Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Parks Service Assessment

File No.: CP2018/16652

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Hibiscus and Bays Parks Service Assessment 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Parks Service Assessment 2018 (Attachment A) was undertaken to identify opportunities to improve the network of park experiences in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The assessment identifies key outcomes through the analysis of the current park network provision focusing on play, fitness and park assets.

3. The purpose of the Parks Service Assessment is to:

a) Analyse and assess current parks network provision in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area to identify areas where projected population increase will place a demand on the parks network.

b) Identify and evaluate opportunities and gaps in the network, to prioritise areas with most opportunity for development.

c) Highlight opportunities for improving the diversity of experience across the network, including expression of Mana Whenua values, provision for cultural diversity, accessibility and environmental considerations in any potential upgrade.

d) Develop high-level options, illustrating opportunities in the priority areas.

e) Provide a tool for discussion and feedback between the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, Auckland Council, Mana Whenua and communities.

4. The Parks Service Assessment proposes a programme to improve levels of service, responding to key outcomes in the 2017 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan and Auckland Council’s strategic documents. The programme provides a strategic planning context to the provision of play equipment across the parks network.

5. The assessment will guide parks specific improvements to the current provision of experiences in the Hibiscus and Bays area. Feedback received from the local board has been incorporated into the assessment and has informed the next steps that will enable projects to progress to investigation and design.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopt the Hibiscus and Bays Park Service Assessment (Attachment A) to assist the local board in making decisions to improve their network of park experiences.

Horopaki / Context

6. A park network consists of a group of interconnected places where play and recreation is encouraged, both formally and informally, throughout a neighbourhood, community and the wider city.

7. The assessment (Attachment A) was developed in two stages. Using GIS, the first stage uses Auckland Transport population forecast data to indicate the areas of most growth within the local board area. Population growth information is overlaid with Auckland Council data to produce a high-level view of the current levels of park asset provision across Hibiscus and Bays area, to identify where the opportunities and gaps in the network are, in line with anticipated future population growth. The timing of when greenfield sites are developed, and indeed any areas of intense population increase, is likely to fluctuate as market pressures vary. Other factors such as road or public transport improvements also affect the way and where the population grows.

8. The assessment is aligned strategically with the following Auckland Council guiding documents;

· The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017

· Tākaro - Investing in Play (draft)

· The Auckland Plan

· Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Policy 2013

· Auckland Council Open Space Provision Policy 2016

· Open Space Strategic Asset Management Plan 2015-2025

· Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013

· Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024

· Auckland Design Manual

9. A landscape architect and play specialist visited a selection of the parks most suitable for future development and investment. Where potential development options are identified as ‘easy wins’ or priority areas to address gaps in the network, these parks were selected to develop an indicative site arrangement plan.

10. The purpose of the potential development options is to provide a starting point for discussion with the local board and community and guide potential park improvements, to provide quality open space across the network. These potential development options are high-level only and require further feasibility studies to fully understand the site opportunities and constraints.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area is divided into two subdivisions; East Coast Bays and Hibiscus Coast, which are separated by a large area of rural countryside living. Both subdivisions have quite different characteristics in terms of physical topography, transport links, maturity and population density of existing suburbs, zoning for future urban development, residential areas under construction, and future population growth.

12. Hibiscus and Bays is unique in that there are a large number of easily-accessible coastal reserves that offer a wealth of informal play and recreation opportunities that change naturally with tides, seasons and the weather. Many of them are linked by coastal walkways, or will be linked through future greenways projects. The play experiences afforded in these natural environments are a real feature for the local board, and greatly enrich the wider play network of formal play spaces.

Network analysis: East Coast Bays

13. In general, the East Coast Bays suburbs are mature, medium-density residential areas without much projected change in population growth over the next 30 years. The exception is Browns Bay, which is forecast to almost double in population within the existing suburb footprint. There is an established network of parks and reserves, both within suburbs and along the coast, with no spare greenfield land available.

14. Long Bay residential development is still in a progressive phase, with integrated parks and reserves being developed by Todd Properties over time and then handed over to council as completed assets.

15. The majority of formal play spaces in East Coast Bays have equipment aimed at junior children, with Browns Bay being the only suburb with play provision for teens.

16. Work has been done in some play spaces to add accessible items such as basket swings. However many sites have access issues for people with limited mobility. A fenced junior playground in Mairangi Bay provides benefit for the wider community.

Network Analysis: Hibiscus Coast

17. Existing play provision on the Whangaparāoa Peninsula is mostly focused on primary-aged children through a network of neighbourhood reserves, with excellent all-ages provision at Stanmore Bay Park adjoining the Leisure Centre, pool and new splashpad.

18. Ōrewa has a good mix of all-ages play along its destination waterfront esplanade, but faces huge pressure on amenities and infrastructure from visitors as well as the rapidly-increasing local community. This is only set to increase as the population in Ōrewa township is expected to double within the next 30 years.

19. The Millwater-Silverdale-Ōrewa West residential developments are in full construction, and it is expected that the development structure plans will include sufficient open space and community recreation and play opportunities as part of those developments. Several new junior play spaces have already been delivered to the community, with several more still under development or consideration.

Network Summary

20. Some suburbs in the wider network have an uneven distribution of formal neighbourhood play spaces, or in the case of Campbells Bay, none at all. Other suburbs have a number of play spaces, but no variety in either play experience on offer or age group that is being catered for. Therefore, network gaps exist through both lack of provision and type of provision.

21. Older children and teens have very few formal play opportunities, with skate and basketball areas limited to just a few locations, and very little large-scale equipment or hangout spaces designed to meet the needs of this age group.

22. Whilst the new residential developments are providing play spaces, most of the facilities opened to date are aimed at young children, thus perpetuating the existing lack of provision for older children.

23. There is no specifically designed all-abilities play space, and many play spaces are the ‘modular equipment in a cushion fall box’ style with no access point for people with limited mobility, and often no connecting path through the reserve to the play space itself.

24. Community fitness trails and exercise equipment are largely absent from the network, although the Te Ara Tahuna Estuary shared path could provide location options for staged implementation over time.

25. Opportunities to improve the play network;

· Vary the play opportunities on each site and avoid duplicating what is on offer at nearby schools.

· Create incentives to visit the network particularly along adjoining coastal reserves.

· Play provision for older children needs to be clustered, easily accessible by walking/cycling/public transport and have excellent CPTED/overview by neighbours and the street network. Proximity to food outlets and free Wi-Fi is also ideal for teenagers.

· Universal/accessible design needs to be at the forefront of renewals, particularly with entry access to the play space and choice of equipment.

· Creative use of renewals budget is key to revitalising neighbourhood play spaces in limited growth areas.

Specific areas of opportunity are discussed in Attachment A (p.24-61);

26. Both subdivisions have been assessed to identify opportunities for fitness activation. Network gap analysis based on existing provision is redundant, as there are only two identified fitness equipment sites, and there is no current ‘network’. Sites that represent opportunities have been chosen with consideration of:

· Projected high future population growth.

· The ability to connect several areas of projected high future population growth.

· The potential to create an asset cluster with existing sporting or play facilities.

· The potential to tie in with and build on existing recreation provision through the proposed greenways network.

27. Opportunities to provide fitness experiences have been identified and the sites suggested below could form the basis of a proposed fitness network.

· Ōrewa River Loop (Metro Park East - Western Reserve - Ōrewa Te Ara Tahuna Estuary circuit).

· Victor Eaves Park, Ōrewa

· Red Beach Park, Red Beach

· Manly Park, Whangaparāoa

· Stanmore Bay Park

· Murrays Bay to Mairangi Bay to Browns Bay

· Sherwood Reserve and Freyberg Park, Browns Bay

· Aicken Reserve and Waiake Beach Reserve, Torbay

· Silverdale War Memorial Park

· Gulf Harbour Recreation Reserve and coastal links

The opportunities for each site are detailed in Attachment A (p.72-91).

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

28. Subject to formal local board approval of the outcomes defined for fitness and play in the Hibiscus and Bays area, and inclusion within the Community Facilities Work Programme, detailed investigation and design will be initiated.

29. The Parks Sport and Recreation (PSR) 2017/2018 Work Programme was approved by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 6 June 2017 (HB/2017/84). A strategic assessment of play and fitness and supporting asset provision in Hibiscus and Bays was included in the programme.

30. A workshop was held with the local board on 7 June 2018, when the Parks and Places Specialist presented the Strategic Service Assessment (Attachment A) as an 80% draft. Based on feedback received at this workshop, staff prepared the final draft.

31. The project aligns to outcomes in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan: Outcome 3; “Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation”

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32. The PSR 2017/2018 Work Programme was presented to the Parks Sport and Recreation North-western area Mana Whenua Hui on 2 September 2017

33. The work undertaken in the Parks and Places Team Work Programme has been designed to enable meaningful engagement with iwi by outlining the potential project and how it will deliver on the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The intention is to provide enough information for iwi to efficiently provide input into the direction of the project before the design process begins.

34. The projects that are initiated by the programme will be presented again to the North-western area Hui. Iwi will have the opportunity to express interest in the projects and indicate how they would like to be involved in the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. To initiate projects based on activities in the Community Parks and Places work programme further Locally Driven Initiative investment may be required. If the recommended outcomes are agreed, staff will work with the local board to identify possible opportunities for funding as part of the Community Facilities 2019/2020 Work Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

36. There is an inherent risk in committing funding to investigation and design to initiate a project when there is no capital funding identified to deliver the physical work components.

37. The investigation and design phase of project delivery may also identify issues that require the feasibility of the project to be reassessed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38. The Hibiscus and Bays Parks Service Assessment 2018 is designed to agree on desired parks outcomes at a network level. Detail on the activities that will deliver on the agreed outcomes will require detailed investigation and community engagement.

39. The Community Facilities Work Programme includes investigation and design for each of the activities. Staff will work with the local board to progress the projects.

40. As part of the Community Facilities Work Programme public engagement will be undertaken to refine the scope of the project and inform further design elements.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Parks Service Assessment (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Jeff Lyford - Parks Advisor - Rodney

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan Feasibility Report

File No.: CP2018/18644

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary of the feasibility reports to implement the seven identified priorities of the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan and to seek approval to proceed with the detailed design, consenting and construction for Section G – Centennial Park Path, and designing and constructing a link between Mistletoe Place and the new Taiaotea Creek Pathway sub section 1 that is being constructed by Healthy Waters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board undertook a prioritisation process and identified seven key routes in their greenway plan to investigate further.

3. The feasibility analysis of this many routes was a complex process. Seven routes were investigated but because the routes were so complex and diverse they were broken down into 27 smaller sub sections in order to make worthwhile recommendations.

4. Staff recommend scaling back the scope of the project and focusing on a manageable number of routes to progress to detailed design, consent and construction.

5. The 27 sub sections have been classified as high, medium or low based on meeting the objectives of the greenways network, benefit to the public, ease of delivery and cost.

6. Based on budget availability and the local board’s desire to see some of the greenways built quickly, staff recommend focusing on completing detailed design and beginning construction of Section G – Centennial Park Path.

7. The Centennial Greenway Path would provide for a wide variety of users including both walkers and cyclists. The route would be used for recreational purposes in addition to parts that would provide for commuting.

8. Staff have also identified a small connection in the Taiaotea Creek Path Greenway that should also be prioritised and completed as an extension to the Healthy Waters Project about to commence.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the seven feasibility greenway reports and note the sections of the routes classified as high, medium and low in regards to meeting the objectives of the greenways network, benefiting the public, ease of delivery and cost

b) approve staff proceeding with the detailed design, consenting and construction for Section G – Centennial Park Path

c) approve designing and constructing a link between Mistletoe Place and the new Taiaotea Creek Pathway sub section 1 that is being constructed by Healthy Waters,

Horopaki / Context

9. The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan seeks to create safe and enjoyable ways for people to get around, get active, and get engaged with their community and the environment.

10. The network of greenways identifies the location and opportunity to improve:

· walking connections

· cycle connections

· recreation opportunities

· ecological opportunities

· access to streams and waterways.

11. There are many benefits to developing a network of neighbourhood greenways, including:

Recreation - Improving people’s access to outdoor recreation opportunities close to their home;

Environmental - Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by providing attractive and safe alternative transport choices, improving water quality and reducing flooding events through low impact design measures, and by enhancing ecosystems, habitat sources and ecological niches;

Social - Providing improved opportunities for people to get out of their cars and meet their neighbours, to be engaged with a diverse range of communities and be connected to their local community facilities;

Health - Providing improved opportunities for activity and fitness, which benefits both physical and mental health;

Education - Providing opportunities for people to learn about the vegetation, wildlife, ecology, history and culture of the landscapes that the routes pass through; and

Economic - Improving local employment opportunities as areas become more desirable for businesses and shoppers. Greenways routes often become a tourist destination for both international and domestic visitors.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. In 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board undertook a prioritisation process and identified the projects below for further investigation. This report is a summary of the further investigation and considers feasibility, staging and costs for each route as well as recommending which routes to move into the design phase.

The routes that have been investigated include:

• Section A – Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to Westfield Heights

• Section B – Alice Eaves to Hatfields Beach

• Section C – Millwater

• Section D – Browns Bay to Sharon Rd

• Section E – Taiaotea Creek Path

• Section F – Murrays to Churchill Path

• Section G – Centennial Park Path

13. Each route is summarised in a table in Attachment A and the full feasibility reports are included as Attachment B.

14. Each of these routes present their own challenges and benefits. As the routes are complex and diverse they have been be broken down into 27 smaller sub sections for ease of scoping.

15. The sub sections have been classified as high, medium or low based on meeting the objectives of the greenways network, benefit to the public, ease of delivery and cost and are shown in the table below.

	High Benefit (diagrams of each route shown below)
	S Section G Centennial Park Path – sub sections 1-6
	S Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights – sub section 4 N Note: Section 1 and 2 are also high benefit and are being delivered by the developer.
	S Section B Alice Eaves to Hatfields Beach – sub section 1
	Section C Millwater – sub section 2 Note: This involves planting of newly installed path in Metro Park.
	Section D Browns Bay to Sharon Rd - sub section 3
	Section E Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 1 and 2 Note: Sub section 1 is being delivered by Healthy Waters, however a small section linking Mistletoe Place to the start of this sub section is not currently in their scope and should be prioritised.

	Moderate benefit
	S Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights – sub section 3
	S Section B Alice Eaves to Hatfields Beach – sub sections 2-4
	S Section C Millwater – sub sections 1 and 4
	S Section F Murrays to Churchill Path – sub sections 1-3

	Low benefit
	Section D Browns Bay to Sharon Rd – sub sections 1 and 2
	Section E Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 3

High benefit route: Section G Centennial Park Path – sub sections 1-6
Note: Sub section 5 does not require any further work

High benefit route: Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights – sub section 4 Note: Sub section 1 and 2 are also high benefit and are being delivered by the developer.

High benefit route: Section B Alice Eaves to Hatfields – sub section 1

High benefit route: Section C Millwater – sub section 2
Note: This involves planting of newly installed path in Metro Park.

High benefit route: Section D Browns Bay to Sharon Rd - sub section 3

High benefit route: Section E Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 1 and 2
Note: Sub section 1 is being delivered by Healthy Waters.

16. Budget availability and complexity of delivery are factors in determining which routes should progress to the next stage. The local board want to see tangible results of their investment so routes should be prioritised that are deliverable and not overly complex.

17. Delivery costs for each route section are outlined in Attachment A and B as well as the financial section of this report.

18. Taking the above into account, staff recommend that the focus should be on completing detailed design and obtaining all consents to deliver the Centennial Greenway Path, sub sections 1-6.

19. Professional services fees (including detailed design, specialists input, consent preparation, consent lodgement fees, stakeholder management and project management) for these six sections will be in the order of $155,000 and physical works costs will be approx. $1,625,000 (of which $1,280,000 is for section 1).

20. Physical works for sub sections 2-6 should be completed first using the existing available budget and additional budget sought from alternative sources to fund section 1. This is further discussed in the financial section below.

21. The Centennial Greenway Path would provide for a wide variety of users including both walkers and cyclists. The route would be used for recreational purposes in addition to parts that would provide for commuting.

22. The route is reasonably straight forward to construct with only a few key stakeholders, namely, Auckland Transport, Pupuke Golf Course, and a small number of adjacent residents.

23. The full breakdown of what each of the six subsections involves is included in Attachment B – Feasibility Study Section G – Centennial.

24. Healthy Waters are about to begin construction of Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 1. It has been identified that the connection from the northern end of the path to Mistletoe Place is not included in their scope. This connection currently exists, however it is narrow and not particularly well constructed. Staff recommend that this 28m section is also prioritised and designed and constructed to allow for a better connection to the soon to be constructed shared path.

25. The approximate cost to design and construct this section is $40,000.


Connection between Mistletoe Place and Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 1	Looking from Mistletoe Place to Taiaotea Creek

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

26. The implementation of the Greenways plan is a priority for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. The local board have allocated a considerable amount of their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget and it is one of the key priorities of their local board plan.

27. One of the outcomes of this plan is that “Our communities have excellent transport choices” with the key objective “to improve walking and cycling routes”.

28. The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan also implements priorities and directives from a number of chapters in the Auckland Plan, including:

Chapter 5: Auckland’s recreation and sport	Priority 1: Encourage all Aucklander’s, particularly children and young people to participate in recreation and sport
Chapter 7: Auckland’s environment	Priority 1: Value our natural heritage
	Priority 2: Sustainably manage natural resources
	Priority 3: Treasure our coastlines, harbours, islands and marine areas
Chapter 12: Auckland’s physical and social Infrastructure	Priority 2: Protect, enable, align, integrate and provide social and community infrastructure for present and future generations
	Directive 12.8: Maintain and extend the public open space network ... walkways and trails and recreational boating facilities in line with growth needs
Chapter 13: Auckland’s transport	Priority 3: Prioritise and optimise investment across transport modes

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. 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 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

30. Ngati Wai, Ngāti Manuhiri,Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaterā, Te Patukirikiri have been consulted with at the Parks and Recreation Iwi Engagement North West Hui workshop. They were generally supportive of the chosen routes and have asked to be involved in the detailed design and have requested being taken on a site visit of each of the seven priority routes.

31. Any design work of the tracks will take into account the Te Aranga Design principles as outlined in the Auckland Design Manual.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32. Based on the current available budget, staff recommend that Centennial Park Path (Section G) sub sections 2-6 should be the first greenway routes delivered. Detailed design should be completed for the whole route and then physical works for sub sections 2-6 completed.

33. Centennial Park Path sub section 1 should then be constructed once additional budget becomes available. Auckland Transport have indicated that they are interested in supporting this project and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund should be considered.

34. Staff also recommend that Section E Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 1 extension should also be designed and constructed as a priority.

35. The other high priority routes identified can then be implemented as and when budget becomes available.

36. The following is a breakdown of what budget is currently allocated and proposed for the Hibiscus and Bays Greenway projects.

LDI Opex funding

Financial Year	Amount
17/18	$85,000

37. To date, $50,000 has been spent on the seven feasibility reports, ecological reports and mapping.

38. The remaining Unspent $35,000 should be reallocated to other projects as it can’t be allocated to detailed design and physical works of the project.

LDI Capex funding

Financial Year	Amount	Note
17/18	$200,000	Unspent and deferred into 18/19
18/19	$100,000	Confirmed in Work Programme
19/20	$100,000	Proposed
20/21	$86,000	Proposed
TOTAL	$486,000

39 .Below is a breakdown of the budget required to deliver each of the high priority projects:

Section of Route	Cost estimate *
Section G Centennial Park Path – sub section 1	$1,280,000
Section G Centennial Park Path – sub section 2	$220,000
Section G Centennial Park Path – subs section 3	$165,000
Section G Centennial Park Path – sub section 4	$65,000
Section G Centennial Park Path – sub section 6	$50,000
Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights – sub section 4	$2,240,000
Section B Alice Eaves to Hatfields – sub section 1	$155,000
Section C Millwater – sub section 2	$135,000
Section D Browns Bay to Sharon Rd – sub section 3	$335,000
Section E Taiaotea Creek Path – sub section 2	$1,140,000

Includes professional services, consenting, physical works and additional ecological planting (excl gst)

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40. The biggest risk to the delivery of the high priority routes is lack of budget. The total cost to deliver the high priority routes has been estimated at $5,825,000 and there is currently $486,000 in the budget.

41. Therefore prioritisation and selecting routes that have the greatest cost benefit impact is important.

42. One of the risks identified in the Centennial Park project is the support from the Pupuke Golf Club as sections of the route cross parts of the golf course and car park. Initial consultation has occurred with the Club and they are generally supportive of the project as it mitigates some of their health and safety risks that they are currently experiencing with members of the public already on the course.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

43. If the local board agree with the staff recommendation to proceed with the detailed design for the Centennial Park section of the greenways plan, staff will proceed on the following basis:

i) Continue consultation with mana whenua, golf club and local residents

ii) Obtain stakeholder feedback including determining the preferred route and surfacing option.

iii) For each specific section, set-out the proposed centreline and complete a detailed survey of the more difficult segments.

iv) Prepare design drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates for the path and structures.

v) Engage a planner to provide advice throughout the project design and development and prepare resource consent applications if required.

vi) Engage a specialist Geotechnical Engineer to assess the ground conditions and assist with retaining wall/boardwalk designs/ fence design.

vii) Engage an Arborist to assess the impacts to any surrounding vegetation, including the pruning and removal of any identified trees.

viii) Apply for all required consents (including Resource and Building Consents).

44. Complete the tender process, and procure and manage the physical construction works.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary table of seven priority routes	25
b ⇨	Feasibility Study Section A (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Feasibility Study Sectioin B (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Feasibility Study Section C (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Feasibility Study Section D (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Feasibility Study Section E (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Feasibility Study Section F (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Feasibility Study Section G (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Kris Bird - Manager Sports Parks Design & Programme

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Request for temporary alcohol ban on Hibiscus Coast 1 and 2 December 2018

File No.: CP2018/18550

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on whether to adopt a temporary alcohol ban on the Hibiscus Coast on 1 and 2 December 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A 48-hour temporary alcohol ban for Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December 2018 on the Hibiscus Coast has been requested by Police. Staff assessed the request against legislative criteria and identified three options:

· Option one: Status quo - existing evening alcohol bans apply.

· Option two: Priority areas - 48-hour temporary alcohol ban for 1 and 2 December 2018 on the beach and adjoining parks in Waiwera, Orewa, Red Beach, Stanmore Bay, Manly, Arkles Bay, Western Reserve and Victor Eaves Park.

· Option three: All areas - 48-hour temporary alcohol ban for 1 and 2 December 2018 on areas of the Hibiscus Coast requested in Attachment A with signage in priority areas.

3. Staff recommend the local board adopt Option three: All areas. Taking this approach is most likely to prevent crime and disorder associated with crate day gatherings on the Hibiscus Coast.

4. There is a minor reputational risk associated with Option three: All areas. It could be perceived as a disproportionate response to the issue due to the number of areas covered by the proposed ban. This can be mitigated by public communication that the ban proposed manages the high risk of displacement of the event around the local area and will effectively prevent crime and disorder in a way that is reasonable.

5. If the local board adopt a temporary alcohol ban staff will notify NZ Police of the decision. The council/ local board will be responsible for notifying the public and installing and removing temporary signage. NZ Police will be responsible for enforcement.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopt a 48-hour temporary alcohol ban on Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December 2018 on areas of the Hibiscus Coast identified in the overview map in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) allocate up to $5000 plus GST for public notification and installation and removal of signage in priority areas for the temporary alcohol ban, because there is no event organiser to cover these costs.

Horopaki / Context

Police request a temporary alcohol ban to prevent Crate Day problems on Hibiscus Coast

6. The New Zealand Police (NZ Police) have requested a 48-hour temporary alcohol ban (alcohol ban) for Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December 2018 on the Hibiscus Coast (Attachment A). The request includes beaches and adjoining parks from Waiwera Beach to Arkles Bay and Victor Eaves Park and Western Reserve.

7. The request seeks to prevent alcohol-related crime and disorder associated with crate day. Crate day is unofficially celebrated around New Zealand as the first Saturday of summer in December. The event has been promoted by The Rock radio station since 2009 for people to gather outdoors, listen to music and “share a crate” of alcohol.

8. Alcohol bans currently on the Hibiscus Coast (Attachment B) apply:

· from 10pm-7am during daylight savings on beach, park and certain surrounding streets alongside Orewa beach, Victor Eaves Park, Western Reserve, Red Beach, Stanmore Bay, Manly, Arkles Bay

· 24 hours, 7 days a week in Orewa Town Centre and on associated beach and parks.

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

9. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified public places during specified times. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has authority to make alcohol bans under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) (GB/2014/121).

10. A local board decision to adopt an alcohol ban must meet criteria in the Local Government Act 2002 and Bylaw (refer Table 1 and Attachment C).

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Staff have assessed the request against legislative criteria for making alcohol bans

12. Staff have assessed the information provided in the request against the legislative and bylaw criteria in Attachment C. Table 1 provides a summary of this assessment.

Table 1 Summary assessment of alcohol ban request against statutory and bylaw criteria

Criteria	Staff assessment
Is there evidence of a high level of crime or disorder at the location caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there?	NZ Police provided evidence of a very high level of crime and disorder, which is shown to have been linked to alcohol consumption at Manly Beach and Stanmore Bay on Crate Day. Examples include people drinking resulting in litter, public urination, disorderly behaviour, fighting and glass injuries.	ü
Is the request appropriate in light of the evidence?	A temporary alcohol ban in 2017 was effective in preventing any incidents occurring. Previous alternative options were ineffective, for instance public awareness or relying on Police powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981. However, the Local Board may consider the estimated $10,000 cost to install and remove signage from all areas in the request disproportionate to the effect of the alcohol ban. In 2017, the Local Board provided $4,330 for 13 priority areas. This meant NZ Police did not have powers to search for alcohol in those areas without signs.	_
Is the request proportionate in light of the evidence?	A temporary alcohol ban at Stanmore Bay, Manly and similar locations on the Hibiscus Coast is proportionate due to the level of crime and disorder associated with crate day, ease of displacement and limited duration. Someone opposed to the request may argue the number of areas is excessive, and that limiting it to the more popular areas in Orewa and the Whangaparaoa Peninsula would be more proportionate.	_
Is the request a justifiable and reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms?	The request prevents responsible alcohol consumption on a significant number of popular recreation areas on the Hibiscus Coast. There is sufficient information to conclude that this limitation of rights or freedoms is justified, given: · the very high level of crime and disorder a temporary alcohol ban is likely to prevent · its limited duration · general community and Police support. The extent of the temporary alcohol ban however could be perceived as excessive and costly to implement.	_

Staff have identified three options in response to the assessment

13. Staff identified the following three options in response to the assessment. Options are compared in Table 2 below.

· Option one: Status quo - existing evening alcohol bans apply.

· Option three: All areas - 48-hour temporary alcohol ban for 1 and 2 December 2018 on areas of the Hibiscus Coast requested in Attachment A with signage in priority areas.

Table 2 Comparative assessment of options to alcohol ban request

	Option one: Status quo	Option two: Priority areas	Option three: All areas (recommended)
Pros	No further limitations on people rights and freedoms to consume alcohol reasonably in public places on the Hibiscus Coast. No local board cost to install and remove temporary signage.	Crime and disorder associated with crate day likely to be prevented.	Crime and disorder associated with crate day likely to be prevented. Notifying the alcohol ban as all areas is easier to communicate and more effective than Option two.
Cons	High likelihood of crime and disorder associated with crate day gatherings in public places. Significant council/local board cost to clean-up after crate day.	Crate day gatherings may take place on smaller public places and alcohol-related harm occurs. Council incurs cost of signage, around $5000 plus GST.	Cost to install and remove signage in all areas (around $10K) or only priority areas (around $5K). It is recommended that only priority areas have signage.
Risks	Council/local board perceived to have allowed harm to take place.	Council/local board is perceived to have allowed harm to take place.	Council/lLocal board perceived to have responded disproportionately due to number of areas. Police are less able to prevent harm in areas with no signage.
Mitigation	Public communication that the council/local board considered an alcohol ban was no longer required.	Public communication that the council/local board has decided based on the evidence presented, that it could reasonably and financially justify.	Public communication that the council/ local board has decided that it considers best prevents crime or disorder that it could reasonably and financially justify.

Staff recommend the request for an alcohol ban be adopted on all areas

14. Staff recommend Option three: All areas, for the following reasons

· the very high level of crime and disorder experienced in the area from crate day gatherings in 2015 and 2016 that was prevented by an alcohol ban in 2017

· the likelihood of displacement to other areas of the Hibiscus Coast

· the limited duration of the alcohol ban

· the cost of signage is minimised.

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

15. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board previously adopted a similar alcohol ban in 2017 (HB/2017/169) and alcohol related harm or disorder did not occur on coastal reserve land..

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. Managing alcohol-related harm associated with events increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. Iwi and Māori health advocacy organisations support the general use of alcohol bans as a tool to reduce alcohol-related harm.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. The financial implication of Option three: All areas, for the local board is an estimated $5000 to install and remove signage in priority areas. In 2017, the local board installed 74 temporary signs in 13 priority beach and park areas at a cost of $2950 plus GST to install and $1380 plus GST to remove ($4330 total).

18. If the local board decides to signpost all areas, the cost is estimated to be $10,000.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. There is a minor reputational risk associated with Option three: All areas. It could be perceived as a disproportionate response to the issue due to the number of areas covered by the proposed ban.

20. This can be mitigated by public communication that the ban proposed in manages the high risk of displacement of the event around the local area and will effectively prevent crime and disorder in a way that is reasonable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. If the local board adopts the temporary alcohol ban, staff will notify NZ Police of the decision.

22. Temporary alcohol bans are usually associated with an event organiser, such as Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development. Crate day gatherings are not associated with formal event organisers. This means that once a decision is made the local board will seek assurances that the relevant council departments will take responsibility for notifying the public (for example in local newspapers) and installing and removing temporary signage.

23. NZ Police will be responsible for enforcement.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Alcohol ban request	39
b ⇩	Map of existing alcohol bans	65
c ⇩	Assessment of alcohol ban request	67

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Orewa Reserve: basketball hoop renewal options

File No.: CP2018/19768

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the preferred option for the renewal of the Orewa Reserve basketball hoops.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Orewa Reserve basketball hoops require replacement, as the original hoops were removed earlier in the year due to health and safety risks.

3. Three suppliers were requested to quote on replacement of the hoops. Airtime Hoops, Parklife and Playground People. Playground People’s product features the longest warranty for a seaside environment.

4. Council’s Operational Management and Maintenance team prefer Playground People’s product after considering cost, aesthetics and longevity. This product has also been installed in other Auckland Council playgrounds.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve option three for the procurement of the Platinum Play Hoop from Playground People.

b) request staff progress the project through to construction.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Orewa Reserve basketball hoops require replacement, as the original basketball hoops were removed earlier in the year due to health and safety risks.

6. To protect the public from harm, Auckland Council has a duty of care for any assets provided to the public.

7. The renewal of the hoops, and the playing surface was consequently added to the Hibiscus and Bays 2018/2019 Parks Playground renewals project within the work programme.

8. The local board indicated at their June workshop that they would like further investigations undertaken into basketball hoop renewal options for Orewa Reserve.

9. Community Facilities staff investigated products from three suppliers for the replacement of the hoops.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. Option one: Airtime Hoops has the main upright pole is constructed of oversized square profile powder coated galvanized steel and the fixings are all stainless steel. There is an adjustable and non-adjustable model available. They have downgraded their warranty on their products from twenty years to five years due to the seaside location.

11. The cost is $10,429 excluding gst for two hoops, concrete foundations and installation (refer Attachment A).

12. Option two: Parklifes Mighty Hoop features a tubular upright pole and is constructed of hot dipped galvanized steel. The hoop has been engineered to withstand loads of up to 400 kg and has a ten-year warranty on the galvanizing, five years on the pole and two years on the backboard, hoop, spring and paint.

13. The cost is $14,400 excluding gst for two hoops, concrete foundations and installation (refer Attachment B).

14. Option three: Playground Peoples Platinum Play Hoop is made in New Zealand, It has a square profile, powder coated, hot dipped galvanized steel and is available in almost any colour or theme. The hoop ring is spring-loaded, and the backboard is not cantilevered forward. The warranty is twenty-five years on the galvanized pole, backboard and hoop ring.

15. The cost is $14,305 excluding gst for two hoops, concrete foundations and installation (refer Attachment C).

16. Staff recommend option three.

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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 14 June 2018 to discuss the Park Playground renewals programme.

18. At this workshop, the local board indicated that they would like further investigations undertaken into basketball hoop renewal options for Orewa Reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. 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 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and local board plans

20. No specific impacts to Māori were identified for the renewal options of the Orewa Reserve Basketball hoops, therefore iwi were not directly engaged.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

21. The budget required to implement the basketball hoops can be funded through the Community Facilities renewals budget.

22. The cost to implement option three is $14,305.00 excluding gst.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. If the local board do not approve a replacement option, there is a risk that physical works will not commence prior to the christmas break. Also, there may be reputational risk of not installing new basketball hoops.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. Following local board approval of the basketball hoops and, pending stock availability, physical works would be expected to start within a six-week time period.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Airtime 872 Hoop	81
b ⇩	Mighty Hoop	83
c ⇩	Platinum Play Hoop	85

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Paul Durling - Portfolio Coordinator

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Draft Facility Partnership Policy

File No.: CP2018/17995

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local boards’ views on the draft Facility Partnerships Policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A ‘facility partnership’ is where Auckland Council invests in a community facility alongside others. Done well, partnerships can enable and empower our communities, and help us provide more of the quality facilities Auckland needs, faster and more cost-effectively.

3. The council intends to meet more facility needs through partnerships in future, and a new regional policy (refer Attachment B) has been developed to guide their selection and support.

4. Key policy positions outlined in the draft Facility Partnerships Policy and summarised in Attachment A include:

· a focus on shared outcomes

· partnerships that recognise, value and honour Te Ao Māori

· multiple partnership models, with fit-for-purpose arrangements

· ‘Proactive’ and ‘Responsive’ partnership tracks

· principles to shape eligibility and investment priorities

· valuing (and costing) in-kind support

· a stronger focus on the partnership relationship

· greater acknowledgement of the complexity of developing/managing assets.

5. During policy development, staff engaged with Māori to explore specific opportunities and barriers for facility partnerships with Māori. The findings from this engagement (refer Attachment C) have shaped a commitment in the draft policy to partner in ways that align with the Treaty of Waitangi principles, and acknowledge the distinct characteristics of marae.

6. The draft policy was endorsed by the Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 for public consultation and formal engagement with local boards. The consultation activities carried out and the community feedback received are summarised in Attachment D. Public feedback was highly supportive of the draft policy overall.

7. Staff attended local board workshops on the draft policy during July and August. This report invites local boards to formally indicate their support for the proposed approach, and/or provide any additional feedback on the policy they would like the committee to consider.

8. A summary of all feedback and a final policy will be tabled for consideration and adoption by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2018.

9. Implementation of the new approach is expected to begin during the 2019/2020 financial year.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) support the adoption of the Draft Facility Partnerships Policy, and provide any additional feedback on the proposed approach for the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration.

Horopaki / Context

10. Auckland Council is a major provider of community, arts and sports facilities, but not the only provider. A ‘facility partnership’ is where the council invests in a community facility alongside others. Done well, partnerships can enable and empower communities, and help the council to provide more of the quality facilities Auckland needs, faster and more cost-effectively.

11. There are already around 300 of these arrangements in Auckland, and the council has signalled more facility needs will be met through partnerships in future. There is currently no regional policy to guide the selection and support of facility partnerships.

12. In 2016, a cross-council team began work on a new regional policy. The team met with a number of partners and experts to understand existing practice and how policy could improve decision-making in the partnering experience.

13. Findings from discovery work were shared in December 2016 at walk-throughs with elected members, staff and participating partners, and reported to the Environment and Community committee in February 2017 (resolution number ENV/2017/9).

14. A new approach was developed and tested at walk-throughs in February 2018. The committee endorsed the draft policy for public consultation and formal engagement with local boards in June 2018 (resolution number ENV/2018/74).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Facility partnerships benefit the council and the community

15. Auckland Council supports facility partnerships because they can:

· leverage external investment and community effort

· empower communities, and help us respond to Auckland’s increasing diversity

· optimise the existing facility network and reduce the need for new facilities.

Facility partnership selection and management is ad-hoc and inconsistent

16. Discovery work in 2016 and into 2017 identified a range of issues that are preventing the council from realising the full potential of facility partnerships.

17. Currently, facility partnership decisions are made on an ad-hoc basis. Often the lifetime costs and benefits of the partnership have not been fully considered, or how these relate to network gaps and evolving community needs.

18. Investment opportunities and selection decisions lack transparency, and our management processes tend to be uncoordinated and inconsistent. Many partners report that they feel under-prepared and insufficiently supported by council to deliver successfully.

Proposed policy provides strategic approach with tailored process

19. Staff have developed a new policy (refer Attachment B) to respond directly to these findings.

20. This will enable the council and partners to make more informed and strategic investment decisions. Advice will be based on clearer evidence of need and impact and comprehensive costings and will emphasise viability and sustainability.

21. The new approach introduces a more transparent and contestable selection process. Requirements will be tailored to reflect the scale, complexity and risk of each proposal. The policy recognises the importance of quality relationships, and the need to better coordinate staff expertise and support to improve partners’ experience and build capability.

22. The draft policy proposes:

· a focus on shared outcomes

· partnerships that recognise, value and honour Te Ao Māori

· multiple partnership models, with fit-for-purpose arrangements

· ‘Proactive’ and ‘Responsive’ partnership tracks

· principles to shape eligibility and investment priorities

· valuing (and costing) in-kind support

· a stronger focus on the partnership relationship

· greater acknowledgement of the complexity of developing/managing assets.

23. A summary of key policy positions relating to these themes is provided as Attachment A.

Public engagement held during July and August 2018

24. Staff undertook public consultation and briefed interested advisory panels between June and August 2018. Public consultation activities included six drop-in consultation events across Auckland, and online submissions via the council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website.

25. Public feedback was highly supportive of the draft policy overall. Those providing feedback generally saw the value of having a policy for this activity and were positive about its intent. Responses to questions about specific aspects of the policy were also strongly affirmative.

Public feedback shows strong support for new approach

26. Key themes that emerged from the public consultation are:

· Most respondents agree the new approach will better enable council to invest in the right facility partnerships and ensure that partnerships work for both partners and council.

· The investment principles, the proposal to enable appropriate commercial activities in facilities, and the establishment of Lead Relationship Brokers were all positively received by the majority of respondents.

· The ‘Track, Type and Scale’ model was also welcomed for encompassing a wide range of facility partnerships, and the intention to ensure requirements are proportionate.

· Respondents hope the new approach will make it easier for partners to navigate the multiple council systems and processes involved and get good support from staff.

· Using the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty) principles to guide partnerships with Māori was welcomed by most, but this was acknowledged as a complex area.

· Respondents appreciated a more visually appealing document that is easier to navigate.

Most public concerns relate to application of policy

27. Concerns identified included:

· how the investment principles will be applied in practice, especially where they must be ‘traded off’ against each other

· whether some communities will be unfairly advantaged by the new approach

· whether the higher level of staff support will be properly resourced, and implemented as intended across all parts of council

· whether the process is flexible enough to respond to the ‘messy reality’ of partnerships.

28. A full summary of the public consultation activities to date and a more in-depth description of key feedback themes is provided as Attachment D for local board consideration.

29. Key national and regional stakeholders will also be briefed prior to the draft being finalised.

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

30. Local boards have a strong interest in facility partnerships and some decision-making responsibility in this area, including:

· determining local outcomes and advocating for local investment priorities

· governing local and sub-regional facility partnership relationships and agreements

· allocating local discretionary funding and community leases of council property.

31. Staff have engaged with local boards informally at various stages throughout the discovery work and subsequent policy development. Local board member views and concerns have helped shape the draft policy.

32. During July and August 2018, local boards were offered a workshop to hear an overview of the proposed policy approach and seek clarification on any areas of local interest or concern. Eighteen local boards requested a workshop.

Formal local board feedback sought September and October 2018

33. Community feedback has now been summarised for local boards’ consideration. Staff are seeking to understand local boards’ views on the new approach and requesting a formal indication of support at local board business meetings during September and October 2018.

34. Staff would particularly value local board feedback on the following parts of the draft policy (refer Attachment B), which are likely to have the most bearing on local board decision-making:

· the Tracks, Types and Scales model (p.16-23) to differentiate partnerships and customise the partnership process

· the draft investment principles (p.26) and priorities (p.33)

· proposed eligibility criteria for investment (p.27-30)

· the proposal to allow facility partnerships to generate revenue through appropriate commercial activities (p.31)

· the focus on quality relationships, as outlined in the proposed partnering principles (p.35) and supported by allocation of a lead relationship broker (p.38).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. Marae are a focal point for Māori social, economic, environmental and cultural development, and are identified in the Community Facilities Network Plan as potential facility partners.

Engagement to better understand facility partnerships and Te Ao Māori

36. In 2017, staff undertook additional engagement with Māori, with a focus on marae, to ensure that the new policy incorporates any special context, barriers or opportunities for facility partnerships with Māori. A summary of the findings is provided as Attachment C.

37. The draft policy reflects these findings and commits the council to partnering with Māori in ways which align with the Treaty principles and reflect the distinct characteristics of marae.

38. The draft policy approach and the findings report will be shared at hui with interested marae during September, as part of initial discussions on a new Marae Investment Policy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. The Facility Partnerships Policy is not supported by a dedicated budget. Future investment in facility partnerships will be provided through existing budgets for facility development and operation, allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and Annual Plans. Local boards may also award grants and community leases of council property to support facility partnerships.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Risk	Mitigation
Adoption of a new policy may create expectations that there will be additional budget to support facility partnerships.	All public-facing communications and guidance about the new policy will reference the funding available from existing regional and local budgets and how this will be allocated.
Existing facility partners may be concerned that the new policy will impact arrangements already in place, or ongoing council investment.	The new policy will guide decisions on new facility partnerships only, unless an existing partnership is already scheduled for review, and guidance will clearly state this. Where existing partnerships are to be reviewed, staff will ensure partners are adequately supported to prepare.
The transition to the new policy approach will be operationally complex. It impacts multiple teams across the council, and new business processes, guidance and forms will need to be designed to support it.	Detailed implementation planning will be required to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible. Phased implementation over the first financial year (2019/2020) may be necessary to achieve this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

40. A summary of all feedback and a final policy will be tabled for consideration and adoption by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2018.

41. Implementation of the new approach is expected to begin during the 2019/2020 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Facility Partnerships Policy - summary of key policy positions (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Draft Facility Partnerships Policy (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Facility partnerships with Māori - Summary report (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Draft Facility Partnerships Policy - Public feedback summary report (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Enforcement of existing freedom camping regulations – Summer 2018/19

File No.: CP2018/19329

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To inform the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the proposed enforcement approaches of existing freedom camping regulations for the 2018/19 summer period; and

2. To provide the opportunity for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to consider funding additional compliance programmes in their local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Freedom Camping is currently regulated under existing legacy bylaws.

4. The Regulatory Compliance unit will continue to offer it’s existing level of service for responding to complaints about Freedom Camping. This will include a Compliance Response officer visiting the site in the morning to educate any freedom campers found to be in breach of the legacy bylaws.

5. The unit will also review any supporting infrastructure (including signage and access restriction) at known hotspots prior to the summer.

6. An additional proactive compliance programme is proposed. This however cannot be resourced within existing funding. Should the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board wish to use this additional programme the local board will need to provide Locally Driven Initiatives funding to resource it.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) acknowledge the proposed ‘Standard Compliance Approach’ and the proposals for ‘Infrastructure to support compliance’

b) confirm whether they will fund additional compliance programmes in their board area.

Horopaki / Context

Regulatory Compliance

7. The Regulatory Services Directorate conducts compliance under a number of significant statutes, including the Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004 and Local Government Act 2002. Secondary regulations and bylaws add to compliance obligations.

8. The volume of compliance activities is significant, with nearly 90,000 requests for service received by the Regulatory Compliance unit alone. Demand for compliance services is increasing. Volumes increased between 8 to 25% in the year ending December 2016, with resource management breaches and noise complaints experiencing significant increases.

9. All regulatory compliance activities were consolidated into a single Regulatory Compliance unit late last year, creating a central point of accountability.

10. Complementary to the new structure, the Regulatory Committee endorsed a shift to a strengthened compliance approach in October 2017 [REG/2017/93].

11. The new approach is evidence led and focuses on high harm incidents. It is a prioritised, risk-based approach to compliance where we respond most quickly and effectively to non-compliance where the greatest impact on public health and safety and environmental values is evident.

Freedom camping

12. Freedom camping in Auckland is currently managed using legacy bylaw provisions developed under the Local Government Act 2002.

13. In October 2015, the council confirmed the legacy bylaw provisions until October 2020 to avoid them lapsing under transitional legislation [GB/2015/11]. The council also indicated that a review should be completed before the provisions would lapse in October 2020. However, it is anticipated that a new bylaw will be in place for summer 2019/2020.

14. Analysis of our requests for service received across the region about freedom camping between 2015 and 2017 shows a reasonably steady number of complaints each winter at approximately 30 per month and roughly a doubling of volume over the summer. The maximum volume was in April 2016 at approximately 95.

15. Our compliance approach over preceding years has included responding to complaints and some proactive campaigns to address non-compliance as well as collect information to assist with the development of the new bylaw.

16. Generally speaking, we find reactive responses to complaints about Freedom Camping to be of limited effect, particularly at night as campers are unlikely to move once set up. There are also additional health and safety risks with sending officers to these requests for service at night, due to darkness and relative remoteness. Responding to these types complaints tends to be most effective in the morning.

17. Proactive compliance campaigns have been shown to be effective at reducing the number of non-compliant freedom campers. In the past we have run these over an extended period of the summer, with early morning visits to wake up campers. While these have proven to be effective, they take up significant amount of staff time. Further, during these programmes our officers report that they have not witnessed any evidence of nuisance or anti-social behaviour.

18. Under the Local Government Act 2002 our enforcement powers are effectively limited to prosecution. As such, our graduated enforcement approach consists primarily of education and offering of advice on alternative locations in the first instance.

19. In the rare situation where a camper continues to be non-compliant over a period of time, we take into account the nature of the offence and offender and consider any additional tools that might be applicable such as obtaining support from social services or issuing trespass notices.

20. To date, we have not prosecuted anyone for breach of the regulations controlling Freedom Camping bylaw.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. Given our new approach to compliance and continued concerns over Freedom Camping, we are reviewing our response to freedom camping complaints.

Our Standard Compliance approach

22. We have chosen to keep our standard compliance approach the same as previous years.

23. Historically a number of the legacy bylaws have allowed for two consecutive nights’ camping. As such, when customers ring through a Request for Service (RFS) the call centre will ask how long they have been there and will encourage the customer to phone back later if this time period has been exceeded.

24. When an RFS is logged, this will be allocated to a Compliance Response officer who will respond to the RFS during the next business day. Typically, this will include an early morning visit to see if the freedom camper has stayed overnight, and if so, to explain the rules.

25. If we have an area that receives multiple calls, we may attend on a programmed basis, early one morning with two officers to educate and move campers along.

26. If we encounter recurring offenders we will consider enforcement action, most likely limited to issuing a trespass notice.

27. This level of service will be accommodated within our existing resource.

Infrastructure to support compliance

28. In order to assist campers to voluntarily comply with the current bylaws, we will review and update current infrastructure and information about Freedom Camping where we can.

29. For instance we have already reviewed the signage at Arundel Reserve, which has previously been a hotspot for requests for service. In doing this, we have removed signage that promotes Freedom Camping where the current and proposed bylaws do not. Further, we are working with Community Facilities to investigate the installation of a chain or other barrier restricting access where appropriate and if further signage is available.

30. Leading up to the summer our officers will review signage and infrastructure at other known hotspots.

31. There are a number of apps and websites regularly used by campers to identify places they can stay. Our team will also review those that we know about closer to the summer to try and update that content.

32. This will be accommodated within our existing resource

Additional proactive compliance programmes – requires additional funding

33. Any additional proactive compliance programme would require additional resource to implement.

34. Below is an example programme which we believe would effectively cover six “hotspots” in one local board area.

	Description	Dates
Phase 1: Pre-campaign	· Signage to be checked, updated and replaced if necessary · Camping apps to be checked and updated if necessary · Current complaint logs to be analysed to identify any hotspots · Training of compliance	Last week of November
Phase 2: Compliance Blitz	· Two compliance officers attend agreed locations for 2-3 hours starting at 6.30am each day. · Officers knock on all illegally parked vehicles, inform occupants of rules, collect details of vehicle and occupants, advise of trespass if need be. · Any repeat offenders to be issued a written warning on first repeat and trespassed on second repeat.	First week of December
Phase 3: Monitor Compliance	· Two compliance officers attend agreed locations for 2-3 hours starting at 6.30am two days per week. · Officers knock on all illegally parked vehicles, inform occupants of rules, collect details of vehicle and occupants, advise of trespass if need be. · Any repeat offenders to be issued a written warning on first repeat and trespassed on second repeat.	Second week of December – March, 10 weeks

35. This programme would require recruitment of appropriate officers to undertake the work, and/or to backfill existing staff.

36. Phase 1 could be completed utilising existing resource. However, the additional staff cost for phases 2 and 3 is expected to be $21,130 (exc. GST).

37. Given this is largely a local issue, this package is being offered to local boards. Should they wish to have additional proactive compliance programmes in their area, we would need them to fund these additional costs.

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

38. Local boards have a significant interest in Freedom Camping and their local knowledge has been important to inform site assessments for the proposed bylaw.

39. Local board feedback was formalised at their June business meetings which included individual site recommendations and general feedback. The key recurring themes of general feedback from local boards included:

· need for enforcement and more resources to administer bylaw effectively

· only certified-self-contained camping should be provided for

· concern that even self-contained campers don’t use their onboard facilities

· numbers of campers on a site needs to be limited

· a booking or permit system should be developed

· good communication of where campers can go is required

· signage needs to be clear.

40. This report and the optional proactive programme are in part, a response to that feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

41. Development of the proposed bylaw has particular relevance for mana whenua due to its impact on the use of land. Staff have worked with iwi through the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Engagement Forum to receive general feedback in March, and site-specific feedback in August and September.

42. Information was also provided at the hui to inform mana whenua how they can provide further formal submissions on the proposal once it has been notified.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

43. Our Standard Compliance Approach can be implemented within existing resource.

44. There will be costs if additional infrastructure is required. However, given this is likely to be a temporary solution for this summer, costs will be kept to a minimum. For instance, an additional permanent sign costs $110 however a corflute sign can be printed and installed on existing infrastructure for approximately $30.

45. Any additional proactive programmes cannot be implemented within existing resources.

46. If the local board would like to pursue additional compliance programmes in their area this will need to be funded by the local board. The proposed campaign, which would be suitable for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, is expected to cost $21,130 (exc. GST).

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

47. There are likely to be some communities unhappy with our standard compliance approach which creates a reputational risk for the council.

48. Funding agreements for any additional programmes need to be complete by end of October in order to recruit suitable resource for an end of November start date.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. If the local board would like to pursue an additional compliance programme, our team will meet with the local board representatives to make any modifications to the standard programme if necessary.

50. Once funding is in place, the Regulatory Compliance unit will commence recruitment and ultimately deliver the agreed programme.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Steve Pearce - Manager Regulatory Compliance

Authorisers

Steve Pearce - Manager Regulatory Compliance

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board October 2018

File No.: CP2018/19129

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board members on transport related matters in their area, including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· A summary of the board’s transport capital fund

· A summary of consultation activity

· Traffic Control Committee decisions

· An update on issues raised.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport October 2018 update report.

Horopaki / Context

3. This report updates the local board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area, it summarises consultations and Traffic Control Committee results, and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

4. AT is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important to their communities but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must also:

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

· be in the road corridor (although projects running in parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

6. The table below reflects the status of projects to which the LBTCF has already been committed.

Status update on current Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects
Project	Description	Current status	Has the status changed since last month’s update?	Funds allocated in current political term
091 – Mairangi Bay Art Walk	Construction of footpath amenities on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay from the retail centre to Mairangi Bay Reserve	Completed	No	$17,508
411 – Torbay Revitalisation	Upgrade of Torbay town centre	Completed	No	$598,787
558 - Orewa Pedestrian Crossings	Facilities to improve pedestrian safety at the intersections of Moana and Moenui Avenues with the Hibiscus Coast Highway	Completed	No	$127,510
578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3	Extension of existing Boulevard concept from Riverside Road to Empire Road	In detailed design	No	$1,330,000
579 - Torbay Parking Stage 2	Construction of 5 car park spaces on the Auckland Council reserve at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay	Detailed design completed and contractor appointed. Work to commence in October.	Yes	$56,000
580 – Town Centre Slow Zones	Traffic Calming in the town centres of Mairangi Bay and Torbay	In detailed design	No	$689,731

7. A safety audit has been undertaken following the completion of Project 558 - Orewa Pedestrian Crossings, the findings of which will be shared with the local board once they have been reviewed by AT traffic engineering staff.

8. Updates for those projects now in detailed design will be provided and discussed with the local board as they come to hand.

9. The design for Project 579 - Torbay Parking Stage 2, has been completed and tenders closed on 10 September 2018. Nine tenders were received and Nayler Construction Limited was appointed as the successful contractor. A pre-start meeting was held on Friday, 21 September 2018 and it is anticipated that construction will commence early in October 2018. Key stakeholders, including the local board, will be updated as construction progresses.

10. The detailed design of Project 578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3, is underway, with preliminary site meetings and observations, discussions with Auckland Council Parks and AT traffic engineering staff, and a full topographical survey of both the road and beach reserve completed. AT staff will discuss the outcome of these investigations and discussions, and share preliminary design concepts with the local board at a workshop on 25 October 2018.

Responses to Resolutions

11. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 18 July 2018 the local board resolved to (HB/2018/121):

a) note the Auckland Transport July 2018 update report

b) expresses concern at the loss of express and direct bus services on the Hibiscus Coast and East Coast Bays a decision based on dated public consultation

c) request details of the cancelled bus routes in both the Hibiscus Coast and East Coast Bays subdivisions in the local board area

d) request that if there is any proposal to introduce parking charges at park and rides the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board would like to be consulted and see a full consultation process.

12. A comprehensive memo was forwarded to members in response to b) and c) above on 9 August 2018 and is appended as Attachment A to this report for the public record.

13. AT notes the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s request to be consulted and see a full consultation process if there is any proposal to introduce parking charges at park and rides.

14. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 22 August 2018 the local board resolved to (HB/2018/133):

a) note the report entitled Auckland Transport’s Safety and Speed Management programme 2018-2021

b) endorse the slow town approach and requests that Auckland Transport report back to the local board on implementation of the slow town approach throughout the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

15. AT notes the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s endorsement of the slow town approach and advises that staff are currently collating the relevant material for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

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

Auckland Transport consultations

16. Over the last reporting period, AT has invited the local board to provide their feedback on the following proposals:

Traffic Control Committee decisions

17. AT's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced. Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board during July and August 2018 are listed below:

Decision	Report Type	Nature of Restriction	Decision
Hibiscus Coast Highway, Unnamed Roads, Totara Views Drive, Jelas Road, Whangaparaoa	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Cycle Lane, Lane Arrow Markings, One-Way, Prohibited Right Turn, Flush Median, Shoulder Markings, Traffic Islands, Give-Way Control, Traffic Signal Control, Stop Control, Pedestrian Crossing, Road Hump	Carried
Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes	No Stopping at all Times, Road Markings for Speed Management	Approved in Principle
Fitzwilliam Drive, Stredwick Drive, Torbay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Bus Stop, Give-Way	Not Carried
Moores Road, Blake Greens, Silverdale	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Give-Way	Carried
Lingham Crescent, Weatherly Road, Glamorgan Drive, Torbay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Roundabout Controlled Give-Way, Traffic Island	Carried
Ian Sage Avenue, Torbay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes	No Stopping at all Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter	Carried
Stredwick Drive, Torbay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Traffic Island, Roundabout Controlled Give-Way	Carried
Windlass Street, Cavalli Road, Te Oneroa Way, Pennant Street, Remuremu Street, Bearing Parade, Long Bay	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Bus Stop, Cycle Lane, Traffic Islands, Give-Way Control, Road Hump, Edge Line	Carried
Colin Chester Drive, Highgate Parkway, Emirali Road, Waterloo Road, Silverdale	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes Combined	No Stopping at all Times, Lane Arrow Markings, Give-Way Control, Flush Median Traffic Islands	Approved in Principle

Issues Raised by Elected Members

18. The following list summarises issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 26 September 2018:

		Location	Issue	Status
1	T2/T3 Lanes		Request for data and reports on T2/T3 lanes.		Crs Watson and Wayne Walker requested data and reports on the effectiveness of T2/T3 lanes, together with maps of current and proposed T2/T3 lanes across the region and a report on the Onewa Road T3 lane. On 17 September 2018 the councillors were provided with data and reports on the effectiveness of the T2/T3 lanes in the Auckland region, and an Excel spreadsheet documenting existing and proposed priority lane and priority measures across Auckland, including bus only lanes on motorways.
2	Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay		Request for NSAAT restrictions on Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay.		Member Bettany requested the installation of NSAAT restrictions on the western side of Browns Bay Road at its intersection with Argyle Road on 21 May 2018, to improve visibility for cars exiting Argyle Road onto Browns Bay Road. On 19 July 2018 Member Bettany was advised that the engineers had completed an investigation into the feasibility of the request and assessed that a parking restriction would be beneficial so will carry out consultation with affected parties. Final implementation of the proposed parking restriction will be subject to the feedback of those consulted and approval by AT’s Traffic Control Committee.
3	Hibiscus Coast Bus Service 881		Request for extension of 881 bus service from Hibiscus Coast direct to Auckland University.		Member Caitlin Watson asked on 29 May 2018 for an extension of the 881 bus service from the Hibiscus Coast Station to the University/Hospital/Newmarket, suggesting that the time and the number of transfers students need to make using the current services available make the commute time too long. On 10 July 2018 Member Watson was advised that the current 881 route would be replaced by two new services on implementation of the New Network, the NX2 and 866. The NX2 runs to and from the universities (AUT and University of Auckland) via Wellesley Street and route 866 will serve Auckland City Hospital and Newmarket. At this stage the NX2 will not operate north of Albany Station but there will be additional trips during peak times starting at Constellation Station to provide extra capacity. AT will be increasing the frequency of local services 981 and 982, as well as the Northern Express (NX1) at peak times, with the result that there will be an NX1 from Hibiscus Coast Station every 5 minutes during peak times. The NX2 from Constellation Station will also be as often as every 2 – 3 minutes, meaning shorter commuting times to the universities than at present. Whilst 200 people have indicated they would use a direct service from Hibiscus Coast Station to the University, this is a very small percentage of the total number of passengers travelling from the Hibiscus Coast. To operate the NX2 to Hibiscus Coast Station often enough to be useful would be expensive and require the purchase of a number of additional buses. However, AT will monitor patronage and may be in a position to extend the NX2 to Hibiscus Coast Station should additional funding be available in the future.
4	2/559 East Coast Road, Browns Bay		Request for extension of NSAAT restrictions to the driveway for 2/559 East Coast Road, Browns Bay.		Erica Stanford MP asked on 7 June 2018 that existing NSAAT restrictions be extended from the roundabout at the intersection of East Coast/Arran Roads, Browns Bay to the driveway at 2/559 East Coast Road, where visibility is restricted by parked cars. On 11 July 2018 the MP's Office was advised that investigation had concluded that the extension of the existing parking restrictions would be beneficial so consultation will be carried out with those most affected by the proposal. Implementation of parking restrictions will be subject to feedback from those consulted and approval by AT’s Traffic Control Committee.
5	Langton Road, Stanmore Bay		Request for traffic calming measures on Langton Road, Stanmore Bay.		Member Fitzgerald forwarded a request on 5 July 2018 that traffic-calming measures be installed on Langton Road, Stanmore Bay, a road used as an alternate route to Whangaparaoa Road. On 19 July 2018 the resident and Member Fitzgerald were advised that the concerns had been investigated and that, as there had only been one reported crash relating to speed at this location in the past five years, based on the safety record for Langton Road, speed calming measures could not currently be justified. AT considers a street to be narrow if the road is less than 6.5 metres wide and, though it was acknowledged that parts of Langton Road are narrow, these sections, where visibility is insufficient, already have appropriate parking restrictions.
6	Korotaha Terrace, Rothesay Bay		Request for a reduction in speed limit on Korotaha Terrace, and the installation of a pedestrian crossing facility near the intersection of Korotaha Terrace and Masterton Road, Browns Bay.		The Office of Erica Stanford MP requested lowering of the speed limit at the intersection of Korotaha Terrace and Beulah Avenue and the installation of a pedestrian crossing facility near the intersection of Korotaha Terrace and Masterton Road, Rothesay Bay on 11 July 2018. On 17 September 2018 the MP's Office was advised of the rules governing the setting of speeds under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 and NZTA’s new Speed Management Guide. The speed limit on the majority of roads in urban areas within Auckland is 50km/h but there are instances where lower speeds would be more appropriate due to the road geometry, parked vehicles, the presence of pedestrians, weather conditions, or any number of other factors. At bends where a lower speed is recommended, advisory speed signs can be installed to warn drivers of the need to slow down due to the geometry of the road (as have been installed on the bend in Beulah Avenue). Korotaha Terrace is a residential road that is identified as having a low risk for users. In addition, there are existing traffic calming measures on Korotaha Terrace and Beulah Avenue, which already moderates speeds. There were therefore no plans to implement changes at this time. AT also considered the request for a zebra crossing but is unable to justify a change, as there is relatively low pedestrian activity. Informal crossing points, such as the raised pedestrian platform on Korotaha Terrace near the Masterton Road intersection, are installed to ensure a low speed environment at locations where the pedestrian demand does not justify a prioritised crossing facility. There is existing signage alerting northbound motorists on Korotaha Terrace to the possible presence of pedestrians. This combined with a raised platform provides for a safe crossing point. However, roadside vegetation that was restricting sightlines would be removed. In addition, ‘check before you step’ markings would be installed on the footpath at the crossing location, as a reminder to pedestrians.
7	Bakehouse Lane, Orewa		Request for wheel stops on Bakehouse Lane, Orewa.		Member Caitlin Watson requested the installation of wheel stops along Bakehouse Lane, Orewa, to prevent cars obstructing the pedestrian thoroughfare, particularly for disabled pedestrians. On 17 September 2018 Member Watson was advised that AT's engineers did not consider that additional wheel stops would make a significant difference to pedestrian access along the wider section of footpath to the North, primarily because of other existing obstructions (bins and trees). They did however notice that vehicles from the adjacent private car parks might at times overhang the footpath along the narrower southern section, reducing the walkable width. As there are already wheel stops on the road along this section of Bakehouse Lane, it was suggested that Member Watson approach the private property owner with a suggestion that wheel stops be installed on the opposite side of the footpath.
8	Waiake Street, Torbay		Request for barrier on the corner of Waiake Street and Beach Road, Torbay.		Erica Stanford MP requested installation of a barrier on the corner of Waiake Street and the Beach Road bridge, Torbay, on 9 August 2018, to provide increased safety for pedestrians. On 21 September 2018 the MP's Office was advised that AT’s engineers had investigated the request, noting that this section of road has a moderate gradient and is in close proximity to a pedestrian crossing, where vehicles are preparing to stop or slow down to allow pedestrians to cross the road. In addition, it was noted that there had been no reported crashes in this area in the last five years so, based on this, they are unable to justify the installation of a pedestrian safety fence.
9	Hibiscus Coast		Request for statistics related to 991x and 992x bus services from the Hibiscus Coast.		On 10 August 2018 Member Caitlin Watson asked in relation to the 991x and 992x express bus services from the Hibiscus Coast, how well they are utilized and what the calculated travel time under the replacement service for commuters will be. Referred to AT Metro for response.
10	Nor’East Drive, Northcross		Footpath damage on Nor’East Drive, Northcross.		Member Bettany raised concerns about extensive damage to the footpath on Nor’East Drive, Northcross, on 21 August 2018. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance for action.
11	Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa		Cars parked 'for sale' on Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa.		Member Parfitt forwarded a resident's concerns related to cars parked for sale on Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa, on 26 August 2018. On 6 September 2018 Member Parfitt was advised that AT acknowledges that vehicles for sale can be a nuisance in some situations, particularly if there are a number of such vehicles parked at a particular location. However, it was not considered these cause an issue for other road users if parked in a legal and safe manner. In cases where parking occupancy and availability becomes an issue, AT will respond to the situation in accordance to AT's Parking Strategy. A Parking Officer attended this area on 28 August 2018 and saw that only one vehicle was not parked legally because the licence label was not affixed in the prescribed manner. All other vehicles were parked legally. If cars are parked on broken yellow lines, AT's call centre staff should be advised on (09) 355 3553 so that a Parking Officer can be sent to investigate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. There are no financial implications in receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

22. AT will provide a further report to the local board in November 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Response to Hibiscus and Bays Resolution HB/2018/121	111

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2018/19156

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To progress the allocation of the funds remaining to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in its Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local boards can use the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. There is currently $1,369,789 in the local board’s Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

3. This report makes a recommendation to the local board to allocate funds from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund towards the provision and installation of armrests on seats located on the Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.

4. The recommendation in this report is the result of on-site meetings with a representative of Destination Orewa Beach, the suppliers and installers of the armrests and Auckland Transport staff.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) allocate $5,400 from the funds remaining in its Auckland Transport Local Board Transport Capital Fund towards the supply and installation of 14 armrests on seven seats located in the area between 292 and 350 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.

Horopaki / Context

5. This report focuses on allocating funds from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s share of Auckland Transport’s (AT) Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

6. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important in their communities but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must:

· be safe;

· not impede network efficiency;

· be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

7. There is currently $1,369,789 remaining in the Hibiscus and Bays LBTCF. Of this, $132,774 must be allocated before 30 June 2019 and $1, 237,015 may be allocated before 30 June 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. A summary of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s current LBTCF allocation is shown in the table below:

9. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
10. Total Funds Available in current political term	11. $4,193,075
12. Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	13. $2,823,286
14. Remaining Budget	15. $1,369,789

9. Funding from the current political term has so far been allocated to the following projects:

· Project 091, Mairangi Bay Art Walk;

· Project 411, Torbay Revitalisation;

· Project 558, Orewa Pedestrian Crossings;

· Project 578, Orewa Boulevard Stage 3;

· Project 579, Torbay Parking Stage 2; and

· Project 580, Town Centre Slow Zones (Mairangi Bay and Torbay).

10. Funding towards Projects 558, 578, 579 and 580 was allocated at the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting held on 24 April 2018 (HB/2018/42).

11. At its meeting on 15 November 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board also requested rough order costs for the modification of seven of the fourteen existing bench seats in the area between 292 and 350 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, to better meet the needs of the elderly and less able (HB/2017/187). The request was initiated by Destination Orewa Beach (DOB), which represents local businesses in the area, through the local board.

12. Whilst the initial scope of the project was to retrofit both back and arm rests, investigation established that the provision of backrests for the seats would be impractical due to their curved shape. Rather than replacement of the existing seats, it was therefore agreed that costs for the provision and installation of armrests only would be pursued.

13. AT staff met with a representative of DOB on site on 18 September. At that meeting, a prototype of the armrests, shown in the photograph below, was discussed and minor modifications in the way these would be attached to the seats agreed.

14. The handrails will be 8mm thick and 50mm wide solid polished stainless steel.

15. Once approved by the local board, manufacture and installation will take approximately one month. It is therefore anticipated that installation could be completed prior to Christmas 2018.

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

16. Local board views, together with those of a representative of Destination Orewa Beach, the organisation that represents businesses in the area, were taken into account in the development of the armrest prototype and the manner in which these will be affixed to the seats.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. It is considered that this proposal has no impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. The financial implication of the board approving the recommendation in this report is the allocation of $5,400 of its LBTCF, leaving a balance of $1,364,389.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. There is a risk that installation of the armrests could be delayed beyond Christmas 2018 by manufacturing issues, or by inclement weather.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. AT staff will progress the decision made by the local board as a result of this report and provide updates via its future monthly reports.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Orewa Community Centre 2018/2019 hire fee subsidy

File No.: CP2018/19211

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve a venue hire fee subsidy for Orewa Community Centre.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In 2014, council adopted the Hire Fee Framework, an operational policy that guides the setting of fees and charges across the network of council-managed community centres and venues. Local boards are responsible for setting local fees and charges.

3. The Arts, Community and Events 2018/2019 work programme includes a provision for a 50 per cent discount for certain hirers of Orewa Community Centre.

4. In previous years there was funding available to support hirers with venue hire fees.

5. At a workshop held in July 2018, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requested a report from staff to consider funding allocation for reinstating provision of a venue hire fee subsidy, which is in addition to the 50 per cent discount available through the Hire Fee Framework.

6. Staff have considered the options for a subsidy and recommend continuing to charge hirers in line with the Hire Fee Framework. The framework does not require allocation of funding for a venue hire fee subsidy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the current fee schedule for 2018/2019 for hirers of Orewa Community Centre, including a local board priority activity rate that offers hirers a 50 per cent discount.

Horopaki / Context

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

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

9. On 20 June 2018, the local board adopted the Arts, Community and Events (ACE) 2018/2019 work programme (HB/2018/99).

10. The work programme did not include a subsidy for Orewa Community Centre because of the planned transition of the management of the centre to become community-led by July 2018.

11. Staff subsequently advised that this transition was not feasible by July 2018. As a result, the local board requested a report from staff to consider funding allocation to reinstate provision of a venue hire fee subsidy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. Staff considered the options and the impacts of funding allocation for venue hire fees for the community centre. These are outlined in the table below:

Option

Pros

Cons

Option 1: Allocate funding for venue hire fee subsidy.

Allocate Locally Driven Initiative funding to cover the cost of providing use at a more discounted rate.

The local board will allocate $10,000 (based on analysis of approved requests in 2017/2018) to cover the cost of hire on a case by case basis.

• all venue hirers requests for financial assistance can be supported

• community groups can also seek financial assistance through the current contestable community grants process

• the Hire Fee Framework includes the local board priority activity rate which grants hirers a 50 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee. This will continue to be available to all hirers

• the Hire Fee Framework also includes a regular hirer rate which grants hirers a 20 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee. This continues to be available to hirers who have ten or more bookings in a financial year.

• not all community groups will be aware of the provision of this fund to assist with venue hire fees as it is not advertised and not clear what the qualifying criteria is.

Option 2: Redirect waiver requests to the local board contestable grants process.

Requests for Venue Hire financial support to be applied for via the Hibiscus and Bays Local or Quick Response grants

• venue hirers request for financial assistance can be supported through the contestable community grants process

• the Hire Fee Framework will continue to be available to all hirers and the grant they apply for may cover the cost after the 50 per cent discount

• the 20 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee will continue to be available to hirers who have ten or more bookings

• community groups will have to submit a grant funding application but is restricted to the opening dates of each round

• grant funding applications can be a lengthy process compared to submitting the request through an email or phone call direct to staff.

Option 3: Status quo.

No Locally Driven Initiative funding required and hirers will continue to pay in line with Hire Fee Framework

• venue hirers request for financial assistance can still be supported through the contestable community grants process (option 2)

• the Hire Fee Framework includes the local board activity priority rate which grants hirers a 50 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee. This continues to be available to hirers who meet the criteria

• without the venue hire fee subsidy, some community groups may pay more than they have in the past

• without the venue hire fee subsidy, the following groups who sought financial assistance in 2017/2018 for hire fees will need to pay the following in 2018/2019:

- SALT will need to pay $1071.64 for their annual event

- Hibiscus Coast Senior Citizens will need to pay a total of $4957.44 which is $2449.44 more than what was paid in previous years

- Hibiscus Coast Country Music Club Inc will need to pay a total of $2628.00 which is $684.00 more than what was paid in previous years.

13. On consideration of the impacts, staff recommend option three as it is consistent with the Hire Fee Framework which is accessible to all in the community. Option three also ensures a consistent approach to how fees are applied at other council-managed venues.

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

14. The local board supports activities contributing to community outcomes such as those offered by not-for-profit charities or community organisations, particularly if hosting free public events or activities.

15. At a workshop held on 12 July 2018, the local board indicated a preference for option one.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. The Hire Fee Framework is not specifically targeted for Māori populations. However, it aims to be clear and transparent to all users and enable all Aucklanders, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. No Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) funding is required to approve the recommendation (option three) to continue charging in line with the Hire Fee Framework.

18. To support the local board preference (option one), funding will need to be allocated to cover the cost of providing use of a venue at a more discounted rate. The amount of $10,000 will need to be allocated from LDI.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. There is a potential risk that community groups cannot meet the financial demand and as a result will not go ahead with activities or events as planned if there is no funding allocated to support venue hire fee subsidy requests.

20. While these risks have been considered, staff do not recommend allocating funding for the purposes of subsidising venue hire fees. A hire fee subsidy means that only certain hirers will benefit as this would not be available to all hirers. The incentives included in the Hire Fee Framework are available to all hirers.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. On receiving confirmation of a decision by the local board staff will implement the appropriate administration arrangement.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Melody Sei – Manager, Venues for Hire

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Auckland Regional Services Trust grants process and criteria

File No.: CP2018/19213

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the process and criteria for the distribution of reallocated funds from the legacy Auckland Regional Services Trust.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Local Government Act 1974 provided for the dissolution of the Auckland Regional Services Trust fund, and for the assets to be paid out to the territorial authorities in the Auckland region.

3. From the $1.6 million allocated to the North Shore City Council, the North Shore City Council made a grant of $300,000 to the Shore Exhibition Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna. Around $30,000 of this funding was spent during the initial planning and business case stage leaving a balance of $270,833.33.

4. As the project is no longer proceeding, the remaining funds have been reallocated to four local boards on the North Shore.

5. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has received $52,537, which is allocated to the 2018/2019 work programme line 1779 for arts and culture purposes.

6. From the options outlined in this report, staff recommend allocating this budget as a contestable arts and culture grant, using an Expression of Interest process with an agreed assessment matrix criteria (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of $52,537 legacy Auckland Regional Services Trust fund, in work programme line 1779, to a contestable grant process.

b) approve the assessment matrix criteria for the fund (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki / Context

7. In December 2009, North Shore City Council (NSCC) made a grant of $300,000 to the Shore Exhibition Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna.

8. Approximately $30,000 of this funding was spent during the planning stage, leaving a balance of $270,833.33.

9. In October 2017, it was determined that the project would not proceed (DT/2017/227), and the funds would be reallocated to local boards within the boundaries of the former NSCC.

10. The remaining balance of funds was allocated to the following four local boards:

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Hibiscus and Bays

· Kaipātiki

· Upper Harbour.

11. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has received $52,537, which is allocated to 2018/2019 work programme line 1779 for arts and culture purposes.

12. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area covers two legacy council areas, however only the East Coast Subdivision of the local board area formed part of the legacy NSCC and is therefore eligible to receive the funding.

13. The funds will be allocated in accordance with the Community Grants Policy and the local board funding policy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14. There are two primary options for how the available $52,537 fund can be allocated.

Option 1 – Contestable fund

15. Staff recommend allocating this budget as a contestable arts and culture grant, using an Expression of Interest (EOI) process with an agreed assessment matrix criteria.

16. The process will be administered through Smartygrants grants management system as per other contestable local board grants and will be advertised through council’s promotional channels.

17. Staff will assess the EOIs against approved criteria (Attachment A), and recommendations will be presented to the local board at a business meeting for decision.

Option 2 – Non-contestable fund

18. The local board can allocate the fund to a specific organisation or project as a funding agreement, to be developed by the council Arts Advisor in liaison with the Local Board Services staff.

19. The advantages and disadvantages of option 1 and 2 are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1 – Contestable fund (recommended option)

· The EOI process provides an opportunity for artists to share their ideas with the local board without needing to undertake the work required for a full application. The local board can then request a comprehensive proposal from the applicant if project/s it determines best meet its criteria.

· The process is transparent and accessible.

· There may be a high number of applicants from the EOI process, which can be mitigated by using assessment criteria.

· An EOI process can take a few months to complete, whereas a non-contestable grant can be allocated immediately.

Option 2 –

Non-contestable fund

· The local board can allocate funding to a project that they were not able include in the 2018/2019 work programme.

· Funding can be allocated to a group more quickly than with an EOI process.

· The local board may not have suitable lead organisations or facilities to use this approach

· There may be a perceived lack of transparency if the fund is allocated through a non-contestable process.

20. Staff recommend Option 1 – a contestable EOI process for allocating the available funds, because it allows the local board to explore options using a transparent approach.

21. The local board can approve the criteria for the EOI assessment matrix to manage expectations of the contestable fund for applicants and assessors. It can also add additional criteria as required.

22. Staff recommend assessment matrix criteria (Attachment A) that has taken into consideration the previous Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) funding criteria, local board priorities and the Community Grants Policy.

23. The criteria recommend prioritising projects and groups that:

· are of significant scope or size (by scale/reach of the project or size of the audience)

· are new events or projects, not ongoing operational activity

· promote innovation and/or excellence in the area of arts and culture

· are of local impact or benefit, but may be of regional significance

· raise the profile of the arts and promote arts and cultural development.

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

24. This funding is additional to current arts funding available through grants and the work programme, so is offering the community an opportunity for further arts opportunities.

25. The local board can approve the process and criteria for how the available fund will be allocated, to ensure that it responds to their local community needs and priorities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

26. Applications for a contestable funding approach will be assessed for their delivery of Māori outcomes and this will be included in the funding agreements of successful projects.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

27. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2018/2019 work programme line 1779 has a budget of $52,537, from a legacy ARST fund, to be allocated to arts and culture groups and projects.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28. If funds are allocated using a non-contestable process, there is a risk that the approach will be perceived to be non-transparent. To mitigate this risk, staff recommend that the fund is allocated through a contestable EOI process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29. Staff will implement the approved funding allocation process and draft funding agreements for the successful community group or project recipients.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Assessment matrix criteria	129

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Catherine George – Regional Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Review of the Code of Conduct

File No.: CP2018/18645

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Code of Conduct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The council’s initial Code of Conduct was prepared by the Auckland Transition Agency prior to Auckland Council commencing. It was last reviewed in 2013. The Code of Conduct has worked well but there have been a number of issues identified. The Governing Body agreed that the Code of Conduct be reviewed through the Joint Governance Working Party. Presentations were made to local board cluster meetings earlier this year.

3. Based on feedback to date, an amended Code of Conduct has been drafted and the Joint Governance Working Party has approved it to be reported to local boards for feedback. The proposals contained in the draft Code of Conduct address the issues that were identified.

4. A comparison of the draft Code of Conduct with the current Code of Conduct can be summarised as follows:

i) The draft Code of Conduct itself is more concise

ii) Material breaches are defined

iii) There are separate complaint processes depending on whether a complaint relates to a non-material breach, a material breach or conflict of interest

iv) The current independent review panel is replaced by a Conduct Commissioner, who can impose sanctions

v) Findings of the Conduct Commissioner (for material breaches) will be made public to assist compliance with sanctions imposed by the Conduct Commissioner

vi) There is no political involvement in determining a complaint or imposing sanctions

vii) Related documents are bundled in with the draft Code of Conduct and key policies and protocols and adopted with the draft Code of Conduct:

a) Conflict of interest policy

b) Access to information protocol

c) Election year policy

d) Communications policy

e) Media protocols

5. Local board feedback is being sought on the draft Code of Conduct.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) provide its feedback on the draft Code of Conduct in Attachment of the agenda report.

Horopaki / Context

What is the Code of Conduct

6. A code of conduct (code) essentially sets out a council’s expectations about how members will conduct themselves. Every council is required to adopt a code of conduct (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 15). It must set out:

“(a) understandings and expectations adopted by the local authority about the manner in which members may conduct themselves while acting in their capacity as members, including—

(i) behaviour toward one another, staff, and the public; and

(ii) disclosure of information, including (but not limited to) the provision of any document, to elected members that—

(A) is received by, or is in the possession of, an elected member in his or her capacity as an elected member; and

(B) relates to the ability of the local authority to give effect to any provision of this Act; and

(b) a general explanation of—

(i) the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; and

(ii) any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.”

7. Once adopted, a code of conduct requires a 75% majority to change it.

8. Members of local boards must comply with the code of conduct that is adopted by the governing body (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 36B).

Reasons for reviewing the Code of Conduct

9. In working with the current code the council has experienced a number of issues:

i) It is not easy to follow. It includes principles, descriptions of roles and responsibilities and statements about relationships and behaviours. However, a complaint about a breach can only relate to the section on relationships and behaviours.

ii) Although a positive aspect of the current code is a focus, initially, on resolving complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant, it is not appropriate for an allegation about a conflict of interest to be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant – conflict of interest allegations need to be tested against the law.

iii) The code does not distinguish between non-material and material breaches. All allegations of breaches are treated the same.

iv) The final point of escalation of a complaint is to the independent review panel which comprises three members. This process is valuable but is underused because it can be expensive with three members being required.

v) There needs to be a requirement that a complainant has tried to resolve their complaint prior to submitting it to the formal complaint process in the code.

vi) The code is underused because it is seen to “lack teeth”. There needs to be a review of available sanctions.

10. Price Waterhouse Cooper were commissioned to review the current code and the Governing Body agreed at its February 2018 meeting that the current code should be reviewed. The Joint Governance Working Party is overseeing the development of the code.

Engagement to date

11. Staff made presentations to local board cluster meetings and a Governing Body workshop earlier this year. Among the issues discussed, was whether a revised code should be concise and principles-based or prescriptive.

12. The approach to the draft code was discussed with the Joint Governance Working Party, whose guidance included that there should be no political involvement in the determination of complaints and the imposition of sanctions.

13. A draft was presented to the Joint Governance Working Party on 12 September which the working party approved for reporting to local boards for their feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The draft code

14. The draft code is at attachment A.

15. The draft code is presented as two documents:

i) The code itself contains:

a) principles

b) descriptions of material breaches

c) the complaints process.

ii) The second document contains attachments which provide more detail:

a) Policies and protocols which are adopted along with the code and are an intrinsic part of the code. Elected members must abide by the conduct set out in these documents

b) Description of applicable legislation which the Local Government Act requires all codes to contain

c) Documents which are described as “external” in the sense that they are agreed outside the code but are relevant to the conduct of members. An example is the Expenses Policy which is agreed by the Finance and Performance Committee and approved by the Remuneration Authority. It is useful to have these documents included for easy reference and to provide context to some aspects of the code.

16. The code describes two key principles – trust and respect. The principle of trust captures the expectations of the community in their elected representatives. The community trusts that members will act in the interest of the community and not their own interest, for example. This principle encompasses the ethical dimension of conduct.

17. The principle of respect captures the expectations members have of each other in terms of their conduct towards each other, staff and towards the public.

18. The principles are written in a style which indicates personal commitment (“I will…”).

The complaints process

19. The draft code contains definitions of “material breaches”. This defines what the bottom line is and at what point a breach needs to be treated more seriously than other breaches. A complaint which relates to a material breach is treated differently to a complaint which relates to a non-material breach.

20. A complaint is lodged with the chief executive. A complaint must set out what part of the code has been breached, must provide evidence of the breach and evidence of attempts to resolve the breach. (Where the code refers to chief executive this includes a nominee of the chief executive.)

21. If the complaint relates to a conflict of interest, the chief executive will arrange for the member to receive advice from either Legal Services or Audit and Risk. The complainant has no further role. If the member does not comply with advice, the matter becomes a material breach for investigation by the Conduct Commissioner.

22. In other cases, the chief executive refers the complaint to an “Investigator”. An investigator is appointed by the chief executive and may be a staff member or external person.

23. The investigator conducts a preliminary assessment of the complaint and has the discretion to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or vexatious or without substance.

24. If the complaint relates to a non-material breach, the investigator may make non-binding recommendations, including a recommendation to apologise or undertake voluntary mediation.

25. If the complaint relates to a material breach, it is referred to a “Conduct Commissioner”. A conduct commissioner is a person of the calibre of a retired High Court judge and is selected from a list of such persons which has been approved by the Governing Body.

26. The conduct commissioner may direct mediation or conduct an investigation which may include a hearing.

Sanctions

27. The conduct commissioner has the power to impose sanctions, including a requirement to apologise, withdraw remarks or make a public statement. The report of the conduct commissioner is formal and made public, to promote compliance with the sanctions imposed by the conduct commissioner.

28. The conduct commissioner replaces the current independent review panel, which is not used frequently due to the cost associated with it having three members.

29. Staff had been asked to investigate whether there could be financial sanctions. The Remuneration Authority was asked whether it would agree to a reduction of salary paid to a member who breached the code. The reply included:

The Authority is often asked whether the performance of an individual or individuals is considered when making a determination. Performance does not feature in the list of criteria that the Authority is required to take into account. Therefore, it has no mandate to consider performance.

Section 14 (implementation of determinations) of the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 says that every determination issued by the Authority must be implemented according to their tenor and it is unlawful to act contrary to a determination. This prevents a council from making deductions from an elected member’s salary.

Attachments to the code

30. The attachments include:

i) Policies and protocols that are adopted along with the code:

· Conflict of interest policy

· Access to information protocol

· Election year policy

· Communications policy

· Media protocols

ii) A description of legislation that is required by the Local Government Act 2002.

iii) Documents that are external to the code but are included because they are relevant to conduct:

· Guide to governance roles and responsibilities

· Guide to working with staff

· Expenses policy

31. The attached policies include the conflict of interest policy which has been rewritten and a new “Access to information protocol.” All other documents attached to the code are from existing sources and are not new.

Conflict of interest policy

32. The Conflict of Interest Policy has been updated to reflect the current legal position relating to conflicts of interest and pre-determination, as the current policy is out of date.

33. It remedies a current inconsistency between the treatment of financial and non-financial interests (being automatically disqualified from decision-making for a financial interest, but not for a non-financial interest).

34. It includes a new section on pre-determination, which is a separate legal concept to conflicts of interest.

35. It places stronger emphasis on the interests of the council in the probity and integrity of its decisions, as the consequences of failing to manage are more commonly borne by the council.

36. It is intended to be more user-friendly and accessible.

New protocol included – Elected Member Access to Information

37. Included in the policies and protocols attached to the Code of Conduct is a new ‘Access to information protocol’. This protocol puts a framework around elected members legal right to council information under the ‘need to know’ principle. This protocol is in addition to the existing ways that elected members can gain access to information. It is aimed at addressing circumstances where there has been lack of clarity over requests for information where it is not clear if it is or is not confidential.

The need to know principle for elected members

38. In addition to rights under Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), elected members have a legal right to council information under the “need to know” principle established by the common law. Under this principle, a good reason to access council information exists if an elected member shows that access to the information is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their statutory functions as a member of the council. In some limited cases elected members may also be able establish a “need to know” council information relevant to their representative duties.

Why we are proposing a protocol

39. The purposes of the draft protocol are to:

i) Give effect to the legal ‘need to know’ principle.

ii) Enable elected members to properly perform their statutory functions as democratically elected local decision-makers; and to facilitate them in fulfilling their representative duties. This promotes democratic and effective local government.

iii) Provide elected members with better and more efficient access to council information than is provided for LGOIMA, by reducing the number of withholding grounds that can apply to the information and the timeframes for response.

iv) Provide for transparent and impartial chief executive decisions on requests under this protocol, and a democratic mechanism for the reconsideration of such decisions.

v) To provide that confidential council information will be made available to elected members in a manner that reflects the council’s legal duty to protect the confidentiality of the information and does not prejudice the interests protected by LGOIMA.

40. We have agreed with the Chief Ombudsman that we will develop a protocol to better manage elected member access to information.

41. Because this is the first time that council is adopting such a protocol, staff are suggesting that it is revisited and reviewed within 18 months of its adoption to ensure that it is working effectively, best enabling elected members to properly perform their statutory functions as democratically elected local decision-makers and facilitating them in fulfilling their representative duties.

Summary of suggested process in draft protocol

42. The protocol sets out a framework and process for elected member requests for council information. In summary, the process in the protocol is:

i) Elected members make a request for information held by council and explain why they need the information.

ii) Chief executive makes a decision on whether the information is reasonably necessary for the elected member to exercise their statutory functions or performance of their representative duties, and whether any of the limited reasons to withhold may apply (for example if personal information should be redacted for Privacy Act reasons).

iii) Decision and the provision of information to the elected member (with conditions if necessary for confidential information) within five (5) working days.

iv) If an elected member is not happy with the chief executive’s decision, they can ask it to be reconsidered by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Local board feedback

43. Local board views are being sought on the proposed changes in the draft code and the supporting policies that will be adopted alongside the code. In particular:

· The principles based and positive intent in the drafting of the code

· Defining material breaches and making the findings of complaints of a material breach public

· Replacing the current independent review panel with an independent conduct commissioner, who can impose sanctions which means having no political involvement in determining a complaint or imposing sanctions

· Support for the access to information protocol

44. Feedback from local boards will be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 31 October 2018. The working party will then recommend a final draft code to the Governing Body for adoption. Once adopted by the Governing Body, the code applies to all elected members.

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

45. Local board feedback will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party. The code impacts local boards in that all members must abide by it.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

46. The Code of Conduct is an internal procedural document. The principles and values expressed in the document provide for inclusivity and specifically disallow discrimination.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

47. There may be financial implications if the investigator that the chief executive appoints is external. Escalation to the conduct commissioner will have lesser financial implications than referral to a full review panel as provided in the existing code, but because of the reduced financial cost, may be utilised more often.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. There is a risk that some elected members will not be fully socialised with the new code. Staff will investigate how best to ensure all elected members are fully aware of the new code.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. The feedback from local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party on 31 October 2018. The working party will then recommend a final draft code to the Governing Body for adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Code of Conduct	139
b ⇩	Draft Code of Conduct attachments	153

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Network Plan - Key Moves

File No.: CP2018/16693

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve key moves for the development of the Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Network Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Approval of the key moves will inform the development of an open space network plan, which will provide a foundation for the development of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan.

3. Staff recommend five key moves that focus on improving the quality of, and access to, open space in Hibiscus and Bays.

4. The plan will assist decision-making and provide a framework for the development of open space over the next 10 years.

5. No additional funding is allocated to implement projects in the plan. The document can be used to advocate for new funding as part of the annual and long-term plan processes.

6. A draft plan will be presented to the local board for adoption in April 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the following key moves to guide the development of the Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Network Plan:

i) quality parks and open space network

ii) protecting and enhancing the environment

iii) inclusive local communities

iv) creating healthy lifestyles and wellbeing

v) connecting our communities.

b) note that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan, currently under development, will draw upon Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Network Plan research, findings and key moves.

Horopaki / Context

7. A 10-year open space network plan is being prepared for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

8. This plan will inform local board decision-making and expenditure across the park network as the area grows and changes over time.

9. The plan will set out key moves for the development of the open space network. The key moves respond to findings from the current state analysis.

10. A statutory reserve management plan is also being developed concurrently with the open space network plan. The open space network plan will help guide the development of the reserve management plan.

11. Aligning both plans will ensure that the local board takes a coherent and consistent approach to the development, utilization and management of open spaces across the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The local board will also be well-placed to respond to anticipated growth in the area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Demographic data

12. Staff researched growth projections, demographic data and the current state of open space in the Hibiscus and Bays area.

13. Hibiscus and Bays population breakdown:

Hibiscus and Bays is one of the least ethnically diverse local boards

· 2 per cent identify as Pacific Islanders

· 6 per cent identify as Māori

· 8 per cent identify as Asian

· 89 per cent identify as New Zealand European.

Hibiscus and Bays has an aging population

· 18.9 per cent of residents are under 15 years of age

· 63.3 per cent of residents are 15 to 64 years of age

· 17.8 per cent of residents are 65 years of age or older.

14. Hibiscus and Bays has a higher than average percentage of people who are over 65 years of age. This increased by 32.2 per cent from 2006.

Hibiscus and Bays has the capacity to grow significantly

15. Hibiscus and Bays is anticipated to have one of the highest rates of population growth compared to other local boards. By 2038 this is anticipated to be 138,800 which is an increase of 47.7 per cent from 2013.

16. The Auckland Unitary Plan will result in the intensification of residential and business development in Hibiscus and Bays. Extensive development is planned in Silverdale and Long Bay.

17. This planned and expected growth will put pressure on existing parks and open space and a range of existing facilities.

Open space provision

18. Staff researched the current state of open space in the Hibiscus and Bays area through desk-top research, user surveys and discussions with key staff members.

19. The analysis has identified the following key points about the existing open space network:

· the network includes 318 council-owned parks covering 1176 hectares of open space

· there is a lack of diversity in the open space experiences across the network.

There are good levels of open space provision, with some gaps in the network

20. Neighbourhood parks provide basic informal recreation and social opportunities within a short walk of people’s homes.

21. There are some gaps in neighbourhood park provision when the Hibiscus and Bays parks network is assessed against the Open Space Provision Policy (2016). These areas are:

· Murrays Bay

· Browns Bay

· Torbay

· Gulf Harbour

· Red Beach

· Silverdale.

22. Suburb parks provide a variety of informal recreation and social experiences and will often accommodate organised sports facilities such as sports fields. The main gap in the suburb park network is in the Silverdale census area.

23. Overall, the sports field network across the local board area is expected to meet 100 per cent of competition demand to 2028.

24. There is a shortfall of sports facilities with adequate lighting for training purposes. A current shortfall of 22 hours per week has been noted for football and rugby league. This shortfall is forecast to increase to 77 hours by 2028. This indicates the need to provide more lighting for training fields in Hibiscus and Bays to meet current and projected demand.

25. The Parks Service Assessment 2018, produced by community services, provides further complementary information in the open space network.

Residents are generally satisfied with open space quality

26. In 2017, the Parks and Recreation Policy Unit commissioned research to understand how people in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area use and regard their local parks. The survey found that 85 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their local neighbourhood parks.

27. People who visit parks in Hibiscus and Bays enjoy a variety of activities, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Hibiscus and Bays residents’ park activity preferences

28. The main barriers preventing people from using parks included a lack of time, limited playground equipment, problems with other aspects of the park (for example, paths, toilets, grass, rubbish) and weather-related reasons (bad weather, too hot/limited shade, boggy/flooded in winter).

29. The most common suggestions for improvements across all ages, ethnicities, family structures and incomes included:

· improvements to facilities such as more rubbish bins, toilets and shade

· improvements to playgrounds and activities such as having more equipment or activities for different ages

· better maintenance and servicing such as trimming trees and maintaining walkways.

Residents want more and better recreation facilities

30. The current range of play spaces are of similar design and do not provide for a wide age range. Residents would like to see supporting recreation infrastructure in parks which will encourage greater use.

The Greenways Plan identifies high-priority connections for the network

31. The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan was adopted in 2016. The plan identifies high-priority routes that connect the park network with the existing greenways network. High-priority routes include:

· Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to Hatfields Beach and West Hoe Heights

· Metro Park – Improving the Te Ara Tahuna walking and cycling route

· Weiti River Esplanade Reserve and establishing a continuous coastal connection

· Manly Park to Tindalls Bay

· Fishermans Rock Reserve to Army Bay.

Five key moves are proposed

32. Key moves are developed to inform and analyse the development of options in the open space network plan. They respond to the current state and anticipated growth in the area.

33. Staff engaged with the local board at two workshops to introduce and formulate the key moves.

34. Staff also engaged with mana whenua on the development of the open space network plan in April 2018.

35. The local board has a number of aspirations for the open space network in the Local Board Plan 2017. These aspirations are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Local board priorities

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board priorities:

· Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation

· Our communities have excellent transport choices

· Our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas

· A strong local economy.

36. Staff recommend five key moves based on the current state analysis and feedback from the local board. These key moves are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Key moves and focus areas for action

Key move	Focus areas
Quality parks and open space network	· provide and promote a range of open space experiences for the community to play within and enjoy · optimise existing open space including coastal and beach locations · cater for growth · develop distinctive parks.
Protecting and enhancing the environment	· ensure sustainable management of open space · manage and improve water quality · improve biodiversity.
Inclusive local communities	· reflect Māori identity, culture and heritage · celebrate the community’s diversity and identity · respond to the needs of the community equitably.
Creating healthy lifestyles and wellbeing	· support the community to “get active” and develop healthy lifestyles · improve awareness of open space · encourage appropriate use of parks and open space.
Connecting our communities	· improve connectivity between communities, places and recreation opportunities · connect people to nature and enhance ecological corridors · improve awareness of connections.

37. The key moves will inform the prioritisation of actions that will be included in the final open space network plan.

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

38. Improving the quality of open space will have a positive impact on all local board residents.

39. The following workshops have been held with Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

· February 2018 – introduce the open space network plan and process

· April 2018 – results of open space network community survey

· June 2018 – identify and discuss the open space network and key moves.

40. Local board approval of the key moves is sought through this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

41. Data from the 2013 Census shows that the Hibiscus and Bays area has a lower Māori population (6 per cent) than the average population across Auckland (11 per cent).

42. The provision of quality parks and open spaces will facilitate Māori participation in sport and recreation.

43. Sport NZ’s Active NZ 2017 participation study finds that Māori and Pacific adults have lower than average weekly sport and recreation participation and are more likely to participate in competitive sports and activities. However, young Māori spend the most time of other ethnicities in sport participation in any week.

44. Staff engaged with mana whenua in April 2018 to seek their views and values in relation to the open space network in Hibiscus and Bays. These views will be incorporated into the open space network plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

45. Actions identified in the plan will need to be accommodated within existing budgets. However, the local board could advocate for additional funding through the annual or Long-term plan processes.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

46. There is a low reputational risk that the community has not been actively engaged in the development of the key moves. This risk can be mitigated through public consultation on the local parks management plan and park-by-park developments.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

47. Staff will prepare a draft open space network plan using the key moves. The final plan will be reported to the local board in April 2019 along with the local parks management plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Paul Clark - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Andrew Wood - Parks & Rec Policy - Kakariki Team Leader

Ruth Woodward - Manager Parks & Recreation Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Appointment of alternates to current delegations

File No.: CP2018/19802

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To appoint Hibiscus and Bays local board members as alternates to each of the delegations in place for 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At the beginning of the 2016 – 2019 Triennium local board members agreed to delegate authority to approve minor variations to work programmes or to finalise aspects of approved projects in order to minimise delays and streamline delivery of local initiatives.

3. Generally, the delegations for minor variations to work programmes are revisited annually at the time of approving annual work programmes.

4. A number of delegations also extended to business as usual matters; including approvals for staff to exercise their delegation for minor landowner and landlord approvals, providing input into notification decisions, providing feedback to notified applications and speaking to any feedback at hearings for notified consent and planning applications, and the urgent decision-making process.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve an alternate for each of the delegations currently in place.

Horopaki / Context

5. During the 2016-2019 triennium the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has chosen to follow best practice and have all matters come to the full local board for discussion rather than forming additional committees or portfolios.

6. In order for current work programmes and project delivery to continue without delays, and provide an alternative to obtaining formal approval at a business meeting, a delegation was confirmed to two local board members for each work programme area.

7. There is also a delegation in place for an urgent decision-making process

8. Details of current delegations that require alternates are listed below:

Portfolio	Description	Resolution	Local Board Members
Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events	To confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation for landowner approvals To approve minor landlord approvals	HB/2016/190	Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson
Transport Information Group	Discuss transport issues/projects	HB/2018/190	David Cooper Janet Fitzgerald Julia Parfitt
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	HB/2018/190	Gary Holmes Janet Fitzgerald
Notified Resource Consents Notified Plan Changes Notices of Requirement	To prepare and submit local board views and speak to those local board views at any hearings	HB/2018/55	Gary Holmes or Janet Fitzgerald -Deputy Chairperson or Julia Parfitt - Chairperson
Urgent Decision Making	To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board	HB/2016/195	Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson
Infrastructure and Environmental Services	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2018/96	Chris Bettany Julia Parfitt
Arts, Community and Events	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2018/99	Chris Bettany Caitlin Watson
Parks, Sport and Recreation	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2018/99	David Cooper Mike Williamson
Service, Strategy and Information	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2018/99	Gary Holmes Julia Parfitt
Economic Development	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2018/100	Janet Fitzgerald Gary Holmes
Community Facilities and CF: Leases	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme/s	HB/2018/122	Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

9. It is proposed to appoint one additional alternate for each delegation to provide cover where there are instances of one of the original delegates being unavailable due to absence or unforeseen circumstances.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. Delegations enable minor decisions of the local board to continue and for input and feedback on resource consent and notified applications without the need to bring reports for local board approval.

11. Formal reports can cause delays in work programme delivery for minor matters.

12. Whilst no change is suggested to the original delegations, it is proposed to appoint an alternate for times when one of the original delegates is unavailable.

13. Local board member appointments to external organisations already have one alternate appointed to each with the exception of the Victor Eaves Management Committee and Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland). As these exceptions do not affect day-to-day business of the local board it is not considered necessary to appoint further alternates.

14. From time to time further delegations may be required for a variety of reasons such as completing local board feedback on a particular item or making minor editorial changes following adoption of a plan or policy document. It is anticipated that these will be appointed on a case by case basis as required.

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

15. This report seeks the local board’s decision on appointing an extra elected member to the local board’s current delegations. This will continue to support and simplify decisions required for minor variations to adopted work programmes and to streamline land owner and landlord approvals for certain activities in the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. This report has no impact on Māori. It covers delegations to local board members in order to minimise unnecessary delays in the delivery of local board business and approved work programmes in certain circumstances.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. There are no financial implications in appointing alternates to current delegations.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. There are no risks identified in appointing alternates to current delegations however there is a risk in delaying progress in delivery of local board projects and initiatives if one of the original delegates is not available due to absence or unforeseen circumstances.

19. In the event that agreement can’t be reached between two delegates the matter should be referred to the local board for a decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. Once the decision is made the delegate details will be updated.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Michelle Sanderson – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Meeting Schedule 2019

File No.: CP2018/13523

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend the meeting schedule for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board until the Local Government Elections in October 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local board meetings are open to the public and will be notified through public notices in appropriate media. It is prudent for the local board to adopt a meeting schedule as it ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments, gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19(5)(b), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. It also allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures clarity about diary commitments.

3. A meeting schedule for each local board is adopted to schedule the meetings for the upcoming year.

4. The specific times and dates for the meetings, public engagements and any hearings which may be required for matters such as local board plans and local board agreements are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules will therefore need to be updated and provision made if hearings are proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopt the meeting schedule for 2019 as listed below:

2019

DATE

TIME

VENUE

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 20 February 2019

4.30pm

Council Chamber

Orewa Service Centre

50 Centreway Road

Orewa

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 20 March 2019

4.30pm

Local Board Office

2 Glen Road

Browns Bay

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

4.30pm

Council Chamber

Orewa Service Centre

50 Centreway Road

Orewa

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

4.30pm

Local Board Office

2 Glen Road

Browns Bay

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

4.30pm

Council Chamber

Orewa Service Centre

50 Centreway Road

Orewa

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 17 July 2019

4.30pm

Local Board Office

2 Glen Road

Browns Bay

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

4.30pm

Council Chamber

Orewa Service Centre

50 Centreway Road

Orewa

Business Meeting

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

4.30pm

Local Board Office

2 Glen Road

Browns Bay

b) note that the dates and times for any hearings that may be required and deliberations for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement 2019/2020 are not finalised and as such the meeting schedule may require alteration.

Horopaki / Context

5. Adopting a meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6 Each local board develops a local board agreement annually. This document is subject to public consultation and the local board may hold hearings to give submitters the opportunity to express their views verbally or hear community views through ‘Have Your Say’ events.

7. The specific times and dates for the local board agreement process are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules may therefore need to be updated once details are confirmed.

8. In addition to local board meetings, local boards will hold workshops that are closed to the public. The proceedings of every workshop are recorded and considered at the next business meeting of the local board in accordance with current local board standing order provisions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. Clauses 19(4), 19(5) and 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints.

(5) Unless clause 22 (extraordinary meeting) applies, the chief executive must give notice in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting -

(a) not less than 14 days before the meeting; or

(b) if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.”

(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

10. Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

· meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

· agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

· local board meetings are open to the public.

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

11. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

12. Meetings of the local boards are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

13. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

17 October 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Local and Multiboard Grants Round One 2018/2019 grant applications

File No.: CP2018/18137

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round One 2018/2019, including multiboard grant applications.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 (see Attachment A) and multiboard Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 (see Attachment B).

3. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted the Hibiscus and Bays Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 7 June 2018 (see Attachment C). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $694,120 for the 2018/2019 financial year, including $195,274 carried over from the 2017/2018 financial year.

5. A total of $4,005 has been allocated to quick response round one, leaving a total of $690,115 to be allocated between two quick response and two local grant rounds.

6. Sixty-seven applications were received for Local Grants Round One 2018/2019, including fourteen multiboard applications, requesting a total of $489,200.99.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1906-144	Estuary Arts Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to create an artwork display area including cabinetry, doors and drawers.	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-114	Torbay Dramatic Society Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs to safely remove the existing asbestos roof and replace the damaged weatherboards.	$13,839.00	Eligible
LG1906-123	Orewa Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs to implement a formal campaign to raise funds for a large-scale building redevelopment project.	$50,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-124	Whangaparaoa Tennis Club	Community	Towards the purchase and installation of a drinking fountain.	$4,854.00	Eligible
LG1906-131	The Stillwater Ratepayers and Residents Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs to purchase and install two heat pumps at the Stillwater Community Hall.	$6,626.00	Eligible
LG1906-166	Orewa Sea Scouts Group under the umbrella of The Scout Association of New Zealand	Community	Towards the costs to resurface and refurbish the kitchen and hall floors.	$7,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-102	Browns Bay Bowling Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to remove the existing bowling green and install a new all-weather green.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-106	Mairangi Bay Bowling Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to remove the existing bowling green and install a new carpet green.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-113	East Coast Bays Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to purchase and install new turf and to repair the net fencing.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-110	North Harbour BMX Association	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs of various health and safety initiatives including first aid courses, first aid kits, safety gear, signage and St. Johns fees for an event.	$8,045.00	Eligible
LG1906-129	North Harbour Hockey	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs of turf hire at Orewa College and the coordinator fees to run a six week after school summer hockey programme.	$2,100.00	Eligible
LG1906-138	East Coast Bays Hockey Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the turf hire and equipment costs to run a youth development hockey programme.	$3,585.00	Eligible
LG1906-145	North Harbour Softball Association	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to host eleven school cluster days, fifteen team training sessions and the North Island Rookie Tournament.	$4,233.00	Eligible
LG1906-151	Whangapoaroa Golf Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs of equipment, course modification and printing to deliver a family golf series.	$4,700.00	Eligible
LG1906-165	Hibiscus Coast Softball Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards coaching coordinator fees for softball skills training to coaches and players for 28 weeks.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-169	The Browns Bay Racquets Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to install a security door and lock for four closed circuit television cameras and internal monitoring cameras.	$9,539.00	Eligible
LG1906-172	North Harbour Volleyball Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards operational costs to manage the facility along with coaching, referee, manager and event manager fees.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-101	Army of You Limited trading as Base FM	Arts and culture	Towards the venue hire, artist fees, administration, marketing and documentary costs to deliver a series of workshops, community dance event and documentary film.	$10,442.00	Eligible
LG1906-104	Centrestage Theatre Company (Orewa) Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the sound and lighting costs for a Wizard of Oz production.	$8,823.00	Eligible
LG1906-105	Johanna Sara Emeney	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to host three creative writing workshops, including venue hire, facilitator fees, photography and materials.	$2,037.00	Eligible
LG1906-156	Mapura Studios Division of Panacea Arts Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the facilitator fee, administration costs and venue hire to run weekly therapeutic arts class over 11 months.	$5,750.00	Eligible
LG1906-108	Hibiscus Coast Garden Club Incorporated	Community	Towards the bus hire and entry fees for a day trip to the Omaio Gardens and the Sculptureum in Matakana.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-115	Age Concern Rodney Incorporated	Community	Towards the venue hire, sound and lighting, performer fee and refreshments to deliver an annual celebration Christmas concert.	$3,017.00	Eligible
LG1906-118	Rodney Neighbourhood Support Incorporated	Community	Towards general operating expenses including the coordinator salary, information packs and signage for new members, cell phone costs and printing.	$3,094.00	Eligible
LG1906-119	Long Bay Baptist Church	Community	Towards the costs to employ two youth workers at Long Bay College, in partnership with the Long Bay Baptist Church.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-122	Rotary Orewa Satellite Club	Community	Towards the overall costs to host the “Greek Extravaganza” fundraiser, including venue hire, catering, lighting and serving equipment.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-127	Orewa Baptist Church	Community	Towards the cost of a new shelving unit for the Orewa Toy Library.	$2,200.00	Eligible
LG1906-130	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Community	Towards the overall costs to host the Mid-Winter Swim, “Moments of Mairangi” and Carols at Christmas.	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-132	Presbyterian Support Northern	Community	Towards seven weeks of rental cost at Family Works, Mairangi Bay.	$2,100.00	Eligible
LG1906-135	Torbay Business Association	Community	Towards the overall costs to host an event, "Through Their Eyes," and the costs of four pavement cleanings.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-136	Equestrian 4 Everyone	Community	Towards the costs to purchase and install a horse shelter.	$8,776.00	Eligible
LG1906-140	Silverdale Area Business Association	Community	Towards the wages of a transitional marketing manager and start-up costs to reinvigorate the Silverdale market.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-141	Love Soup Hibiscus Coast	Community	Towards general operating expenses such as the telephone bill, rubbish collection, hall hire, marketing, shirts, insurance and a new computer.	$9,539.00	Eligible
LG1906-143	Coast Families Trust	Community	Towards the wages of a staff member to work alongside schools in the local board area.	$3,465.00	Eligible
LG1906-146	Bays Youth Community Trust	Community	Towards the costs to redesign the Bays Youth Community Trust website.	$2,990.00	Eligible
LG1906-149	Coast Pet Care Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the costs to organise and deliver a collaboration event between local animal welfare organisations.	$2,035.00	Eligible
LG1906-153	Circability Trust	Community	Towards the overall costs to run ten "Circus in the Park" events.	$10,454.00	Eligible
LG1906-160	Mairangi Arts Centre Trust	Community	Towards the project coordination fees, materials, learning resources and facilitation fees to implement a series of four pasture painting workshops.	$4,100.00	Eligible
LG1906-163	Anxiety New Zealand Trust	Community	Towards the psychologist fees, printed resources and administration costs to deliver a twelve-week physical activity and resiliency programme.	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-164	The Hibiscus Coast Community Returned Services Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs to deliver community welfare services, including welfare officer wages, transportation, administration volunteer expenses.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-167	Youth In Transition Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the facilitation fees of two counsellors to run a weekly peer support group.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-170	Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust	Community	Towards the costs to host two snorkel days and one Kaitiaki day including administration coordinator costs, guide fees and equipment rental.	$6,282.00	Eligible
LG1906-125	The Sustainable North Trust trading as Hibiscus Coast Zero Waste	Environment	Towards the cost of four projects to promote and enhance zero waste practices among the community in Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.	$9,736.00	Eligible
LG1906-147	Kaipatiki Project Incorporated	Environment	Towards the wages to staff market stalls and the costs to develop materials and handouts for six market days.	$5,357.00	Eligible
LG1906-152	The Forest School Limited	Environment	Towards the purchase of a composting toilet and solar fan.	$5,648.00	Eligible
LG1906-154	The Auckland King Tides Initiative	Environment	Towards the Auckland King Tides Initiative Community Water Level (Tidal) Gauges Project in the Hibiscus and Bays area.	$5,736.00	Eligible
LG1906-111	45 Events Limited trading as Orewa Beach Series	Events	Towards the cost of Surf Life Saving New Zealand to manage the water safety of the ocean swim and stand-up paddle events.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-120	Harbour Sport Trust	Events	Towards the costs of traffic management for the Shore to Shore 2019 event.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-133	Stage 51 Limited	Events	Towards the sound production costs to deliver the Orewa Christmas at the Beach event.	$9,200.00	Eligible
LG1906-139	New Zealand Health Association Limited	Events	Towards the temporary fence hire for the 2019 “Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon.”	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1906-157	Long Bay Baptist Church	Events	Towards the costs of a Christmas in the park event, including face painting, lighting, food supplies, marketing, gazebo hire and waste minimization.	$2,300.00	Eligible
LG1906-158	Future Whangaparaoa	Events	Towards the overall costs to host a Christmas event, including furniture hire, promotion, entertainment and zero waste management.	$6,049.00	Eligible
LG1906-159	Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	Events	Towards the overall costs to host the Okura Forest Festival 2019 event, including sound, lighting, fencing, portaloo hire, catering and shirts.	$9,000.00	Eligible
Total				$398,651.00

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in multiboard Local Grants Round One 2018/2019, listed in Table Two.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB1819-144	The Operating Theatre Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the production, materials, ticketing, marketing and promotion costs to deliver a theatre production for children.	$2,500.00	Eligible
MB1819-151	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the venue hire, studio hire, dancer fees, tutor fees and management fees for a youth and community outreach programme.	$2,500.00	Eligible
MB1819-126	Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind	Community	Towards the costs to purchase digital talking books for the Blind Foundation library.	$4,000.00	Eligible
MB1819-134	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Community	Towards a proportion of operational costs, excluding wages, to run three centres in the local board area.	$11,250.00	Eligible
MB1819-138	Whanau Marama Parenting Limited	Community	Towards salary and travel expenses for the course facilitators to deliver sixteen free parenting courses.	$2,373.00	Eligible
MB1819-142	La Leche League North Shore	Community	Towards a proportion of general operating expenses, including venue hire, training fees, conference expenses, and printing.	$737.50	Eligible
MB1819-172	The Parkinson's New Zealand Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the salaries of six Parkinson's community educators.	$10,000.00	Eligible
MB1819-191	PHAB Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the wages of youth workers, administration and coordination to run a summer series for people with disabilities.	$1,500.00	Eligible
MB1819-132	Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust	Events	Towards the venue hire, sound costs and pipe band fees to deliver the Tartan Day Tattoo Celebration.	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB1819-101	Badminton North Harbour Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the overall costs to upgrade the changing rooms.	$6,000.00	Eligible
MB1819-112	North Shore Group Riding for the Disabled Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards core operating costs such as farriers, veterinarian bills, horse feed and utilities.	$3,090.49	Eligible
MB1819-147	Auckland Central Riding for the Disabled Association	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of new riding helmets to meet updated safety requirements.	$3,199.00	Eligible
MB1819-165	Harbour Sport Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the wages of one coach developer to deliver the Coaching Support Initiative.	$10,000.00	Eligible
MB1819-173	Gymnastics Community Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of new equipment and the wages of a recreational and school coach.	$30,400.00	Eligible
Total				$90,549.99

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.

9. 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

· any additional accountability requirements.

10. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2018/2019 on 7 June 2018 and will operate three quick response, two multiboard and two local grant rounds for this financial year.

11. 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

12. 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 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

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

14. The local board is requested to note that section 48 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.”

15. A summary of each application received through Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 (see Attachment A) and Multiboard Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 (see Attachment B) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

17. Fourteen applicants applying to Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 and four applicants applying to multiboard Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 indicate projects that target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted 2018-2028 Long-term Plan and 2018/2019 local board agreement.

19. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $694,120 for the 2018/2019 financial year, which includes $195,274 that was carried over from the 2017/2018 financial year.

20. A total of $4,005 has been allocated to quick response round one, leaving a total of $690,115 to be allocated between two quick response and two local grant rounds.

21. Sixty-seven applications were received for Local Grants, Round One 2018/2019, including fourteen multiboard applications, requesting a total of $489,200.99.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. 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

23. Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for Local Grants Round One and Multiboard Local Grants Round One, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round One 2018/2019 Grant Applications (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Multiboard Local Grants Round One 2018/2019 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grant Programme 2018/2019 grant applications	243

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Makenzie Hirz - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

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

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
Members	Chris Bettany
	David Cooper
	Gary Holmes
	Caitlin Watson
	Vicki Watson
	Mike Williamson

Organisation	Local Board Member
Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society)	Julia Parfitt Chris Bettany - Alternate
Victor Eaves Management Committee	Mike Williamson
Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland)	Janet Fitzgerald
Business Improvement Districts (BIDS)
Destination Orewa Beach	Vicki Watson David Cooper - Alternate
Torbay	Chris Bettany Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Browns Bay	Chris Bettany Gary Holmes - Alternate
Mairangi Bay	David Cooper Julia Parfitt - Alternate

Location	Proposal	Details and Local Board Feedback
Bute Road, Browns Bay, and Ramsgate Terrace, Mairangi Bay	Proposed bus stop installation programme on the North Network - Bute Road, Browns Bay, and Ramsgate Terrace, Mairangi Bay.	Documentation informing East Coast Bays subdivision members about the second batch of bus stops associated with the roll out of the New Network was forwarded on 25 June. Member Bettany advised that she considered the recommendations sensible. No objections were received from the local board.
Orewa West	Proposed Traffic Controls in Orewa West Precinct 5 (Millwater).	Documentation explaining the proposed installation of traffic controls within the Stage 1 development of the Orewa West Precinct 5 Development in Millwater was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 27 June 2018. No objections were received from the local board.
Beach Road / Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay and Clyde Road / Anzac Road, Browns Bay	Proposed NSAAT restrictions, minor roading and pedestrian safety improvements in Beach Road / Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay and Clyde Road / Anzac Road, Browns Bay.	Proposals outlining restrictions and improvements comprising NSAAT restrictions, minor road widening and improved pedestrian safety associated with the introduction of the New Network at Beach Road / Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay and Clyde Road / Anzac Road, Browns Bay were forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 28 June 2018. No objections were received from the local board.
Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay	Changes to signage for Mobile Library visits to Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay	Documentation explaining a proposal to change street signage relating to visits of Auckland Council's Mobile Library Bus, from 9-10.30 a.m. Tuesdays to 9-10.30 a.m. Thursdays, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 5 July 2018. No objections were received from the local board.
Garadice Road and Montgomery Avenue in Rothesay Bay	Improvements at the intersection of Garadice Road and Montgomery Avenue, Rothesay Bay.	Documentation describing a proposal to improve the intersection of Garadice Road and Montgomery Avenue in Rothesay Bay was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 5 July 2018. Member Parfitt advised that she approved of any improvements that made this intersection safer for pedestrians. No objections were received from the local board.
East Coast/Greville Roads and East Coast Road/Weetman Drive intersections, Northcross	Proposed improvements at the East Coast/Greville Roads and East Coast Road/Weetman Drive intersections, Northcross.	Documentation describing proposed changes at the East Coast/Greville Roads and East Coast Road/Weetman Drive intersections was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 5 July 2018. Member Cooper suggested that, to provide pedestrian safety, the crossing on the northern slip lane should be a raised table. In regards to the Weetman crossing point, Member Cooper asked that this be pushed north further onto Weetman Drive, to account for vehicles turning right from East Coast Road. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.
Clematis and Sunrise Avenues, Murrays Bay	Proposed safety improvements at the intersection of Clematis and Sunrise Avenues, Murrays Bay.	Documentation describing a proposal to make pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Clematis and Sunrise Avenues in Murrays Bay was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 9 July 2018. No objections were received from the local board.
Beach Road, Murrays Bay	Proposed pedestrian safety improvements in Beach Road, Murrays Bay.	Documentation explaining a proposal to make Beach Road, Murrays Bay more pedestrian-friendly was forwarded to East Coast subdivision members on 9 July. No objections were received from the local board.
Flavell and Grand Drives, Orewa	Proposed signalisation of the intersection of Flavell and Grand Drives, Orewa.	Documentation describing a proposal to signalise the intersection of Flavell and Grand Drives, Orewa was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 13 July. Member Caitlin Watson said she did not see the signalisation of this intersection as being necessary given that there would be two signalised intersections within a short distance of each other. No other objections were received from the local board.
559 East Coast Road, Browns Bay	Proposed NSAAT restrictions at 559 East Coast Road, Browns Bay.	Documentation explaining a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions outside the property at 559 East Coast Road, Browns Bay, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 20 July 2018. No objections were received from the local board.
Moorgreen Heights in Torbay	Proposed NSAAT restrictions in Moorgreen Heights, Torbay.	Documentation explaining a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions on Moorgreen Heights, Torbay was forwarded to Members on 1 August 2018. Members Bettany and Parfitt advised that they had no objections to the proposal. No objections were received from members.
Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour	Proposed NSAAT restrictions on Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour.	Documentation explaining a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions on Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour was forwarded to members on 1 August. No objections were received from the local board.
Anzac Road, Browns Bay	Proposed new bus layover in Anzac Road, Browns Bay.	Documentation explaining a proposal to install a bus layover in Anzac Road, Browns Bay to support the New North Network, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 6 August 2018. Member Parfitt suggested that the Browns Bay BID should be involved in the consultation, noting concern at the loss of parking. No other objections were received from the local board.
Newhaven Terrace, Mairangi Bay	Proposed NSAAT restrictions on Newhaven Terrace, Mairangi Bay.	Documentation describing a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions on Newhaven Terrace, Mairangi Bay was forwarded to members on 6 August 2018. No objections were received from the local board.