|
Henderson-Massey
Local Board
04 December
2018
|
|
Consideration
of submissions on the Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan
File No.: CP2018/23031
Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report
1. To
provide analysis of submissions on the draft Harbourview-Orangihina Park
Masterplan, recommend amendments as a result of submissions and confirm next
steps to finalise the plan.
Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary
2. On
17 July 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board approved the draft Harbourview-Orangihina
Park Masterplan for public notification and community engagement (resolution
number HM/2018/109, Attachment A).
3. The
draft Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan (HOPM) is provided in Attachment
B.
4. Community
engagement and consultation on the draft HOPM took place in August and
September 2018 with the community having the opportunity to either complete a
survey or provide written feedback. The survey questions are provided in
Attachment C.
5. A
total of 258 submissions were received. A list of submitters is included
in Attachment D. The demographics of survey respondents and the results of the
survey are included in Attachment E.
6. The
key themes and recommended amendments to the draft HOPM are outlined in
Attachment F.
7. At
the time of writing, 23 people have indicated they wish to speak to their
submission.
8. The
local board agreed in July 2018 (resolution number HM/2018/109) that the full
local board would hear submissions.
9. This
report provides a summary of submissions received during engagement and
consultation, together with recommended amendments to the plan, in preparation
for the hearing scheduled on 4 December 2018.
10. Key themes
from the submissions include:
· Strong support for many measures to enhance and improve ecological
outcomes on the park;
· Good to strong support for measures aimed at engaging and educating
the public on park values such as providing interpretive information on park
values and providing access to the wetland areas;
· Varying levels of support for measures
associated with people enjoying the park including strong support for
additional park furniture; good support for specimen trees; and support for a
play trail, muted by mixed views on providing a playground;
· Good support to improve pedestrian/cycle
connections into the park and around the upper terrace;
· Support for the open, natural qualities of the park and keeping
development levels low;
· Lower prioritisation of proposals relating to
making changes to the heritage features such as access into the gun
emplacements or to the brickworks; and creating bird watching shelters; and
· Concerns about the impacts of improvements on birds and wildlife.
11. In response
to submissions, staff recommend amendments to the plan to improve environmental
outcomes while providing for pedestrian access, connectivity and recreational
use of the park. The proposed amendments are described in Attachment F and
shown on a marked-up copy of the draft HOPM in Attachment G.
12. Following the
hearing the local board can deliberate on submissions and staff
recommendations, to confirm any further amendments required or adjourn and
deliberate.
13. A number of
mana whenua were involved in the development of the masterplan. Staff are now
following up with mana whenua on whether they would like an opportunity to
provide comment on the draft plan. Staff will update the local board on
any responses received from mana whenua at the hearing.
|
Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s
That the Henderson-Massey
Local Board:
a) receive
the summary of submissions and resulting staff recommendations on the draft
Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan.
b) hear
submitters who have indicated they wish to speak to their submission.
c) thank
all submitters for their attendance and presentations.
d) deliberate
and direct staff to make amendments to the draft Harbourview-Orangihina Park
Masterplan.
e) note
that staff will undertake further consultation with mana whenua, if so
requested by iwi, on the revised draft Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan
and report back to the local board any further changes proposed.
|
Horopaki / Context
14. In July 2018, the
Henderson-Massey Local Board approved a draft masterplan for
Harbourview-Orangihina Park in Te Atatū for public engagement and
consultation.
15. The draft
Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan is provided in Attachment B.
16. The local board
nominated the full local board to hear submissions and decide on the draft
Harbourview-Orangihina Park Masterplan (HOPM). Resolution number HM/2018/109,
Attachment A.
17. Community
engagement and consultation took place between 13 August and 9 September 2018
including:
· displays at the Te Atatū Community Centre and Henderson-Massey
Service centre;
· a
flyer drop to nearly 40,000 addresses in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area;
· inclusion
in ‘Our Auckland’ newsletter (distributed to homes across
Auckland);
· 14x billboards
around Te Atatū;
· notices
in the Western Leader;
· social
media postings; and
· two drop-in sessions at the Te Atatū Community Centre.
18. This report
provides a summary of submissions and recommendations for amendments to the
draft HOPM for consideration by the local board.
19. The hearing
process is to be determined by the local board. Once the local board has heard
from submitters, the local board may choose to deliberate at the hearing or
close the hearing and adjourn to deliberate.
20. Once
deliberations have concluded, the local board would direct staff on any further
amendments to the draft HOPM or work to be undertaken prior to considering
whether to adopt the final revised masterplan in February 2019.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice
Community engagement and consultation, who we heard from
21. Of the 258
submissions, 234 engaged via the survey and 24 via written comments through
email or post. Attachment C provides a printed copy of the survey. A list of
submitters is included in Attachment D. A copy of submissions will be
released as a separate attachment to the agenda.
22. Submissions
on behalf of stakeholder groups included:
· Bike
Te Atatū
· Birds
New Zealand
· Community
Waitākere
· Department
of Conservation (DoC)
· Forest
& Bird Motu Manawa Restoration Group
· Friends
of Harbourview
· Sport
Waitākere
23. A
number of submitters have indicated they wish to speak
at the hearing; and their attendance is being confirmed. Of the stakeholder groups listed above, all wish to be heard excluding DoC.
24. Demographic
data was provided by 219 survey respondents and is shown in Attachment
E. Most respondents (80%) indicated they live in the Henderson-Massey
Local Board area.
25. The
demographic data shows a high proportion of Europeans filled out the survey;
with relatively lower proportions of Māori, Asian, and Pacifika people
compared with 2013 statistics for these groups in the Henderson-Massey area.
|
Ethnicity
|
2013 census
|
HOPM responses
|
|
European
|
56%1
|
89%
|
|
Asian
|
22%
|
5%
|
|
Pacifika
|
20%
|
2%
|
|
Māori
|
16%
|
7%
|
1 or other (including New Zealander)
26. Survey
demographics indicated 48% of respondents were from families with children
under 18 living at home. This compares well with the Henderson-Massey
2013 demographic that 42% of households were parent/s with children.
27. Most
respondents were in the 35-44 age bracket; with few young people
responding.
|
Age Group
|
2013 census
|
HOPM responses
|
|
<15
|
23%
|
0%
|
|
15-24
|
15%
|
1%
|
|
25-34
|
15%
|
14%
|
|
35-44
|
14%
|
36%
|
|
45-54
|
13%
|
18%
|
|
55-64
|
10%
|
17%
|
|
65-74
|
6%
|
10%
|
|
75+
|
5%
|
4%
|
Consultation themes and priorities
28. A
summary of the themes is provided in Attachment F, including information
from survey questions and the priorities identified in response to the proposed
park improvements.
29. Key themes
from the community engagement and consultation included:
· Strong support for measures that enhance and improve ecological
outcomes on the park,
· Good to strong support for measures that engage and educate the
public on park values such as interpretive information on park values and
access to the wetland areas,
· Varying levels of support for measures
associated with people enjoying the park including strong support for
additional park furniture; good support for specimen trees; and support for a
play trail, muted by mixed views on providing a playground,
· Good support to improve pedestrian/cycle
connections into the park and around the upper terrace,
· Support for the open, natural qualities of the park and keeping
development levels low,
· Lower prioritisation of proposals that would
heritage features such as access into the gun emplacements or to the
brickworks; and creating bird watching shelters; and
· Concerns about the impacts of improvements on birds and wildlife.
Matters raised that are out of scope
30. Many
submissions included comments related to items that are out of scope of the
masterplan. These include:
|
|
Submissions
relating to items outside the scope of the HOMP
|
Response
|
|
1
|
Changes to the
management of dogs on the park.
|
Managed
through the Dog Management Bylaw 2012.
|
|
2
|
Proposed marae
(unless related to its integration in the park).
|
The provision of the
marae and its design was not within the scope of the masterplan.
However, consideration of how a future marae could be integrated into the
park was within scope (refer to Local Board Resolution HM/2017/186 in
Attachment A).
|
|
3
|
Potential park and
ride/bus interchange provision.
|
The New Zealand
Transport Agency / Auckland Transport proposal has not been finalized and is
subject to separate processes.
|
|
4
|
Particular plans for
pest/plant/wetland management, restoration, and operational plans.
|
These will be
developed as part of implementation of the HOPM.
|
|
5
|
Use of agrichemicals
|
The means of controlling pest plants and
animals is best managed through a consistent, best practice approach across
parks, outside of the masterplan; such as through the Weed Management Policy
2013.
|
|
6
|
Detailed design or
methodology of planning park improvements.
|
These will be
considered when implementing the draft HOPM; noting that the results of this
public consultation can be supplied for detailed planning phases.
|
|
7
|
Lease of the pony
club including lease conditions.
|
Subject to separate
lease processes.
|
|
8
|
Changes to the
vision for the park or requiring changes to management objectives and
policies.
|
Already covered in
the Harbourview-Orangihina Park Open Space Management Plan 2003.
|
|
9
|
Naming particular
features of the park.
|
Subject to further
processes requiring separate board approval.
|
|
10
|
Inclusion of the
parcel of land with the brick villa within the park
|
The brick villa at
19 Longbush Rd) is already included within this masterplan.
|
|
11
|
Regional park status
|
The status of the
park is subject to separate processes including assessment of
appropriateness, local board support and governing body approval.
|
Staff recommendations
31. Staff
commentary and recommendations relating to the submissions are provided in
Attachment F. For clarity, these recommendations are also reflected in a
marked-up copy of the draft HOPM in Attachment G.
32. A number of
amendments to the masterplan are recommended. Amendments respond to
submissions seeking improved environmental outcomes while also providing better
pedestrian access, connectivity and recreational use of the park. These
include:
· a
need for an updated coordinated restoration plan across the park and especially
the lower terraces;
· removing
one of the proposed boardwalk spurs to the water’s edge including
associated bird hide (noting that one boardwalk spur and associated bird hide
is retained);
· making
clearer the need to assess location and environmental appropriateness of
measures such as restoring the wetland and investigating bird roosting islands
before implementing;
· combining
the proposed bird roosting islands and relocating the indicative location
towards the water’s edge;
· removing
the proposed pedestrian pathway alongside the marae access road together with
the indicative trees within the southern paddocks while amending the plan to
note that connections and circulation to and within the marae and any planting
around the interface will be determined during the detailed design phase of
marae planning.
33. Other
recommendations reflect a range of other concerns including:
· making
clearer the need to assess location of other proposed improvements at the
implementation stages;
· removing
the proposal to investigate access to gun emplacements as this was not well
supported;
· recognising
the importance of panoramic views generally; not limited to specific
viewshafts; and
· making
minor amendments to the design principles of the masterplan
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te
poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views
34. Public
engagement and consultation has been sought to more widely test the draft HOPM
co-created with mana whenua and the Community Reference Group.
35. This
engagement approach was supported by the Henderson-Massey Local Board (refer
resolution from 21 November 2017, HM/2017/186 in Attachment A
and related report CP2018/23031).
36. The
submissions and hearings will help support local voices and impacts are
considered when finalising the plan.
37. It is noted
however that the demographics of submitters does not reflect the demographics
of the wider community. This is discussed further in the Ngā raru
tupuna / Risks section below.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact
statement
38. Staff worked
with mana whenua in the development of the draft masterplan. This input
is reflected in the draft HOPM as outlined in the report to the local board on
17 July 2018 (refer CP2018/23031).
39. Harbourview-Orangihina
Park is also important to the Te Atatū Marae Coalition seeking to locate a
community marae on the park. The Te Atatū Marae Coalition was
included in the community reference group that helped shape the draft
plan.
40. While the
provision of the marae itself was outside the scope of the draft HOPM, the
integration of a proposed marae and its aspirations are noted within the
plan. This includes an aspiration for a kaitiaki role over the area
including space for visitor education supporting improved understanding of te
ao Māori and park environmental and heritage values.
41. No formal
submissions have been received from mana whenua, the Te Atatū Marae
Coalition or other identified mataawaka interests on the draft plan during the
public engagement period.
42. Of the 221
people who provided demographic information on the survey, 7% identified as
Māori compared to the local board demographic of 16.8%. This and
other demographic imbalances are discussed in the Ngā raru tupuna / Risks
section below
Giving effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/ the
Treaty of Waitangi
43. Harbourview-Orangihina
Park is partly held under the Reserves Act 1977 and contains land subject to
the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
44. The Reserves
Act is one of the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987.
Section 4 of the Conservation Act contains an obligation to give effect to the
principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti/the
Treaty).
45. As such, in
performing functions and duties under the Reserves Act, such as preparing this
masterplan, the local board must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti/the
Treaty.
46. The
principles of te Tiriti/the Treaty likely to be most relevant in making
decisions on the masterplan are:
· Partnership
– mutual good faith and reasonableness,
· Informed decision
making – being well-informed of the mana whenua interests and views.
Consultation is a means to achieve informed decision-making,
· Active protection
– this involves the active protection of Māori interests retained
under te Tiriti/the Treaty. It includes the promise to protect rangatiratanga
and taonga.
47. The Hauraki
Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 requires the local board ‘to recognise and have
particular regard to the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual
relationship of tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and coastal
areas, and the natural and historic resources of the Park’.
48. Having not
received any feedback from mana whenua on the draft plan, staff have contacted mana whenua to provide further
opportunity to comment on the revised draft plan following deliberations; or to
discuss any feedback raised. Staff will provide an update on mana
whenua feedback on that opportunity at the hearing.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications
49. As previously
reported (2 May 2017 report CP2018/23031), approximately $1.4 million is
available to establish, develop and maintain Harbourview-Orangihina Park.
These funds were collected through a targeted rate initiated in 2001 by the
legacy Waitākere City Council (WCC).
50. Funding may
also be available through the SH16/20 General Restoration Budget. The
board recently approved some of this budget for an ecological restoration plan
for Harbourview-Orangihina Park. The ecological
restoration plan would support implementation of proposals within the HOPM such
as ecological restoration of the scarp and lower terrace areas, site-wide plant
and pest management; and revegetation and enhancement of stream corridors.
51. Indicative
costings and proposed funding for staged implementation of the HOPM can be
provided once the local board has confirmed final amendments to the plan.
Ngā raru tūpono / Risks
52. The following
table outlines risks associated with the draft HOPM and measures to mitigate
risks:
|
Risk
|
Mitigation
|
|
Public feedback not
reflective of the whole community
While staff consider the
number and quality of submissions was good, it was noted that feedback did
not reflect the demographic make-up of this local board. There is a risk that
consultation feedback received does not reflect values and concerns of the whole
community.
|
Mitigation of this was sought
through the first consultation phase involving the Community Reference
Group. Approximately half of that group was drawn from the community;
and the other half from key stakeholder groups with an active interest in the
park.
It is recommended that further
consultation on detailed design of improvements considers alternative means
to effectively engage the broader community. This might mean, for
example, targeting those groups when developing a fitness trail or
interpretive information.
A further opportunity for mana
whenua to provide comment following deliberations, as noted in the
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement section
above, also supports mitigating the risks from the low number of mana whenua
and mataawaka submissions.
|
|
Perception
that the proposed marae was within scope of the draft HOPM
Many submissions commented on the
provision of a marae through the masterplan process; which may reflect that
some people erroneously thought the marae provision was within the scope of
the draft HOPM.
|
Communications on the adoption of the
final plan will re-iterate that the provision of the marae is outside the
scope; but note that feedback received on the marae will be
available for future use by the council in considering that proposal.
|
|
Public expectations
regarding implementation and park development
The creation of any plan for future
development may raise expectations of future improvements, which are subject
to further investigation or budget.
|
The draft HOPM includes wording to
convey which proposals are subject to further investigation and
feasibility. While some budget has been set aside for
implementation and development as noted above, this is not expected to cover
the total cost to implement the masterplan.
|
|
Public feedback
There is a risk that the survey questions focused
people’s responses on aspects of the masterplan to the detriment of
other proposals. Some more minor items such as potential relocation of
the Watercare access road for example or possible viewing tower in
association with shorebird information at the southern end of the reserve
attracted little comment.
|
The general comments section didn’t reveal any other
key gaps or issues in the content of the plan so, this is a minor risk.
|
Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps
53. The local
board will consider submissions, staff recommendations and hearings and decide
on amendments to be made to the draft HOPM.
54. Staff will
reconnect with mana whenua and send the revised draft plan to those signalling
an interest in providing further feedback. This will include the offer of face
to face engagement.
55. Following the
consideration of mana whenua feedback, the local board will confirm any further
amendments required prior to approving the final HOPM in February 2019.
56. As outlined
in the report to the local board on 17 July 2018 (refer CP2018/23031), the
draft HOPM sits within the scope of the Harbourview-Orangihina
Park Open Space Management Plan 2003.
57. Some of the
proposals shown in the draft HOPM differ from the policies and
‘implementation’ points in the Harbourview-Orangihina
Park Open Space Management Plan 2003. The notification and hearing
process used for the draft HOPM have been recommended to provide a robust
engagement and consultation process.
58. Once the
local board has provided direction on amendments to the draft HOPM, staff will
advise on the next steps to be taken in relation to the Harbourview-Orangihina
Park Open Space Management Plan 2003.
Ngā
tāpirihanga / Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Previous resolutions of the Henderson-Massey Local
Board
|
17
|
|
B
|
Draft Harbourview-Orangihina Park
Masterplan as provided for public consultation (Under Separate
Cover)
|
|
|
c
|
Survey form used in public consultation
|
19
|
|
d
|
List of submitters on the draft Harbourview-Orangihina
Park Masterplan
|
25
|
|
e
|
Summary of public consultation: who we heard from and
survey results
|
31
|
|
f
|
Key themes of community engagement and staff
recommendations
|
37
|
|
g
|
Draft Harbouview-Orangihina Park
Masterplan: Revision E Staff (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
h
|
Submission Vol 1 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
i
|
Submission Vol 2 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
⇨J
|
Submission Vol 3 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Ngā kaihaina / Signatories
|
Authors
|
Tania Utley - Service and Asset Planning Specialist
Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team
Leader
|
|
Authorisers
|
Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration
Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey,
Waitakere Ranges, Whau
|
