the south-west corner of the playground accessed from McDowell Crescent.

10. A topographical site survey and geotechnical investigation were both completed in 2016 and 2017 as initial discovery work for these locations within Monarch Park.

11. In February 2017 council staff approached the property owner at 2/54 McDowell Crescent seeking written approval to locate a public toilet within Monarch Park in close proximity to their property boundary (adjacent to Option 2). The owner was unwilling to provide written approval at that time, as the proposed toilet location (Option 2) would be within the park’s six metre rear yard building setback with their property.

12. Further consultation material was prepared in mid-2017 to seek feedback from the wider neighborhood on Options 1 and 2. However, this consultation was not undertaken as council staff decided to complete further feasibility assessment work on the options first, including an engineering feasibility study.

13. This engineering assessment has been completed by Chester Consulting and forms part of the review and recommendation contained in this report. The full engineering report is contained in Attachment A.

14. Upgrade works have been completed by Auckland Transport around the Moore Street entrance to Monarch Park. Works involved realignment of street parking, new kerbing, footpath upgrades and entranceway improvements within the reserve, including pathway renewal and signage. Works were completed in March 2018.

Toilet facility

15. The proposed toilet facility is an Exeloo - Saturn Single 51D, which is a single unit fully accessible unit design. The toilet would be a self-contained toilet cubicle with an individual door to the exterior enabling only single use.

16. The toilet is pre-fabricated, transported to site, and placed on a prepared concrete pad foundation, with services then connected. The design can include a mural or heritage photo imposed on the exterior of the toilet to help tie in with the local surrounds or history of the park. Attachment B contains further details on the Exeloo - Saturn Single 51D model.

Distribution of public toilets within Kaipatiki Local Board parks

17. The majority of public toilets within the Kaipatiki Local Board area are located on sports parks, which is consistent with the Parks, Sports and Recreation Service Guidelines for Provision of Changing Rooms and Toilet at Sports Parks (2017). These facilities are provided either as part of a club room facility, as a standalone toilet facility, or in conjunction with a changing room facility. Several toilet facilities are located at foreshore parks and car parks with water launching access. There are limited examples within the Kaipatiki Local Board area of public toilets located on local neighborhood parks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

18. Since the initial investigation and consultation work undertaken in 2016 and 2017, council’s locally driven initiative (LDI) team have undertaken a further assessment on the original two options, with the addition of a third option adjacent to the playground.

19. The three location options are:

· Option 1: Moore Street entrance to Monarch Park

· Option 2: South-eastern side of playground

· Option 2A: North-western side of playground

20. The key considerations of each option are included below:

Option 1 – Moore Street Entrance

21. Pros:

· proximity to service connections;

· located above flood plain and not affecting storm water spillway;

· some visibility from street if oriented towards Moore Street;

· integrates well with upgraded entrance area;

· minimal reinstatement required;

· easy access for maintenance vehicles for servicing; and

· lowest cost option compared to other locations.

22. Cons:

· distance for playground users to walk to use the toilet;

· position is close to residential and commercial properties; and

· vegetation thinning and sightline improvement required.

Option 2 – Playground – south-east side

23. Pros:

· adjacent to playground;

· no flood risks;

· open area around the toilet with no entrapment areas; and

· local community engagement around this location with playground beautification.

24. Cons:

· further distance to service connections than Option 1, increasing the overall project costs;

· no passive surveillance from neighbours, no street surveillance;

· keeping the toilet out of the 6 metre yard restricts sightlines on the path junction; and

· maintenance access needs upgrading, increasing the overall project costs.

Option 2A – Playground – north-west side

25. Pros:

· adjacent to playground;

· no flood risks;

· open area around the toilet with no entrapment areas;

· good sightlines along walkway in both directions;

· local community engagement around this location with playground beautification; and

· away from boundary of unsupportive neighbour.

26. Cons:

· further distance to service connections than Option 1 and 2, increasing the overall project costs;

· limited passive surveillance from neighbors, no street surveillance; and

· maintenance access needs upgrading, increasing the overall project costs.

27. Consideration of the pros and cons including the cost implications of each of the options has identified Option 1 as the preferred location for a toilet at Monarch Park. This location provides the most cost-effective location for the placement for a toilet for park users.

28. Option 1 is located 25 metres inside the reserve entrance at Moore Street, positioned out of the storm water spillway. Monarch Park contains a detention basin which has the capacity to withhold up to 2m depth during flooding. The grass area acts as a spillway during times when the detention basin is at capacity, and therefore the existing levels cannot be adjusted or they will compromise this function.

29. The toilet would be positioned in the area of the yellow square as shown in Attachment C. The neighboring property contains a dairy and a residence. The property is zoned Business – Neighborhood Centre zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan, and therefore there is no restriction on how far the toilet must be set back from the boundary. It is approximately five metres from the proposed location of the toilet to this nearest boundary.

30. A letter drop survey was undertaken with local residents in May 2018 seeking feedback on a toilet at Monarch Park in the preferred location of Option 1 – Moore Street entrance. The feedback form was distributed to 200 letterboxes within a catchment area that included properties along Moore Street, McDowell Crescent, Monarch Avenue, Betsland Crescent and Mannering Place.

31. A total of 24 feedback forms were received by the close of the consultation period. A full summary of all responses received is included in Attachment E. In summary:

· 19 responses supported a toilet at Monarch Park, and 5 opposed;

· 15 responses supported the Moore Street location, 9 opposed the location;

· Reasons given in favour of the Moore Street location included:

· convenient for servicing;

· close to the path, road, and bus stop;

· safer than the middle of the park;

· it would encourage more use of the park;

· proximity of drainage connections;

· on flat ground; and

· will blend in to the landscape.

32. Survey questions also sought feedback on the wider park, including the current gaps and opportunities for improvements. The survey responses indicate a high level of satisfaction and local pride with Monarch Park. All feedback is included in Attachment E and will be useful for future planning of the park by the Kaipatiki Local Board.

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

33. Local board views on the proposed options and costs were sought at a local board workshop in March 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

34. There are no particular impacts to Māori in relation to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. A budget of $165,000 (FY16/17) is currently provided for within the Kaipatiki Local Board’s locally driven initiative (LDI) capital budget for the investigation, design, and installation of the toilet.

36. Cost estimates for Option 1, 2 and 2A are included in the table below:

Item	Option 1	Option 2	Option 2A
Toilet Exeloo Saturn 51D toilet supply and delivery to site, connection to services and commissioning of unit	$105,000	$105,000	$105,000
Engineering - Preliminary & General (insurances, establishment, sediment and erosion control) - Civil works (trenching, ducting, connections, concrete path removal and reinstatement, foundation pad) - Water supply (water meter, service pipe) - Wastewater (manholes, service pipe, connections)	$37,660	$81,950	$100,950
Park signage – medium plinth sign	$3,600	$3,600	$3,600
Removable bollard in McDowell Crescent pathway, relocation of existing seat	-	$2,000	$2,000
Physical works sub-total	$146,260	$192,550	$211,550
P17 Tahi Full Facility Contractor margin (assume 10%)	$14,626	$19,255	$21,155
Auckland Council consents and utility provider charges	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000
Professional services (detail design, building consent lodgement / exclusion, works supervision, PS4 certification)	$24,770	$24,770	$24,770
Staff project management and capitalisation cost	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000
Project sub-total	$195,363	$246,575	$267,475
Project contingency (20%)	$39,072	$49,315	$61,311
Total project estimate	$234,435	$295,890	$328,786
Current project budget FY17/18 and FY18/19	$165,000	$165,000	$165,000
Budget deficit	-$69,435	-$130,890	-$163,786

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

37. If the local board proceeds with the project in the preferred location of Option 1, a resolution from the local board is required to both confirm the location option and to increase the budget available for the project ($70,000 from LDI capex is required).

38. The engineering design for the selected option will be completed.

39. The project will be handed over to the Community Facilities Project Delivery team for delivery in the 2018/2019 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Chester Engineering Feasibility Report	15
b ⇩	Exeloo Saturn 51D toilet	33
c ⇩	Location Photos	35
d ⇩	Engineer estimate	37
e ⇩	Consultation responses	39

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Kris Bird - Manager Sports and Parks Design Programme

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Tamahere Reserve Playspace

File No.: CP2018/11479

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of a concept design for the development of a play space at Tamahere Reserve, and the allocation of locally driven initiative (LDI) capital funding towards the project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Tamahere Reserve play space is due for renewal. The play space is currently located at the reserve entrance from Redfern Lane. There is an opportunity to decommission this play space and develop a new play space at the reserve entrance from Tamahere Drive.

3. The new site will provide improved visibility and access, and the opportunity to add play elements that optimise the contour of the reserve.

4. The Kaipatiki Local Board supported the preparation of a concept plan for the reserve in 2017.

5. This has been completed, and this report seeks approval of the design and the allocation of additional LDI capital funding to enable the proposed design to be constructed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipatiki Local Board :

a) approve the developed design proposal (concept plan) dated November 2017, for the development of a play space at Tamahere Reserve as included in the agenda report at Attachment A.

b) approve the allocation of additional funding of $31,900 to the project from it 2018/19 locally driven initiative (LDI) capital budget for the development of a play space at Tamahere Reserve in financial year 2019.

Horopaki / Context

The Issue

6. The Tamahere Reserve play space was identified for renewal in financial years 2017 and 2018.

7. The play space is currently located at the reserve entrance from Redfern Lane, at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site is restrictive in size and public surveillance of the area is poor.

8. An opportunity exists to relocate the play space to the reserve entrance from Tamahere Drive. This location provides improved visibility and access, and the ability to add play features and elements that optimise the contour of the reserve and incorporate free-play space.

9. An existing pedestrian access way links Redfern Lane and Tamahere Drive. It enables park visitors to access the proposed play space development from both sides of Tamahere Reserve.

Previous decisions

10. The local board requested that the local community was consulted with on their vision for the reserve. Community engagement was undertaken in August/September 2017 on the proposed concept design. The design was supported by the majority of local residents with additional space and improved accessibility identified as the key benefits.

11. Feedback on the concept options was presented to the local board at a workshop in November 2017. At this workshop, the local board made a request for shade sails to be incorporated in the concept design and for a kick about space to be considered.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. The inclusion of a kick about space was investigated which included a safety in design review. Due to the sloping nature of the site it was considered unsafe to include this within the design without protective fencing to contain the balls.

13. A developed design proposal was prepared, and presented to the local board at a workshop on 14 March 2018. As part of the revised design process, safety in design principles were considered and a cost estimate prepared.

14. The design is included as Attachment A and includes –

· A two-bay swing frame;

· Timber balance beams;

· Timber seesaw;

· Cubic steps;

· Double embankment slide;

· Senior module;

· Timber steppers and a balance walk;

· Furniture;

· Pathway; and

· Passive surveillance.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

15. The local board indicated their support of the developed design at the workshop on 14 March 2018.

16. Clarification was sought on whether the cost of repositioning the play space within the reserve would be funded through the renewal budget. This has been confirmed.

17. The proposed new location has the support of the local community and provides for improved visibility, access and wider play outcomes.

18. The developed design includes a shade sail. Consideration was given to providing more than one shade sail structure at the request of the local board. additional shade sail structures were not recommended from a design perspective, due to -

· the height of the senior module item on the top platform area of the playspace - the module has two raised platform decks that are linked by a rope netting tube. If a shade sail was erected over the top of this it would need to be quite high to clear the play equipment. Additional cost and engineering of the shade sail may be required due to the extra height. Neighbours may also have some concern regarding the height.

· the split level nature of the site - the shade sails will be at different levels and may become a more dominant feature of the playspace, particularly if the sail on the top platform is quite high.

· the height of the shade sail over the basket swing would again be quite high to clear the support posts

19. If the local board would like to pursue the addition of extra shade sails they can request information and costing from officers to come back to the board. There will be an impact on the delivery timeframe, due to additional consultation with the neighbours regarding potential aesthetic impact of the structures. The local board would also need to allocate additional funding for the extra structures.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. The project is part of the renewal programme, so engagement with mana whenua on this specific project has not been undertaken. It was considered that there was no particular relevance for Maori more than any other part of the community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

21. Existing play space items will be renewed to the current design standards, and will be funded through the capital renewal programme.

22. The demolition of the existing play space and reinstatement of the area in grass is included.

23. Additional furniture and structural elements within the design will require additional funding. The elements are highlighted in the table below:

Reserve item	Estimate of cost
Shade sail	$20,000
Seating area and furniture	$9,000
Total	$29,000
Contingency	$ 2,900
Total LDI Capex funding required	$31,900

24. It is recommended that LDI capital funding of $31,900 in financial year 2019 is allocated to the project. This will enable the reserve to be developed and constructed as proposed in the developed design proposal. A contingency sum has been included to allow for any potential construction cost increases that may occur.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25. There is a risk that the project will be delayed if the developed design proposal is not approved, and additional LDI capital funding is not allocated. In order to meet the local board’s preferred time frame for delivery this summer/autumn, the design and funding need to be approved in July 2018.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26. If the recommendation is supported by the local board, the project will be progressed through the detailed design and procurement phases to enable construction in summer.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tamahere Play Space Concept	49
b ⇩	Play space elements	51

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Angela Levet – Senior Growth Development Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Normanton Reserve - approval of detailed design for new play space

File No.: CP2018/12090

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To gain approval from the Kaipatiki Local Board for the detailed design for Normanton Reserve new play space.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The detailed design of the new play space, along with a summary of the public consultation on the concept design, was presented previously to the local board at its 9 May 2018 workshop. The bike track marking was not available for the workshop but was subsequently circulated for information.

3. Additional renewals funding has been added to the locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget for the drainage scope change, and no further funding requirements to deliver the project are anticipated at this time.

4. Consents are in the process of being obtained in preparation for tendering the physical works for construction during the 2018/19 summer period.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipatiki Local Board:

a) receive the report for the detailed design of the Normanton Reserve new play space.

b) approve the detailed design for the Normanton Reserve new play space for delivery.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Normanton Reserve Enhancements locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital project commenced in September 2016 with the allocation of $185,000 budget to improve the recreational value of the reserve and provide lighting to the section of walkway through the middle of the reserve between Normanton Street and Ashfield Road industrial area. The installation of the lighting was completed in March 2018 for a completed cost of $66,000. The original allocated sub-budget for the path lighting was $60,000.

6. The Consultation on the proposal to develop Normanton Reserve and its play space areas was undertaken during July 2017. Surveys were delivered to 700 households surrounding the Normanton Reserve. Residents were asked whether they supported the proposal to install a new play space underneath the trees on the northern side of the existing play space and provide road markings on the paths in the reserve. 42 written responses were received all of which were in favour. The key themes from the survey responses are as follows:

· The play space should cater toward a wider range of ages, with play options accommodating toddlers to teens.

· The play space should include walking and cycling paths to and around it.

· A greater emphasis on installing/improving areas for shade, seating and eating services (Picnic/BBQ).

· Better drainage. The reserve should develop a better maintenance program where there is a greater focus on ensuring the equipment is always in working order, that the play areas are kept clean and tidy, and that the grass is mown often.

7. The full summary of consultation is provided as Attachment D.

8. Following consultation, detailed design work for the new play space to provide improved play value for a wider age group and abilities was undertaken. The detailed design was presented to the local board at its 9 May 2018 workshop along with a summary of the public consultation. The attached bike track markings plan was circulated separately in June 2018, and are included at Attachment B. Notwithstanding, the local board has requested that projects funded from the locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital budget were to be reported back for a further decision on reaching the next phase of delivery.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The new play space is set amongst the mature trees on the natural slope adjacent to the existing children’s playground. Detailed design drawings are included at Attachment A.

10. The play space provides a circuit/loop that will encourage the “don’t touch the ground” game requiring balance, speed and strength to transverse the circuit. The play space consists of nine different elements as shown in the attached detailed design plans. The entry point from the top of the pathway is the rope balance walk that weaves in and out amongst the trees, leading to concrete stepping stones that links to a timber balance walk and then to the long embankment slide. Ladders enable a climb back to the top of the slide, or alternatively, more stepping stones link to a hammock swing suspended between trees. Stilts lead to a thick balance rope, or alternatively, a climb back up the slope via a rope climber.

11. Subsoil drainage within the new play space has been added as a scope change after observing how wet this reserve became during the winter of 2017. An additional budget of $41,000 was requested and approved from capex renewals in May 2018 and added to the current LDI budget of $142,000. Both the capex renewals budget of $41,000 and the LDI capital budget of $142,000 has been carried forward to the 2018/19 financial year, thus providing a total project budget of $183,000. No additional funding is currently anticipated to complete the project as proposed.

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

12. The proposed new play space supports the Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2017 outcome ‘Our people are active and healthy’.

13. There was unanimous support to the proposed new play space in the consultation feedback questionnaire survey returned.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

14. The current allocated budget of $183,000 is considered to be sufficient to deliver the construction of the new play space and bike track markings.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

15. The services of an arborist has been engaged for the project to advise on the construction methodology for works within the drip-line and root zone of the trees and monitor the construction works.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

16. A building consent is pending for connecting the play space drainage to the public storm water reticulation that passes through the reserve.

17. The application for tree consent is currently being prepared for lodging in the near future. The “Tree Asset Owner Approval” from the council Arborist is anticipated to be obtained next month in conjunction with lodging the tree consent that is being handled by the playground designer.

18. Construction drawings, specifications and schedules are to be prepared shortly for nominated preferred suppliers to be invited to provide quotes for the build of the new play space. Construction is programmed October 2018 – January 2019, with the start of physical works dependent on suitable ground conditions and contractor availability.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Detailed Design Drawings	57
b ⇩	Bike Track Line Marking Plan	69
c ⇩	Bike Track Image Sheet	71
d ⇩	Normanton Reserve Survey Results: Summary Development Consultation	73

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Peter Bilton – Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Approval of the 2018/2019 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Facilities Work Programme

File No.: CP2018/11825

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme for the Kaipātiki Local Board, including all physical works, leasing and operational maintenance projects delivered by Community Facilities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Community Facilities department is responsible for the building, maintaining and renewing of all open spaces and community buildings. This includes the community leasing and licensing of council-owned premises.

3. The Kaipātiki Local Board 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme was developed using a combination of local board feedback, staff assessments of assets and key stakeholder input.

4. The following indicative costs have been identified in the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme:

i) $6,982,700 of asset-based services capital funding

ii) $972,745 of local board initiative capital funding

iii) $0 of local board initiative operational funding

5. The work programme has been developed through a series of iterative workshops between key staff and local boards since October 2017. The programme provided in Attachment A and B reflects the agreed projects that were presented in the last local board workshop. This report recommends that the board approves the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme and associated budget.

6. Once approved by the Kaipātiki Local Board, new work will commence from July 2018. Regular updates on the line items will be provided by the Community Facilities’ Stakeholder Advisors.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board :

a) approve the Kaipātiki Local Board 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme as detailed in Attachment A and B.

Horopaki / Context

7. Community facilities and open spaces provide important community services to the people of Auckland. They contribute to building strong, healthy, and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art, and recreational activities. These activities improve lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride amongst residents.

8. The 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme detailed in Attachment A contains information on all proposed projects to be delivered by Community Facilities, including capital works projects, leasing and operational maintenance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital works programme

9. Investment in the capital programme will ensure that council facilities and parks open spaces in Kaipātiki Local Board remain valuable and well-maintained community assets that continue to meet the agreed levels of service. Asset-based services capital works includes Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI), renewals and growth and development projects.

	Locally Driven Initiative	Renewal	Growth and development	Coastal Renewals
Basis for amount of budget allocated to each local board	As per the local board funding policy: · 90% population · 5% deprivation · 5% land.	In proportion to assets in very poor and poor condition requiring renewal, limited to funding available.	To specific projects identified as priority projects to meet the needs of new and future residents.	To specific projects identified as priorities by the coastal specialist team.
Type of projects that can be paid for	Any projects that deliver a council owned asset or as a capital grant to an asset made available for public use.	Renewal of existing assets on a “like for like” basis, taking into account current service standards where applicable.	Development budgets are used for specific projects approved by the Governing Body. Growth budgets can only be used for specific projects that are required by and benefit new and future residents.	Renewal of and enhancement where required, to existing coastal structures
Degree of local board discretion on allocation to projects	Full discretion	Broad discretion - can be allocated to any renewal project	Limited discretion – must be allocated to the specific project. Local board discretion on scope and design of project within available budget.	Limited discretion – must be allocated to the specific project for the purpose of protecting our coastal assets. Please note that coastal renewals projects are allocated regionally.

10. The 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme has been created following a series of workshops with elected members from October 2017 to May 2018. All feedback gathered from the workshops has been taken into consideration throughout the process. The proposed work programme in Attachment A contains:

· Number of projects: 75

· Indicative cost for proposed projects: $13,115,077

Leasing work programme

11. Community leases are a valuable way in which the council provides support to community organisations across the region, commonly on public parks and reserves. These groups provide a wide range of community activities and services aligned with recognised local priorities and are a key part of the mosaic of community activity and infrastructure in Auckland.

12. The draft work programme provides a detailed list of the community leases and licences that will expire or are due for renewal over the 2018/2019 financial year. It also includes the additional leases and licences that will be deferred from the 2017/2018 financial year to the 2018/2019 financial year.

13. Once the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme is approved, staff will be able to consolidate reporting on routine matters or use the streamlined process for straight forward renewals without variations whilst focusing attention on those community leases that are more complex.

Operational maintenance work programme

14. The regular maintenance of all council-owned built and open space assets plays an important part in:

· increasing the long-term durability of Community Facilities assets

· improving the safety of Community Facilities assets

· ensuring the enjoyment of Community Facilities assets by the users

15. Community Facilities launched ‘Project 17’ in July 2017 which created new bundled maintenance contracts across the Auckland region for full facility, ecological restoration and arboriculture maintenance contracts. The Finance and Performance Committee approved these contracts on 30 March 2017.

16. In the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme, there are three line item dedicated to all maintenance in the local board area:

· Full Facilities Maintenance Contracts – These contracts include all buildings, parks and open space assets, sports fields, coastal management and storm damage

· Arboriculture Maintenance Contracts – These contracts include all tree management and maintenance

· Ecological Restoration Maintenance Contracts – These contracts include pest plant and animal pest management within ecologically significant parks and reserves.

17. Staff will be able to provide regular reporting on maintenance through monthly updates to the local boards and through the quarterly report. Community Facilities is also providing additional weekly updates to all elected members on contractor performance.

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

18. The Community Facilities Work Programme has been created through a combination of local board feedback, asset condition assessments and agreed levels of service.

19. The draft 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme has been considered by the local board in a series of workshops from October 2017 to May 2018. The views expressed by local board members during the workshop have been adopted in Attachment A and B.

20. The Community Facilities work programme supports the achievement of the following 2017 Kaipatiki Local Board Plan priorities:

· Our community facilities and assets are high quality and well managed

· Our natural environment is protected for future generations to enjoy

· Services are well managed and meet community needs

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. The 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme ensures that all facilities and open space assets continue to be well-maintained assets that benefit the local community, including Māori. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

22. Staff are also attending mana whenua fora on a monthly basis to receive feedback on the 2018/2019 Community Facilities Work Programme.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. The proposed 2018/2019 Community Facilities work programme will see the allocation of $972,745 of the board’s locally driven initiatives capital budget, $7,007,700 of the board’s asset based services capital budget, and $5,184,632 of the board’s asset based operational budget. These amounts can be accommodated within the board’s total draft budget for 2018/2019. As such, the board’s approval will not have significant financial implications unless projects experience a significant overspend or underspend. Regular updates on projects will be provided to the board tracking expenditure and identifying any projects at risk of non-delivery, over or underspend.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. If the proposed Community Facilities work programme is not approved at the business meeting, there is a risk that the proposed projects may not be able to be delivered within the 2018/2019 financial year.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The work programme will be implemented as part of Community Facilities’ usual business practice.

26. Work programme implementation will be reported regularly by stakeholder advisors and quarterly through the performance report to the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kaipātiki Community Leases Work Programme 18_19	83
b ⇩	Kaipātiki Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew Work Programme 2018/2019	85

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Cherie Veza - Stakeholder Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Landowner approval for construction and ongoing maintenance of a community sensory garden at 134 Birkdale Road

File No.: CP2018/12879

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek landowner approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board for an application from the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated to construct and indefinitely maintain a community sensory garden at 134 Birkdale Road, Birkdale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated (the applicant) has proposed the construction of a sensory garden at 134 Birkdale Road, Birkdale.

3. The applicant will be covering all the costs associated with constructing the sensory garden, and will be maintaining the garden indefinitely until such a time that it is removed from the site.

4. Staff recommend that the Kaipātiki Local Board supports the application, as the sensory garden will be beneficial to the local and wider community and aligns with the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan.

5. If the local board supports the recommendation, staff will compile a land owner approval letter with associated conditions, giving the applicant approval to proceed with the proposal.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the application from the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated for the construction of a sensory garden at 134 Birkdale Road, Birkdale.

b) request a land owner approval letter to be complied for the applicant containing detailed conditions to be signed by the Manager, Land Advisory Services.

Horopaki / Context

6. The Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated (the applicant) lease an existing building on the council-owned site located at 134 Birkdale Road, Birkdale, for use as a community space.

7. All community gardens require a licence to occupy with a term of five years, as per council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines.

8. The applicant has recently constructed a new car parking area at the front of the site, and are applying for approval to build a sensory garden on the site in an area that is currently grassed, which will be the first of its kind in the surrounding area (refer Attachment A).

9. The proposed location of the sensory garden is one that is not regularly used by the
community at present.

10. Sensory gardens can be beneficial for people with physical disabilities, mental disabilities,
learning difficulties, as well as the elderly and dementia patients.

11. The proposed sensory garden will incorporate the five senses: sight, touch, smell, sound and taste.

12. The area of the proposed sensory garden is currently mowed by council contractors; however, all the grass will be removed as part of the sensory garden works. Therefore, council maintenance will no longer be required after the garden has been constructed.

13. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the garden indefinitely until such a time that it is removed.

14. The plants and flowers will be planted in retained planter areas with a concrete path through the middle of the garden.

15. There will be one small digger on site for approximately two to three weeks to bring in extra soil, and to do some minor works to create a flat surface for the garden.

16. The applicant has stated that access into the site for works will be via a neighbouring property.

17. The applicant is organising asset owner approval for the removal of one cherry tree from the site; however, they have stated that if they do not get permission to remove the tree they can find a way to work around it.

18. The applicant has proposed one minor change to the existing building on the site, which is the removal of a small portion of the balustrade along the entrance ramp to allow for access to the garden from the top of the ramp, for which they will require landlord approval.

19. The front boundary fence will stay as is, although a section of the side fence where digger access has occurred will need to be reinstated. The applicant has proposed installing a screen here to replace the section of fence.

20. The proposal aligns with the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcome ‘Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kāinga (home)’, as it will be a space that members of the community can utilise and enjoy.

21. The works are within the lease area of the site, so no changes to the existing lease area are necessary.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

22. The options available to the local board are to approve or decline the proposal. Staff recommend that the proposal be approved for the following reasons:

· Council specialists (Parks and Places Specialist, Maintenance Delivery Co-ordinator, Arboriculture and Eco Specialist, and Landscape Architect) have been consulted and are supportive of the proposal.

· The garden will be beneficial to local community members that are elderly, or have physical disabilities, mental disabilities, learning difficulties, or dementia.

· The entire garden will be constructed and maintained indefinitely by the applicant, therefore council will not be involved in the construction or maintenance of the sensory garden.

23. There are no public underground assets (e.g. stormwater, wastewater, water) within the proposed sensory garden area that may affect its construction or operation.

24. In regard to minor earthworks on site, there are no overlays in council’s GeoMaps that are cause for any concern (e.g. contaminated land or closed landfill).

25. Overall, the garden will be an effective use of a space that is otherwise under-utilised by the local community.

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

26. The local board has been made aware of the application via a memo on 20 June 2018 but has not yet provided a view on the proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27. The proposal does not trigger any Treaty of Waitangi settlement issues or matters in relation to customary rights outcomes. In this matter iwi consultation has not been undertaken by the applicant, as there are no readily identifiable impacts on Māori and any impacts will be no different to those on others.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

28. There are no financial implications associated with the proposal. Council will no longer need to cover the cost of maintaining this area as the applicant will cover the cost of the maintenance of the sensory garden.

29. If the garden is required to be removed in future, the applicant will need to cover the cost of removal.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30. There are no foreseeable risks with approving this landowner approval request.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31. Provided the Kaipātiki Local Board approves the application, the landowner approval will be issued to the applicant by the Land Advisory Services team.

32. The landowner approval will contain conditions so that:

· the garden is removed at the applicant’s cost if they relocate to a different site;

· the garden is removed at the applicant’s cost if it ceases to function as intended, or if maintenance ceases indefinitely; and

· the garden is removed at the applicant’s cost if they decide to utilise the space differently and removal of the sensory garden is required.

33. If the land owner approval is declined by the local board, the applicant will be advised accordingly.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sensory Garden Site Plan	105

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Nikki Clendinning - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Land owner approval application to paint murals on practice tennis court walls at John G Kay Park and Rotary Grove

File No.: CP2018/12334

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Kaipātiki Local Board declines the land owner approval application from Jesse Jensen to paint murals on practice tennis court walls at John G Kay Park and Rotary Grove.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The applicant, Jesse Jensen, is seeking land owner approval to paint murals on concrete walls at John G Kay Park in Birkenhead and Rotary Grove in Northcote which are practice tennis courts.

3. The applicant has not provided council with a concept design for the murals but has provided examples of previous work.

4. The applicant will register the murals on council’s ‘Murals Database’ and will be responsible for maintaining the murals for five years.

5. The applicant has done a letter drop and Neighbourly poll as community consultation in relation to the John G Kay Park application.

6. The Birkenhead Tennis Club and Northcote Tennis Club, which neighbour the proposed walls, have been consulted and did not oppose the proposal.

7. Council’s Parks and Places Specialist and Maintenance Delivery Co-ordinator have been consulted and did not oppose the proposal.

8. There are risks associated with the murals being approved before a concept design is seen, as the murals may be inappropriate for their location and may not reflect the values of the area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) decline the land owner approval application from Jesse Jensen to paint murals on practice tennis court walls at John G Kay Park and Rotary Grove.

Horopaki / Context

9. The applicant, Jesse Jensen, is a local artist who is seeking land owner approval to paint murals on concrete walls at John G Kay Park in Birkenhead and Rotary Grove in Northcote. The proposed walls are both tennis practice courts on council-owned land.

10. The practice wall at John G Kay Park is located in front of a Watercare reservoir and beside the entrance to Birkenhead Tennis Club on Verrans Road. John G Kay Park is described as Part Lot 150 DP 5105 and is held by Auckland Council in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002 (see Attachment A for photos of the proposed locations).

11. The practice wall at Rotary Grove is located in the grassed area of the reserve beside the Northcote Tennis Club courts and on the opposite side of the pathway to the playground. Rotary Grove is described as Lot 1 DP 107104, is held by Auckland Council in fee simple as a classified recreation reserve and subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

12. The applicant has stated that he would like to invite senior art students from a local high school to help plan and paint the murals. The applicant has not provided details of what the process for working with students would be (nor has he provided the details of which school was contacted); although he has stated that contact has already been made with a school and that the school is supportive of the proposal. The applicant has noted that they will work through details regarding the painting of the murals with the school if land owner approval is granted.

13. The applicant will be responsible for all ongoing maintenance of the murals for five years. The applicant will register the murals on the ‘Auckland Council Mural Database’ to ensure that any damage will be reported to council, who then in-turn inform the applicant who will do the required repairs.

14. The applicant has stated that they are not prepared to coat the mural with graffiti guard as it is expensive and as the murals will be self-funded, graffiti guard is not affordable. The applicant has also stated that he believes that graffiti guarding goes against the culture of street art as it should only be of a temporary nature. If land owner approval is granted a condition will be placed on the approval that the applicant creates a maintenance plan for regularly checking the mural for fading, damage or vandalism before commencing the artwork.

15. Council staff have requested to see a concept design of the mural but the applicant has not provided this, only providing examples of previous work (see Attachment B). The applicant’s reasoning for not providing a concept design is that he plans to work with the school to plan and paint the mural.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. Council’s Parks and Places Specialist supports the application as murals decrease the incidence of graffiti on walls. Council’s Maintenance Delivery Co-ordinator was concerned that a mural will affect the ability to practice tennis on the tennis court at John G Kay Park. It was suggested to the applicant that he could paint the back side of the wall at John G Kay Park, but the applicant did not think it would work as it was an alleyway. The applicant said he could mitigate the effect by painting with large blocks of colour and avoiding colours similar to the colour of a tennis ball. If land owner approval was granted, a condition of approval would be that the horizontal line be kept as this was a requirement of the Birkenhead Tennis Club.

17. As the mural at Rotary Grove is on the back of the wall, it will not affect people practicing tennis on the court.

18. Prior to applying for land owner approval, the applicant consulted with the Birkenhead Tennis Club who was supportive of the murals being painted. Council staff have contacted both Birkenhead and Northcote Tennis clubs who were both supportive of the walls being used as murals.

19. The applicant was put in touch with the Community Empowerment Unit to help with engagement of the local community in relation to the proposal. The applicant has since done a letter drop on Verrans Road and Waipa Street and conducted a poll on the website ‘Neighbourly’.

20. The applicant did not receive any response from the letter drop and received a 95% positive response to the Neighbourly poll (there were 25 responses to the poll). The applicant has said that hundreds of fliers’ were delivered in relation to the letter drop but has not provided details as to what addresses the letters were sent to. The applicant’s engagement focussed more on finding out if the community wanted a mural rather than finding out the community’s ideas on what was important to them, and finding a design that reflected the character and values of the neighbourhood.

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

21. The applicant met with members of the Kaipātiki Local Board and various other stakeholders at a meeting in December 2017. The local board requested that the applicant consult with the local community and design a mural that reflects the values of the area. The local board also informed the applicant that ‘nature’ was a major theme in the Kaipātiki area. The applicant has said he will design the mural to be a ‘landscape, horizon, trees, clouds, buildings, and vibrant colourful artwork’.

22. Following this meeting, further feedback was sought from the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, who were not supportive of the proposal and have therefore requested that a decision regarding land owner approval be sought at a formal business meeting.

23. The Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 outcome one “Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kāinga (home)” could be met if more community engagement was undertaken by the applicant. By engaging the community in developing the concept and design of the murals it could build a sense of local pride, identity and connection with area. It is currently considered, however, that this outcome has not been met.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24. The proposal does not trigger any Treaty of Waitangi settlement issues or matters in relation to customary rights outcomes. In this matter, iwi consultation has not been undertaken by the applicant as there are no readily identifiable impacts on Māori, and any impacts will be no different to those on others.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. As stated, the applicant is unwilling to use graffiti guard on the murals. Therefore, if council wants to protect the work it would be required to pay the cost of coating the murals.

26. If the applicant chose not to maintain the murals or left Auckland, the cost of maintenance of the murals would fall to council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. The applicant has been asked to provide a design concept for the murals, but other than saying that the mural would include a ‘landscape, horizon, trees, clouds, buildings, and vibrant colourful artwork’, no concept designs have been provided. There is a risk that if the murals are approved without seeing a concept that the mural will not reflect the values and character of the area, and may result in the council receiving complaints.

28. The applicant has not provided information when requested, such as a health and safety plan, an ongoing maintenance plan, and an outline of how he intends working with high school students. Therefore, there is a risk that the applicant may not take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of the students and the environment when completing the work.

29. The applicant is relying on the council to inform him if there is any vandalism of the murals so unless council receives a complaint from the public, further vandalism may be encouraged.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. If the Kaipātiki Local Board approves the application for one or both of the proposed sites, council staff will issue a land owner approval letter to the applicant with relevant conditions, including that the applicant is responsible for the maintenance of the murals for a period of at least five years.

31. If the application is declined, the applicant will be made aware of the decision and will not be able to paint the murals in the locations identified.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Locations and photos of walls	121
b ⇩	Examples of artwork	123

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Glenn Riddell - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

New Road Name for Subdivision at 21 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead

File No.: CP2018/11631

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Kaipatiki Local Board for a road name for the private road constructed for the subdivision and unit development being undertaken by Max Holding Ltd, (the applicant), at 21 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The applicant has submitted the following names in order of preference:

· Farrington Close;

· Rudall Close; and

· Tuwhare Close.

4. All of the names are considered suitable and meet the road naming guidelines.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the road name Farrington Close, Rudall Close or Tuwhare Close for the private road constructed for the subdivision and unit development being undertaken Max Holding Ltd at 21 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki / Context

5. The 10 lot residential subdivision and associated 10 residential units, (Auckland Council reference BUN60068590), was approved on 11 July 2017. The subdivision is substantially complete.

6. Auckland Council and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) require that private roads servicing six or more lots or units be named.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

· A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature; or

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

8. The use of Maori names is also encouraged.

9. The names Farrington, Rudall and Tuwhare have historical linkages to the area as referenced below:

Suggested Road name	Description
Farrington	Name of the Birkenhead Historical Society museum now located at 44 Mahara Avenue, (adjacent to War Memorial Park), that was donated to the Society by Ann Farrington, whose family lived in the house for four generations and which was relocated to the current site in 1933.
Rudall	Film maker Rudall Charles Victor Hayward known for several feature films including Rewi’s Last Stand and a former Birkenhead resident.
Tuwhare	An eminent Maori poet awarded one of the inaugural Prime Ministers Awards for Literary Achievement in poetry and who served as a Birkenhead Borough Councillor.

10. The names reflect the applicant’s desire to use names that have some historical relevance to the Birkenhead area.

11. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that the names are acceptable as no duplicates exist in the wider Auckland region.

12. The applicant has consulted with 11 local iwi groups and received four replies, with no objections received to the names proposed.

13. The proposed names meet council’s road naming guidelines in that they reflect the historical or ancestral linkages to the Birkenhead area.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. The applicant has consulted with 11 local iwi groups and received four replies in total. Of the responses received, two had no objection to the proposed names, one deferred to other iwi, and the other sought payment for undertaking an assessment. The applicant chose not to take up that offer, considering it to be inappropriate in the context of consultation being undertaken.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 Roseberry Avenue	133

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 July 2018

Kaipātiki Local Board: Glenfield Town Centre Research Report

File No.: CP2018/12465

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Glenfield Town Centre Health Check report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report introduces the research undertaken on a Glenfield town centre health check (refer Attachment A).

3. The research was undertaken in February 2018. It sought views of Glenfield town centre users and businesses as to what they liked about the centre and areas for improvement.

4. It is expected the research will assist council’s Plans and Places department when it undertakes its Glenfield Centre Plan work.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the 2017/18 Glenfield Town Centre Health Check report as included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki / Context

5. This report introduces the research undertaken on Glenfield town centre (refer Attachment A).

6. The research was approved by the local board as a part of its 2017/18 Local Economic Development Work Programme.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7. The local board has a desire to see its town centres succeed. The 2017 Local Board Plan includes as a key outcome ‘our urban centres are vibrant’ and provides objectives for each of the area’s centres. For Glenfield the objective is for the town centre to be ‘strengthened as a hub with an increased sense of place’.

8. To support this objective the local board included in its 2017/18 Local Economic Development Work Programme a project to research Glenfield town centre user and business views, and identify areas where users feel the town centre could be improved.

9. Research was conducted by undertaking a survey of town centre users and businesses in February 2018. The researcher spoke with 332 Glenfield town centre users and 34 businesses.

Glenfield Town Centre Health Check key findings

10. The majority of visitors to the Glenfield town centre are coming in to the area several times a week, and are often utilising more than one shop and / or service in a single visit. The library, pool, and leisure centre seem to be the main attractions in the town centre for these frequent visitors, followed by the opportunity to do some shopping. When they make their way into the town centre, most users are coming by car and parking in the mall carpark, with some saying they do so because they’re unable to find a park elsewhere.

11. Visitors/ shoppers like the variety of shops, and the convenience of it all being so close together, saying that they can pretty much find everything they need in one trip to the town centre. Users specifically mentioned the library and pool and leisure centre as positives about the area. Businesses enjoy Glenfield for the same reason as visitors: its location and convenience. Businesses also made positive comments about the customers themselves saying that they find them friendly and loyal.

12. The main areas for improvement identified are outlined in the paragraphs below.

13. Parking: The main issue with parking comes from the lack of it on the main roads, particularly Glenfield Road. Shoppers/ visitors and businesses would like to see more parking availability, as well as better parking options. Some businesses mentioned there is nowhere for their customers to park outside their place of business, while shoppers mention the need to park inside the mall because there is nowhere else.

14. Attractiveness: Both shoppers/ visitors and businesses mentioned the need for the town centre to have a face lift. They identified the current town centre to be untidy and in need of modernising. Suggestions included adding more green space, seating, trees/ flower beds, and a paint job to freshen up the look and feel.

15. Pedestrian access and safety: With such a busy main road, pedestrian access and safety was seen by shoppers/ visitors and businesses as an issue. Some see the main road as very dangerous, especially for young children, and that the current pedestrian crossings and traffic control do not do enough to help the situation.

16. Crime and security: Crime in the Glenfield area was raised as a big concern for the businesses operating in the area, some who recounted numerous break-ins and shoplifting experiences, as well as drunk / anti-social behaviour.

17. Variety of shops and services: Although the variety of stores and services in Glenfield was good, there were a number of shoppers / visitors and businesses who see the need for a bit more variety and something a little different e.g. boutique stores and range of eateries.

18. More activities and promotion of the area: Particularly important to those with children, shoppers / visitors would like to see more happening in Glenfield town centre. Businesses agreed as it would bring more people/ customers to the area. They also suggested that better promotion and changing the perception of Glenfield, alongside more activities, would boost numbers and foot traffic in the town centre.

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

19. The research will inform council’s Plans and Places department as it undertakes its work to develop a Glenfield Town Centre Plan. It can also be used by the local board and other groups when considering investments in Glenfield.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. There are no direct impacts as a result of this report on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

21. There are no direct financial implications of this report. Implementing activities to address town centre users’ areas for improvement would require funding to be sought.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. There is minimal risk, as the report provides information on community and business views of the town centre only.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23. Following receipt by the local board the report will be provided to council’s Plans and Places department in advance of its Glenfield Centre Plan work.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Glenfield Town Centre Research Report	155

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Jonathan Sudworth - Local Economic Development Advisor
Authorisers	John Norman - Strategic Planner Local Economic Development

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

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