Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 16 May 2019, including the confidential section, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 2.5.1, a Notice of Motion has been received from Member N Mayne for consideration under item 13.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 16 May 2019	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 16 May 2019	27

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion: Proposed amendment to the Albany Primary School enrolment scheme	47
b ⇩	Draft proposed zone map 1 - Albany Primary School	49
c ⇩	Proposed zone wording - Albany Primary School	51
d ⇩	Opposition to school zone change - Albany Primary School	53
e ⇩	Albany Primary School minutes - 25 October 2018	55
f ⇩	Albany Primary School newsletter - June 2019	61

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

Destination indoor court facility Upper Harbour - indicative business case

File No.: CP2019/09467

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse an indicative business case for the development of a destination multisport indoor court facility in Upper Harbour.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Development of a destination multisport indoor court facility was selected by the Upper Harbour Local Board as their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. Funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for a four-court facility, following indicative and detailed business case processes.

3. Staff have developed an indicative business case to inform decision-making. Preparation of the business case entailed an investigation of community need, an assessment of strategic alignment and an economic analysis.

4. The needs assessment found low projected population growth in the North-West in the short to medium-term. The Massey Leisure Centre also serves around 56 per cent of the current population in the area.

5. There is a weak case for change to invest in the development of a destination four-court indoor facility as proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board for their One Local Initiative. The needs assessment does not demonstrate a current community need. It does have strategic alignment to council objectives and would deliver community benefits above the capital and operational costs.

6. Three options were assessed:

· Option one: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in Massey/Upper Harbour part of the North-West by 2036 (status quo)

· Option two: Destination four or more full-sized indoor court facility to primarily serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West (One Local Initiative)

· Option three: Local two full-sized indoor court facility situated near Whenuapai and Hobsonville in Upper Harbour from 2026 (preferred option).

7. The economic case identified that options two and three deliver community benefits above the capital and operational costs.

8. Staff recommend option three as it performed best against assessment criteria, including alignment to growth and future community need, strategic fit and value for money.

9. There is a low financial risk that land and construction costs will increase over time. This needs to be balanced against the risk of developing an underutilised facility.

10. The next steps are for staff to report to the Environment and Community Committee on 10 July 2019. The report will include feedback from the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the findings of the indicative business case for the development of a destination, multisport indoor court facility in the North-West that:

i) there is low population projected in the North-West part of Auckland in the short to medium-term

ii) the Massey Leisure Centre serves around 56 per cent of the current population in the North-West

iii) population projections indicate that there could be demand for a local two full-sized indoor court facility in the North-West from 2026

iv) the North-West is not expected to have sufficient demand for a destination four-court indoor court facility until at least 2036

v) the optimal location for a new facility to respond to the projected population growth and to fill the future gap in the network requires further investigation

vi) the provision of indoor courts aligns with Auckland Plan outcomes

vii) once the population in the North-West increases, the quantifiable benefits of providing either a two or a four-court facility exceed the capital and operational costs required to develop the facility.

b) endorse that the development of a four-court indoor facility has a weak case for change and robust strategic alignment with council objectives and would deliver community benefits above the capital and operational costs.

c) EITHER:

endorse the development of a detailed business case for a local two-court indoor court facility (option three) located near Whenuapai and Hobsonville, when the population reaches 98,000, which is likely to be in 2026, based on:

i) an indicative funding investment of $18.8 million from the $25.6 million earmarked as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (recommended).

OR:

endorse the development of a detailed business case for a destination four-court indoor court facility (option two) to primarily serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West when the population reaches 120,000, which is likely to be in 2036, based on:

ii) an indicative funding investment of $25.6 million earmarked as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

d) endorse that any action to progress an indoor court facility be included in the updated Community Facility Action Plan.

Horopaki

Context

11. Development of a destination multisport indoor court facility was selected by the Upper Harbour Local Board as their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

12. The local board proposed a minimum of four full-sized indoor courts to serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West. The proposed multisport facility could cater for a wider variety of sporting codes such as badminton, basketball, futsal, netball, volleyball and potentially squash, tennis and cricket.

13. No decisions have been made on the site for the proposed indoor court facility. The Upper Harbour Local Board had suggested council-owned land at 161 Brigham Creek Road as a potential site.

14. The Finance and Performance Committee approved provisional funding for One Local Initiative projects (resolution number FIN/2018/85).

15. A total of $0.10 million was allocated to the Upper Harbour Local Board for a business case. The business case is developed in two parts: indicative and detailed business cases.

16. Funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for destination indoor court facility, following indicative and detailed business cases processes.

Indicative business cases are a tool to support decision-making

17. Auckland Council uses a three-stage process to investigate large-scale capital projects and new investment in community services or facilities. This approach is based on the business case model developed by the Treasury.

18. The first phase begins with a needs assessment. This entails:

· research into the profile of the community, including projected growth data

· a summary of recent social research and any relevant community engagement surveys

· a community facility stock-take (both council and non-council facilities)

· a gap analysis which assesses current provision against council policy.

19. An indicative business case considers the merits of a proposed investment. It helps ensure that there is a robust case for change before resources are committed to a project.

20. The indicative business case considers strategic alignment with council objectives, including the Auckland Plan. It also includes an economic case which considers the costs and benefits of various options that may achieve council’s investment goals.

21. A detailed business case can be built upon:

· a needs assessment which demonstrates a robust case for change

· a strategic assessment which shows alignment with council objectives

· an economic case that identifies a preferred option(s) that delivers community benefits and value for money.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. Staff have prepared an indicative business case for the destination multisport indoor court facility that follows council’s three-stage process. The key findings are outlined below (Attachment A provides a more detailed overview).

23. The North-West has a growing and changing population. Growth is expected to accelerate in the next decade, which will create demand for new sport and recreation facilities.

· The North-West has around 4.2 per cent of Auckland’s population. It is estimated to grow from 66,000 people in 2016 to 98,359 people by 2026. The population is expected to reach 120,644 by 2036.

· The population makeup is projected to have more young and Asian people, who both tend to play more indoor sport. There are also likely to be more Pacific and Māori people, more people reaching retirement age, and more variation in income and deprivation status.

· The current participation rates for sports played on indoor courts (for example, badminton, basketball, futsal, netball and volleyball,) range between 4-7 per cent for young people. Adult rates are 1-4 per cent.

24. The current council facility can continue to serve the North-West population in the short to medium-term.

· The Community Facility Network Plan proposes a 10km catchment for destination indoor court facilities. These facilities feature a minimum of four full-sized indoor courts.

· The existing Massey Leisure Centre serves around 56 per cent of the current population in the North-West.

· Based on population projections, the North-West is not expected to have the population to support a local two-court facility until 2026, or a four-court facility from 2036.

25. The optimal location for a new facility to respond to the projected population growth and to fill the future gap in the network requires further investigation. The site at 161 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai is a possible location.

26. The provision of indoor courts aligns with Auckland Plan outcomes, as outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Alignment with Auckland Plan 2050

Outcome	Direction or focus area	Alignment
Outcome 1: Belonging and participating	Direction 2: improve health and wellbeing of all Aucklanders by reducing harm and disparities in opportunities	Aligns through providing sport and recreation facilities
	Focus area 2: provide accessible services and social and cultural infrastructure that are responsive in meeting peoples evolving needs	Aligns through providing a multi-purpose facility that can change in response to our changing population
	Focus area 6: focus investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need	Aligns through locating the facility where there is high growth, population density or high deprivation
	Focus area 7: recognise the value of arts, culture, sports and recreation to quality of life	Aligns through quantifying the benefits to the community of the facility

There is a weak case for change for the proposed facility at present

27. There is a weak case for change for the development of a four-court indoor facility as proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board for their One Local Initiative. The needs assessment does not demonstrate a current community need.

28. The strategic assessment shows alignment with council plans, strategies and resolutions.

29. The economic case identified that options two and three outlined below deliver community benefits above the capital and operational costs.

Future provision of indoors courts align with investment objectives and would deliver community benefits

30. Future provision of a two-court or four-court indoor facility align with critical success factors and council’s investment objectives:

· Enable our communities: fulfil Auckland Plan outcomes through increased participation in indoor sports by enhancing the current network of facilities.

· Fit-for-purpose: provide greater efficiencies through investing in multi-use facilities rather that single codes. This will support our diverse communities and provide greater efficiencies.

· Reduce inequities: reduce inequities between communities through providing facilities where the greatest need exists. This will address disparities in sport and recreation outcomes and ensure a robust network of facilities across Auckland.

· Do more with less: provide greater value for dollar spend by leverage partnerships.

· Evidence-based: prioritise indoor court facilities that will have the greatest impact based on evidence backed investment, shifting from ad-hoc mentality.

31. Once the North-West population increases, an indoor facility will deliver positive economic returns to the community.

· The net benefit of a four-court facility is around $50 million in present day terms. The ratio of benefits to costs is around 2.7 showing that for every dollar of cost, the community gets $2.7 in benefit.

· The net benefit of a two-court facility is around $32.9 million in present day terms. The ratio of benefits to costs is around 2.8 showing that for every dollar of cost, the community gets $2.8 in benefit.

32. The primary benefits are improved physical and mental health outcomes to users. Other benefits included improved productivity, reduced unemployment and decreased crime.

33. The main costs come from the high capital costs of the facility ($14.9 million for four courts and $11.5 million for two courts).

34. Sensitivity analysis which increased capital costs by 22.5 per cent and reduced benefits by 15 per cent still showed a net benefit of at least $9.7 million.

There are three options for decision-makers to consider

35. The options considered in response to the findings include:

· Option one: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in Massey/Upper Harbour part of the North-West by 2036 (status quo)

· Option two: Destination four or more full-sized indoor court facility to primarily serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West (One Local Initiative)

· Option three: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in situated near Whenuapai and Hobsonville in Upper Harbour from 2026 (preferred option)

Option one: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in Massey/Upper Harbour part of the North-West by 2036 (status quo)

36. Option one reflects a previous decision on the North-West Community Facility Provision Investigation to have two indoor courts in the Massey/Upper Harbour part of the North-West by 2036 (resolution number ENV/2018/131).

37. The benefit of this option is that it would respond to the provision gap identified by the North-West Community Facility Provision Investigation. It would also maintain consistency in council decisions.

38. A more recent assessment, with a different catchment area, found an earlier need for a local facility.

39. There is low financial risk associated with option one due to possible increase in land and building costs in the future.

Option two: Destination four or more full-sized indoor court facility to primarily serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West

40. Option two reflects the Upper Harbour Local Board’s One Local Initiative to have four indoor courts or more now to primarily serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate area of the North-West.

41. The findings from the North-West Community Facility Provision Investigation played an important role in informing the analysis for option two.

42. As the North-West investigation focused on local provision gaps, staff undertook additional regional provision analysis to draw a larger (but overlapped) study area for a destination facility for the indicative business case.

43. The indicative business case shows the North-West will not have enough population for four indoor courts until 2036.

44. The larger capital cost and ongoing operating cost associated with option two also poses higher financial risk.

Option three: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in situated near Whenuapai and Hobsonville in Upper Harbour from 2026

45. The council may also choose to provide a local (two courts) facility by 2026 as an alternative to the proposal of the Upper Harbour Local Board.

46. Option three would provide a quicker response to the population currently not served by the existing Massey Leisure Centre.

47. Option three would also have lower capital cost and operating costs compared to option two. It may also have a slightly lower capital cost compared to option one due to earlier construction of facility.

Staff have developed criteria to assess the three options

48. Staff developed assessment criteria to enable the comparison of the options.

· Current need: Does a demonstrable community currently exist?

· Future growth: Is the scale of the option proportionate to future population growth?

· Strategic alignment: Is this something we should be doing?

· Value for money: Do the benefits associated with an option exceed its costs?

49. These criteria are unweighted and allow for objective assessment:

50. A summary of the options against the assessment criteria is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Assessment of options against criteria

	Current needs	Future growth	Strategic alignment	Value for money
Option one (status quo) Local two courts from 2036	✓✓	✓	✓	✓✓
Option two (One Local Initiative) Destination four courts	✓	✓✓	✓	✓✓✓
Option three (preferred option) Local two courts from 2026	✓✓✓	✓✓✓	✓✓	✓✓✓

Rating scale key

Ticks	Level to which option meets criteria
No tick	Does not meet
✓	Low
✓✓	Fair
✓✓✓	High

Staff recommend option three: A local two court facility from 2026

51. When the criteria are applied, option three (local two court facility from 2026) scores the highest. Option two (destination four courts facility) has a lower score due to low population in the short to medium term.

52. Staff recommend the development of a detailed business case for a local two-court indoor facility (option three) located near Whenuapai and Hobsonville, when the population reaches 98,000. This is likely to be in 2026. Such a facility would deliver positive health and social benefits to the local community.

53. Alternatively, the council could choose to proceed to the detailed business case with option two (destination four court facility) in anticipation of population growth in the North-West and to deliver services to the populace that is not served by the existing Massey Leisure Centre. This needs to be balanced with the risk of developing an under-utilised facility.

The implication of Rodney Local Board’s One Local Initiative

54. The Rodney Local Board proposed an indoor sport facility of two full-sized courts in Kumeu-Huapai as their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

55. If the Kumeu-Huapai facility is approved, the catchment will slightly overlap with the catchment for the destination four-court facility under option two.

56. The catchment for the two-court facility proposed under option three is smaller so will not be affected by the Kumeu-Huapai facility.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

57. Council staff will take actions based on the decision of the Environment and Community Committee.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. The North-West has fewer indoor court facilities (both council and non-council) compared to other parts of Auckland due to lower population historically.

59. A new indoor facility will provide new sport opportunity to respond to the growing and changing population in the future.

60. The Upper Harbour Local Board selected the development of a destination, multisport indoor court facility as their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

61. The proposed destination facility aims to serve population across Upper Harbour, Rodney and Henderson-Massey Local Board areas. Rodney Local Board has sought to develop a local facility as part of their One Local Initiative.

62. This report seeks formal views from Upper Harbour Local Board on the findings of the indicative business case.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

63. The North-West has a higher percentage of Māori (15 per cent) compared to the Auckland average (10 per cent).

64. Within the North-West, the percentages of Māori population vary. The Henderson-Massey area has the highest percentage (22 per cent), followed by Rodney (11 per cent) and Upper Harbour (8 per cent).

65. Māori people in general are more active and younger with a lower socio-economic index compared to other ethnic groups, which means sufficient, affordable sport opportunities are important to this group.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

66. Each local board identified one priority project through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. The Finance and Performance Committee then approved provisional funding for these local board projects (resolution number FIN/2018/85).

67. The Upper Harbour Local Board proposed a destination indoor court facility. A total of $0.10 million was allocated to develop the business case. A total of $0.079 million remains for the development of the detailed business case.

68. Funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for the destination indoor court facility, following the indicative and detailed business case process.

69. There is sufficient One Local Initiative funding available to deliver the indoor court facility.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70. There are low risks associated with option three (local two court facility from 2026 - preferred option). Council processes help manage financial risk. Any delivery risks can be effectively mitigated by developing the detailed business case when the population reaches 98,000, which is likely to be in 2026.

Table 3: Risk identification and mitigation

Type of risk	Risk Level	Mitigation
Financial risk IF the cost of land (if a new site is acquired) and construction costs increase in the future THEN the costs to council will increase	Low	This risk can be mitigated by obtaining detailed costings from a quantity surveyor and assessment through sensitivity analysis All council projects are subject to financial policy decisions on cost escalation and treatment of inflation
Delivery risk IF population increases at a slower or faster rate than expected THEN a new facility may be needed earlier or later than anticipated	Low	This risk can be mitigated by updating the indicative business case with the 2023 census data and by developing the detailed business case when the population reaches 98,000

Type of risk

Risk Level

Mitigation

Financial risk

IF the cost of land (if a new site is acquired) and construction costs increase in the future

THEN the costs to council will increase

Low

This risk can be mitigated by obtaining detailed costings from a quantity surveyor and assessment through sensitivity analysis

All council projects are subject to financial policy decisions on cost escalation and treatment of inflation

Delivery risk

IF population increases at a slower or faster rate than expected

THEN a new facility may be needed earlier or later than anticipated

Low

This risk can be mitigated by updating the indicative business case with the 2023 census data and by developing the detailed business case when the population reaches 98,000

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

71. The next steps are for staff to report to the Environment and Community Committee on 10 July 2019. The report will include feedback from the Upper Harbour Local Board.

72. If option three (local two court facility – preferred option) is approved, work on the detailed business case will commence when the population reaches 98,000, which is likely to be in 2026. This will include site identification and the development of the financial, commercial and management cases.^{^[1]}

73. Operational funding may need to be allocated for the development of the detailed business case. Other costs will be met within existing funding.

74. The timeframe for delivery will depend on a range of factors including:

· how long it takes to develop and obtain approval for the detailed business case

· how long it takes to obtain approval and to acquire any additional land

· the time required to negotiate any partnership or commercial development opportunities.

75. If option one (two court facility from 2036) is approved, then no actions will be undertaken in this long-term plan budget (2018-2028). However, staff will monitor population growth and update the indicative business case with new census data when it becomes available in 2023.

76. If option two (destination four court facility) is approved, work will commence on the development of a detailed business case when the population reaches 120,000, which is likely to be in 2036.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachment

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour indicative business case summary	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nancy Chu - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Ruth Woodward - Manager Parks & Recreation Policy

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

Compensation funding for the loss of park land

File No.: CP2019/09973

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To identify a list of planned park improvements in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to be funded by compensation from the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2018, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) compulsorily acquired approximately 3.8ha of reserve land for motorway improvements (Northern Corridor Improvement Project).

3. At its meeting on 20 March 2018, the Finance and Performance Committee agreed to consider providing funding to offset the loss of open space.

4. The council’s service property optimisation approach requires that projects that benefit from the reinvestment of capital have been identified in the long-term plan, local board plan or other strategic documents such as an open space network plan. The Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan provides the strategic framework for the allocation of funding.

5. Four key principles have been developed to enable decision-making on the identification of unfunded park improvement projects that could be funded by compensation received from NZTA.

6. Staff recommend that the local board seeks the allocation of funding for the following six unfunded park improvement projects that scored highest against the decision-making principles:

· development of walking and cycling trails (greenways) at:

A) Rosedale Park

B) Saunders Reserve

C) Centorian Reserve

· development of park assets at:

D) Unsworth Reserve and Caribbean sports field

E) Hosking Reserve

F) Glen Bay Close Reserve.

7. Taking this approach will provide new recreational opportunities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to offset the loss of open space.

8. There is a low governance risk that the Finance and Performance Committee will not allocate funding. The committee previously agreed to consider providing funding to improve existing parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to offset the loss of open space.

9. The local board’s views will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 23 July 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) request that the Finance and Performance Committee allocate $6.044 million of compensation funding provided by the New Zealand Transport Agency following their compulsory acquisition of open space land in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, to fund the following park improvement projects:

i) development of walking and cycling trails (greenways) at:

A) Rosedale Park

B) Saunders Reserve

C) Centorian Reserve

ii) development of park assets, including play spaces and supporting infrastructure at:

A) Unsworth Reserve and Caribbean sports field

B) Hosking Reserve

C) Glen Bay Close Reserve.

Horopaki

Context

Open space was lost to the New Zealand Transport Agency for motorway improvements

10. In 2018, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) compulsorily acquired approximately 3.8ha of reserve land for motorway improvements in the Upper Harbour Local Board area under the Public Works Act 1981. This land was required for the Northern Corridor Improvements project (NCI project).

11. The open space acquired by NZTA covered Alexandra Stream, Arrenway, Bluebird, Centorian, Omega, Rook and Tawa Reserves as well as Rosedale Landfill (see Table 1 below).

12. All of the above six reserves are service assets and help meet the active and passive recreation needs of the local communities they serve.^{^[2]}

Table 1: Area of open space land lost by park and suburb

Park	Suburb	Area of land loss (m²)
Rosedale Landfill	Albany	17,209
Tawa Reserve	Albany	6151
Arrenway Reserve	Rosedale	6596
Alexandra Stream Reserve	Unsworth Heights	166
Bluebird Reserve	Unsworth Heights	1294
Rook Reserve	Unsworth Heights	5919
Centorian Reserve	Windsor Park	345
Total land lost		3.768ha
*Meadowood Reserve was identified in the Finance and Performance Committee report 20/03/2108 as having an area of permanent land loss. This land is no longer required by NZTA.

Funding can be allocated by the Finance and Performance Committee to compensate for the lost open space

13. Auckland Council received financial compensation of $6.044 million from NZTA for some of the land lost.

14. Additional compensation, to reflect the market value of the land at Rook Reserve and Rosedale Landfill, has yet to be agreed.

15. At its meeting on 20 March 2018, the Finance and Performance Committee agreed to consider providing funding to improve existing parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to offset the loss of open space (resolution number FIN/2018/42).

16. The council’s service property optimisation approach, approved by the Finance and Performance Committee in 2015, provides for the reinvestment of any proceeds from the sale of service assets back into the applicable local board area to advance approved council projects or activities.

17. The main requirement of this approach is that any of the projects or activities that benefit from the reinvestment of capital need to have been identified in the long-term plan, local board plan or other strategic documents such as an open space network plan.

Local boards have decision-making authority over park use and development

18. The decision-making allocation for the development and use of parks and open space are set out in the allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities in the long-term plan. In summary, local boards are responsible for:

· local park improvements and place shaping

· the use of an activities programme within local parks, such as community events and community planting programmes

· naming of parks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan is a strategic document, which identifies suitable projects for the allocation of compensation funding

19. The Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan, adopted in September 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/119), provides the strategic framework for the allocation of compensation funding. This document sets out actions for the future development of the open space network over the next 10 years.

20. The network plan is a key tool for implementing the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan at the local board level. This strategic document meets the requirements of the council’s service property optimisation approach.

21. The network plan identifies a number of prioritised actions, including to:

· optimise existing open space and improve park visitor experience

· provide a quality walking and cycling network to connect neighbourhoods

· provide recreation opportunities that appeal to a diverse range of communities, ages and abilities.

22. The network plan identifies a range of park improvement projects. It highlights parks that are currently undeveloped and requiring investment within the 10-year period. The plan also prioritises future investment in greenways and play provision.

23. The local board can leverage these prioritised actions and park improvement projects to make a case for the allocation of compensation funding from NZTA. However, further prioritisation is required.

Decision-making principles have been developed to enable the identification of unfunded park improvement projects

24. Staff, in consultation with the local board, have developed decision-making principles to enable the identification of suitable unfunded park improvement projects (refer to Figure 1):

· The first principle is a requirement of the service property optimisation approach.

· The second principle seeks to prioritise the areas impacted by the loss of land.

· The third principle seeks to prioritise projects in growth areas where no further open space may be acquired.^{^[3]} Park development projects are an appropriate response to growth by providing new sport and recreation opportunities for local communities.

· The fourth principle seeks to prioritise park improvement projects that could not proceed without the allocation of the compensation funding.

25. These principles were discussed at local board workshops on 14 February and 7 March 2019.

Figure 1: Decision-making principles

A range of possible projects were identified for the allocation of compensation funding

26. Park improvement projects that are unfunded for delivery (refer to Attachment A) and located across the local board area have been identified and assessed against the decision-making principles. These projects are summarised in Table 2 below.

27. Three park improvements met all four criteria. Six projects meet three of the criteria.

28. Rosedale Landfill is not a service asset and has been discounted. The timeframe for bringing this asset into service is unknown.

Table 2: Summary of park improvement projects assessed against the decision-making principles

Staff recommend the allocation of compensation funding to six unfunded park development projects

29. Staff recommended that the local board seek the allocation of compensation funding for six unfunded park improvement projects that scored highest against the decision-making principles.

30. Three park improvement projects meet all four criteria and are recommended as priorities for investment:

· Hosking Reserve

· Rosedale Park

· Saunders Reserve.

31. Three projects meet three of the criteria and are in suburbs where there was a loss of park land (refer to Table 3 and Attachment B):

· Centorian Reserve

· Glen Bay Close Reserve

· Unsworth Reserve and Caribbean sports field.

32. These three projects are also recommended for investment, provided there is funding available.

33. All six projects will provide a range of recreation opportunities in Upper Harbour and will appeal to a wide range of local residents. There is a mix of walking and cycling trails (greenways) and new park assets.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. Community Services will work with the local board to implement the agreed projects if funding is allocated by the Finance and Performance Committee.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. Auckland Council seeks to provide new recreational opportunities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to offset the loss of open space following compulsory acquisition by NZTA.

36. Priority has been given to residents in suburbs impacted by the loss of open space.

37. Staff held two workshops with the local board to discuss the allocation of compensation funding:

· the views of the local board were sought on the decision-making principles used to identify suitable projects for funding at a workshop on 14 February 2019

· a range of possible projects for funding were discussed at a workshop on 7 March 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. Approximately 5 per cent of the population in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are Māori.

39. The provision of quality parks and open spaces has broad benefits for Māori, including:

· facilitating participation in outdoor recreational activity

· helping make Auckland a green, resilient and healthy environment consistent with the Māori world view of the natural world and their role as kaitiaki.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. There are no financial implications arising from the allocation of compensation from NZTA following their compulsory acquisition of open space land.

41. Auckland Council has received compensation of $6.044 million from NZTA. This report proposes the allocation of these funds to six projects in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

42. Staff will develop indicative costings for the six recommended park improvement projects.

43. The Finance and Performance Committee will be requested to allocate funding to the projects that fit within the $6.044 million budget. If there is insufficient funding to cover all six projects, the three projects that meet all four criteria will be prioritised.

44. Additional financial compensation will be provided by NZTA once agreement has been reached on the market value of the land at Rook Reserve and Rosedale Landfill.

45. Approval of the Finance and Performance Committee will be sought for the allocation of this additional compensation funding once it has been received from NZTA.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. There is a low governance risk that the Finance and Performance Committee will not allocate funding. The committee previously agreed to consider providing funding to improve existing parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to offset the loss of open space. The proposal also conforms with the service property optimisation approach.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The local board’s views will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 23 July 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Projects in the proposed work programme that have a funding shortfall for delivery (FY18/19 - FY22/23)	95
b ⇩	Location of parks recommended to receive compensation funding	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Wendy Rutherford - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Andrew Wood - Parks & Rec Policy - Kakariki Team Leader

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round three

File No.: CP2019/07986

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round three.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in round three of the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants 2018/2019 (refer to Attachment B).

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Local Community Grants Programme on 20 April 2018 (refer to Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board set a total community grants budget of $113,425 for the 2018/2019 financial year. A total of $124,838.99 has been allocated in two local grant rounds and two quick response grants rounds, leaving a deficit of -$11,413.99.

5. However, there is a further $45,000 underspend in operational funding from the following work programme items which can be reallocated to increase the community grants budget. This would provide a total budget of $33,586.01 for Quick Response round three:

· equitable access to sport and recreation - $30,000

· Upper Harbour locally driven initiatives (LDI) scoping fund - $15,000.

6. Fifteen applications were received for round three of the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants 2018/2019, requesting a total of $33,526.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in round three of the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants 2018/2019 listed in the following table:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1917-312	Action Education Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards ‘Spoken Word Poetry Workshops for Youth’ including the facilitator's costs and resources between 01/07/2019 and 01/07/2020	$3000	Eligible
QR1917-305	North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated	Community	Towards the purchase of educational toys for preschool children at North Shore Community Toy Library	$800	Eligible
QR1917-308	North West Toy Library	Community	Towards resources to establish the North-west Toy Library including costs of software setups, toys and toy storage between 01/07/2019 and 13/12/2019	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-309	Action Committee of the Paremoremo Ratepayers and Residents Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs of stage one of the fencing project	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-310	Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust	Community	Towards ‘Hobsonville Pipis Playgroup and Albany Playgroup’ including purchase of educational toys and arts kit between 01/07/2019 and 30/06/2020	$2170	Eligible
QR1917-318	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards training, support and supervision costs to Youthline Helpline at Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust between 01/07/2019 and 31/03/2020	$5000	Eligible
QR1917-319	Greenhithe Community Trust	Community	Towards a defibrillator set for Greenhithe Community Trust including the defibrillator, locked box, signage, and training courses for the community members between 15/07/2019 and 29/07/2019	$4366	Eligible
QR1917-320	Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust	Community	Towards mobility dog care and training equipment including dog collars, leashes, and wheelchair hook attachments for Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-306	All Heart New Zealand Charitable Trust	Environment	Towards annual truck and vehicle costs for corporate environmental sustainability and a zero waste Auckland	$5000	Eligible
QR1917-316	Kay Mathewson	Environment	Towards battery recycling costs including buckets, shipping and fees	$724	Eligible
QR1917-317	Scout Association of New Zealand - Tauhinu Sea Scout Group	Environment	Towards the purchase of four recycling bins	$446	Eligible
QR1917-307	Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards electricity costs at Windsor Park between 1/7/2019 and 31/10/2019	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-311	Albany Badminton Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of shuttlecocks for Albany Badminton Club between 18/05/2019 and 18/08/2019	$1050	Eligible
QR1917-313	East Coast Bays and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the ‘Junior Winter Programme’ including indoor net hire, coaching and administration costs between 01/07/2019 and 30/09/2019	$1020	Eligible
QR1917-314	North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club (under the umbrella of Synchronised Swimming NZ)	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of a new training equipment cage for North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club	$1950	Eligible
Total				$33,526

Horopaki

Context

6. 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.

7. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme.

8. 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.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its grants programme for 2018/2019 on 20 April 2018 and have operated three quick response and two local grants rounds this financial year.

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

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $113,425 for the 2018/2019 financial year. A total of $124,838.99 has been allocated in two local grants rounds and two quick response rounds, leaving a deficit of -$11,413.99.

12. However, there is a further $45,000 underspend in operational funding from the following work programme items which can be reallocated to increase the community grants budget. This would provide a total budget of $33,586.01 for Quick Response round three:

· equitable access to sport and recreation - $30,000

· Upper Harbour locally driven initiatives (LDI) scoping fund - $15,000.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. 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 me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. According to the main focus of the application, each one has received input from a subject matter expert from the relevant council department. The main focuses are identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

15. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Upper Harbour 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.

17. 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’.

18. A summary of each application received through round three of the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants is provided (refer to Attachment B).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. 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.

20. Three applicants to round three of the Quick Response grants have indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

22. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $113,425. A total of $56,651.50 was allocated in round one of the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Local Board Local Grants, leaving a total of $56,773.50 to be allocated. A total of $10,867 was allocated in round one of the 2018/2019 Quick Response Grants, leaving a total of $45,906.50 to be allocated. A total of $11,365 was allocated in round two of the 2018/2019 Quick Response Grants, leaving a total of $34,541.50 to be allocated. A total of $45,955.49 has been allocated in round two of the 2018/2019 Local Grants, leaving a deficit of -$11,413.99.

23. However, there is a further $45,000 underspend in operational funding from the following work programme items which can be reallocated to increase the community grants budget. This would provide a total budget of $33,586.01 for Quick Response round three:

· equitable access to sport and recreation - $30,000

· Upper Harbour locally driven initiatives (LDI) scoping fund - $15,000.

24. In round three of the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants, 15 applications were received requesting a total of $33,526.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. 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

26. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for round three of the Quick Response grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2018/2019 Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme	105
b ⇩	2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response round three grant applications	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Erin Shin - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Shane King - Head of Service Support

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rosedale Park disc golf: Scope addition of tee pads	177

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

Auckland Transport monthly report - June 2019

File No.: CP2019/09867

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide:

· an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

· a summary of consultation material sent to the local board

· transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report includes:

· updates on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

· consultation information sent to the local board for feedback and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee (TCC) as they affect the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the monthly update report from Auckland Transport for June 2019.

Horopaki

Context

3. This report addresses transport-related matters in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

4. Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. AT reports monthly to local boards, as set out in local board engagement plans. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

5. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (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 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 through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome.

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s LBTCF allocation was $1,835,080 for the current political term. In addition, there is a sum of $764,795 which was approved by the council and became available from 1 July 2018.

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$2,599,874
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$2,560,814
Remaining budget	$39,060

Rame Road project update

7. The Rame Road project is still in the detailed design stage, as per the option agreed by the local board, with some amendments. AT’s internal consultation process was completed in mid-May 2019.

8. The stormwater and maintenance review commenced in the first week of June 2019.

9. External consultation/public notification will occur in July 2019.

10. The tender process will commence when consultation is complete, the local board has considered the feedback, and provides confirmation to proceed. A workshop will be arranged with the local board at the end of July 2019.

Major capital works in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

Gills Road link / Dairy Flat Highway / The Avenue

11. The Dairy Flat Highway upgrade and Gills Road link projects have been strategically re-evaluated, taking a more holistic view of the issues and opportunities to determine the most appropriate improvements required.

Medallion Drive link

12. Design has been completed; however, land negotiation and purchase have been extended due to court proceedings. The hearing is in July of this year and is expected to be complete by January of 2020. The construction phase will start in February 2020 and will take 18 months.

Pedestrian signal on Ōtehā Valley Road

13. AT is undertaking external consultation and once this is complete, feedback will be sent to the local board for consideration.

Dairy Flat Highway safety improvements 2018/2019

14. AT is currently in the procurement stage and a start date for physical works has yet to be determined.

15. The timing for construction of the individual upgrades is yet to be decided, although it is anticipated that this could take place in October/November 2019. This work also includes construction of the Coatesville-Riverhead/Dairy Flat Highway roundabout. A traffic management plan will be implemented for all road construction, with some work potentially beginning as early as July 2019.

16. A further presentation relating to the investigation works for the northbound passing lane will be provided to the local board in July 2019.

Albany park and ride

17. The opening is now delayed until the end of June 2019.

18. The car park was due to be sealed on 13 May 2019 with an expected opening date at the end of May 2019. Prior to sealing, the pavement was tested and it was found that the deflection was higher than specified by AT’s Code of Practice. It was determined there would be a higher risk of premature pavement cracking under a typical usage scenario. However, a car park is different to a typical road in the sense that it will not have traffic growth over time and will not be used by trucks or buses. Therefore, AT have calculated that the design assumption was too conservative and that the risk of early pavement cracking is actually very small.

19. Over the last two weeks, AT have sought expert input and comments from stakeholders and have support from the project sponsor to proceed to final seal but are still awaiting confirmation from the other stakeholders, including AT Metro, who will be operating and maintaining the car park.

20. AT’s sealing contractor is next available on the week starting 11 June 2019. Once the pavement is sealed, the remaining work is expected to take two to three weeks to complete, including lighting, landscaping and CCTV cameras. AT is targeting the end of June 2019 for completion.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The impact of information in this report is confined to AT and does not impact on other parts of the council group. Any engagement with other parts of the council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Issues investigated and responses

22. The local board has requested the following issues be investigated, which are still under investigation:

· Hooton Reserve parking controls – meeting with Auckland Council Parks on further options for the local board to consider

· maintenance of ditch between 102 and 102A Totara Road, Whenuapai

· issues with road surface in Unsworth Heights area

· issues with road surface level at 21 Arirang Rise.

Brigham’s Creek and Williams Roads intersection safety

23. As a result of a fatality at this intersection, AT has determined that interim safety improvement measures are required. The recommended improvements include: vegetation trimming, repairing worn and faded signage and road markings, and replacing any other damaged road infrastructure. AT has also changed the left turn ‘give way’ control out of Brigham Creek Road to a ‘stop’ control.

24. Long term and transformational changes will be included as part of the investigations undertaken by the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Supporting Growth Programme.

Spencer and East Coast Roads safety concerns

25. AT has undertaken an initial review of the issue and will implement a further detailed investigation to ensure a comprehensive review is completed. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review, and the local board can expect to receive an update by late June 2019.

Bush Road parking removal and afternoon/evening clearway update

26. AT has undertaken queue length observations and conducted a parking occupancy survey. The survey results were supportive of a clearway, although AT have received some negative feedback from Bike Auckland on similar projects on the grounds that installation of broken yellow lines and/or a clearway may worsen safety for cyclists. AT is currently undertaking internal consultation with external consultation to follow, and an update will be provided to the local board once consultation has been completed.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions

27. Decisions of the TCC during the month of April 2019 affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed in the following table:

Street / suburb	Type of report	Nature of restriction	Decision
Rising Parade, Hornbill Drive, Fairview Heights	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	No stopping at all times (NSAAT), give-way control	CARRIED
Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights	Permanent traffic and parking changes	NSAAT	CARRIED
Albany Highway, Oak Manor Drive, Rosedale	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	Lane arrow markings, cycle lane, cycle path, shared path, NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, traffic island, road hump, footpath, traffic signal control, give-way control, flush median	CARRIED
Georgia Terrace, Lucas Point, Albany	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, angle parking, give-way control	CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Receipt of this monthly report presents no impacts on 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

29. There are no financial implications to the local board in receiving this monthly update.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. Receipt of this monthly report has no risks. AT has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. AT provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme

File No.: CP2019/09829

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme for the 2019/2020 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report introduces the proposed Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme for the 2019/2020 financial year, as set out in Attachment A.

3. The proposed work programme comprises:

· PopUp Business School ($7500)

· Young Enterprise Scheme ($2000).

4. The total value of the Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme is $9500, which the local board is being asked to approve.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme (total value of $9500), as presented in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

5. This report provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with the proposed local economic development work programme for the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6. The 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme has been developed having regard to the local board’s priorities for local economic development, as set out in the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan.

PopUp business school ($7500)

7. The PopUp Business School provides 10 days of free education and support for local people interested in starting their own business. Previous Auckland events have had 50-60 attendees and have had positive results in terms of the numbers of businesses established.

8. Events have been funded in partnership by adjacent local boards, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED). Each partner contributes a share of the total cost of $25,000, plus venue costs. In 2018/2019, the Upper Harbour Local Board contributed $7500 alongside the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, to help support an event held at AUT Millennium. The total cost of that event was $34,000 with ATEED and MSD funding the balance of $19,000. Fifty-four people attended this two-week event, half of which were from the two funding local board areas.

9. For 2019/2020, the cost of the PopUp Business School has increased to $30,000. ATEED and MSD are committed to providing further funding to help bring the PopUp Business School to different parts of Auckland in 2019/2020.

10. Promotion of the PopUp Business School events will be targeted locally, and local residents will be prioritised for attendance to ensure local participation is in line with the share of funding provided by contributing local boards. In addition, for 2019/2020, ATEED will schedule the business schools well in advance and promote them jointly so that local people are aware of when an event will take place nearby, ensuring local attendance is encouraged. This was not possible in 2018/2019 as funding was not fully allocated at the start of the financial year.

11. It is envisaged that by supporting local residents to receive entrepreneurial training, generation of local businesses will increase, and local employment opportunities provided.

Young Enterprise Scheme ($2000)

12. Auckland Business Chamber, on behalf of the Young Enterprise Trust, delivers the Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) in Auckland. YES is a practical, year-long programme for students in years 12 and 13.

13. Fostering youth entrepreneurship is a key requirement for developing an innovative economy and creating employment pathways for young people. Through the programme, students develop creative ideas into actual businesses, complete with real products and services and real profit and loss. Students learn key work skills and business knowledge including:

· business fundamentals

· planning

· interpersonal relations

· financial

· decision-making

· reporting

· risk management

· team work.

14. YES helps create a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship amongst Auckland’s young people.

15. Funding from the local board will support the delivery of the overall YES programme. This includes the ‘Kick Start’ days held in February 2020 at which ATEED will specifically acknowledge local board support. The ‘Kick Start’ days are held in sub-regions (North, South, East, Central/West) and are the first day students get to meet the Young Enterprise team and find out about the 2020 year, what YES is about, and what is in store for them.

16. All schools in the local board area that have shown an interest in YES are invited to participate. In addition, the invite is extended to those schools who have not shown an interest to enable them to make a decision as to whether to participate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. The 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Board Economic Development work programme will be managed by ATEED on behalf of the local board.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. The projects noted above align with the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcome 4, ‘a thriving local economy, in particular attracting business and supporting youth’.

19. The proposed Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme was workshopped with the local board on 14 March 2019 and a final draft was presented at a workshop held on 9 May 2019. Edits have been made to reflect the feedback given by the local board at these workshops.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. There are no direct impacts as a result of this report on Māori. However, consideration will be given to the need to consult with iwi and consider any impacts on Māori arising from the specific projects being undertaken.

21. The PopUp Business School events have been well attended by Māori following targeted promotion of the events through forums such as the Whāriki Māori Business Network. Local businesses will potentially benefit from receiving business sustainability advice if they choose to participate.

22. With regard to the YES programme, Māori students at participating schools will also benefit from the experience and learnings of the programme.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The proposed 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme will require allocation of $9500 from the board’s locally driven initiatives operating expenditure budget. This amount can be accommodated within the board’s total draft budget for 2019/2020.

24. Progress of this work programme will be reported directly to the local board as part of the quarterly local board work programme report produced by Local Board Services.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. The Young Enterprise Scheme has a low risk as this is a national programme delivered locally by the Chamber of Commerce.

26. The PopUp Business School has run successfully before in Auckland, once in the Upper Harbour Local Board area with Hibiscus and Bays Local Board providing some financial support. Each time, the target number of registrations has been exceeded. As ATEED rely on other local boards allocating funding, there is a risk that should financial support for the programme not be forthcoming, the planned number of events for 2019/2020 will need to be reviewed. However, funding contributions from ATEED and MSD mitigate this risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Following approval by the local board, the Local Economic Development team at ATEED will begin to implement the programme from 1 July 2019. Where there is a need for further scoping of activities, this will be undertaken and presented back to the local board as required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachment

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Economic Development work programme	191

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jonathan Sudworth

Authorisers

John Norman – Strategic Planning Manager, Local Economic Development

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Environment work programme

File No.: CP2019/09585

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Environment work programme, totalling $192,000 of locally driven initiatives operational expenditure.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has identified several aspirations in its 2017 Local Board Plan, including ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’.

3. To give effect to this aspiration, staff developed several options for projects for the local board to consider funding through its 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme.

4. The local board provided feedback to Infrastructure and Environmental Services staff on the locally driven initiative (LDI) projects it would like to fund at its 14 March 2019 and 9 May 2019 workshops. These projects include:

· Sustainable Schools Project - Our Local Streams: $30,000

· New project – Pest Free Upper Harbour: $28,000

· Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale phase two: $29,000

· Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme: $80,000

· New project – Sediment related water quality testing, Upper Harbour: $25,000.

5. At its 9 May 2019 workshop, further information was requested around the possible inclusion of a control site as part of the sediment related water quality testing project. Staff have developed three options for the board’s consideration in response to this, as detailed in this report. It is recommended that the board support this initiative without a control site (Option A), as this will allow a higher level of monitoring of other sites across the local board area in 2019/2020 within the available budget.

6. The local board also has $114,870 of asset-based services (ABS) operational budget for the continuation of the septic tank pump-out programme in the 2019/2020 financial year.

7. This report recommends that the local board approve this local environment work programme and associated budgets for delivery within the 2019/2020 financial year (see Attachment A).

8. The draft work programme has a total value of $192,000 LDI operational expenditure, which can be funded from the board’s existing budgets for local environmental programmes. The proposed 2019/2020 budget represents a 24.5 per cent increase of the board’s environmental investment in 2018/2019.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of $192,000 for environmental projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate in 2019/2020 as summarised in the table below:

Project	Budget
Sustainable Schools Project - Our Local Streams	$30,000
New project: Pest Free Upper Harbour	$28,000
Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale phase two	$29,000
Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme	$80,000
New project: Sediment related water quality testing - Upper Harbour	$25,000
Total	$192,000

b) approve the implementation of the sediment related water quality testing project without a control site (Option A in the agenda report).

c) note the allocation of $114,870 of asset-based services operational expenditure for the septic tank pump-out programme.

Horopaki

Context

9. In late 2018, to align with its local board plan outcomes, the Upper Harbour Local Board provided strategic direction to staff regarding the projects it would like to fund in the 2019/2020 financial year. The local board noted its strong commitment to the environment and, in particular, noted its:

· concerns around the impact of failing or inadequate onsite septic systems on the water system

· ongoing support for the Upper Harbour North West Wildlink Assistance Programme

· support for animal and plant biodiversity through pest-free initiatives.

10. In response to the direction set by the local board, Infrastructure and Environmental Services staff provided a draft local environment work programme for the board’s feedback at a workshop on 14 March 2019.

11. The local board indicated its support in principle for the proposed projects but requested that staff provide additional information regarding the sediment testing programme. This was workshopped with the board on 17 April 2019. Further information around the possible inclusion of a control site in this project was requested by the local board in May 2019. Options in response to the request for a control site have been developed and are detailed later in this report.

12. Based on these workshop discussions, a total of five local environmental projects are proposed to be funded from the local board’s LDI operational budget. These will be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate as part of the board’s 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme. The draft work programme is included as Attachment A to this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Analysing the project options

13. The draft work programme includes five LDI-funded project options with a total value of $192,000, as shown in Attachment A and summarised in the table on page 6 of this report. Some of these continue established projects that the local board had funded in previous years (for example, the Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme), while others are new projects which the board has not previously funded.

14. A brief description of each of the proposed projects for delivery as part of the local board’s 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme is provided below. Further detail on these projects is provided in Attachment A.

Sustainable Schools Project - Our Local Streams: $30,000

15. To achieve the local board plan objective to ensure ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, the local board has indicated it would like to support the Our Local Streams Sustainable Schools project in the 2019/2020 financial year.

16. In the 2017/2018 financial year, the board allocated $20,000 towards this project, and $30,000 towards this project in 2018/2019 (resolution numbers UH/2017/67 and UH/2018/65). A further $30,000 is sought for the continuation of this project in 2019/2020.

17. The project will continue to provide expertise and assistance for schools in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to connect with their local streams. This will be achieved through testing and monitoring water quality, connecting with community restoration groups working in the same catchment, and acting to improve the stream area. The project will link freshwater to marine environments through the Marine Metre Squared Programme.

New project – Pest Free Upper Harbour: $28,000

18. To achieve the local board plan objective to ensure ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, the local board has indicated it would like to support a new Pest Free Upper Harbour project in the 2019/2020 financial year.

19. Upper Harbour has an active community network (the Upper Harbour Ecology Network) that is funded by the local board to build their capability to deliver environmental and community engagement outcomes. The network has been successful over the last three years and is already undertaking place-based pest control across landscape sized areas of Upper Harbour.

20. An over-arching pest free strategy would assist the groups and community to coordinate their projects and help fill the gaps. The project would involve a facilitator working with the Upper Harbour Ecology Network and others, to develop a strategy for Upper Harbour. A series of workshops will be held in different communities within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. These workshops will include displays and interpretive materials to help community members engage and understand what roles they might play.

21. This project is intended to come after, and build on, an integrated landscape spatial analysis project that is occurring from February 2019 to July 2019, funded through the natural environment targeted rate.

Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale phase two: $29,000

22. To achieve the local board plan objective to ensure ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced,’ the board has indicated it would like to support phase two of the industrial pollution prevention project in Rosedale in the 2019/2020 financial year.

23. This programme is primarily educational and informs urban industry and business about the impacts their activities may be having on local waterways. It includes a site inspection and discussion with the business owners about potential issues around pollution as well as waste minimisation techniques and spill training. If changes are recommended, a report is sent to the business. This project can also offer free one-hour spill training to businesses.

24. This project will continue to build on the work delivered over the last two financial years. Phase one of the industrial pollution prevention project was completed in 2017/2018, with a total budget of $20,000 (resolution number UH/2017/67). The work being undertaken in the Rosedale industrial area will be completed in the 2018/2019 financial year, with a budget of $20,000 (resolution number UH/2018/65).

Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme : $80,000

25. To achieve the local board plan objective to ensure ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, the local board has indicated it would like to support the Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme in the 2019/2020 financial year.

26. The Upper Harbour community is now highly active in caring for the local environment and provides a forum for groups to collaborate and plan together through the Upper Harbour Ecology Network (established in the 2016/2017 financial year). The network is convened by a member of the community and facilitated by biodiversity staff.

27. In 2018/2019, the network received $80,000 from the local board via the Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme (resolution number UH/2018/65). The funds provided are distributed and managed by the Upper Harbour Ecology Network and senior Parks, Sport and Recreation and Biodiversity staff, who ensure the funds reach a large number of people and support a large number of restoration and environmental goals.

28. Further funding will be used to grow the capability of the Upper Harbour community to deliver North-West Wildlink outcomes, while aiming to engage and encourage more people and groups to act across the whole local board area. Feedback from the Upper Harbour Ecology Network and local board members will continue to be used to shape the delivery approach of this assistance programme.

New project – Sediment related water quality testing: $25,000

29. To achieve the local board plan objective to ensure ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’, the local board has indicated it would like to fund a sediment related water quality testing project in the 2019/2020 financial year. This is a follow-up project to the local board’s small sites ambassador project, which the local board is funding in the 2018/2019 financial year.

30. Water quality testing and analysis will be carried out to gather evidence around which contaminants in the waterways are related to sediment discharges from small site developments in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

31. This is proposed to be the first year of a three-year programme, which will align with the council’s regional strategic approach to sediment programme, as endorsed by the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018 (resolution number ENV/2018/169).

32. A local board member requested information on the possible inclusion of a control site in this programme to compare sediment from small sites and sediment coming from other areas. The following options are provided to respond to this request:

· Option A (recommended): implement the sediment related water quality testing programme as suggested with no control site; or consider other building sites being monitored across the region to be sufficient as control sites ($25,000).

· Option B: The Upper Harbour Local Board identify a location for a control site or provide further advice around which criteria a site would have to meet to be considered a control site. Staff can then monitor that additional site or sites. However, this will reduce the amount of monitoring undertaken near small building sites elsewhere during 2019/2020 ($25,000).

· Option C: The Upper Harbour Local Board provide additional funding towards the monitoring of a control site (costing between $10,000 and $15,000 per annum, per site).

33. Staff recommend that the local board proceed with Option A (implementing the project with no control site). This will allow more monitoring to take place across the local board area during 2019/2020, as introducing a control site into the programme would require at least $10,000 to implement. It would also be difficult to isolate an area without building sites to act as a control site.

Septic tank pump-out programme Upper Harbour Local Board: $114,870 asset-based services operational expenditure

34. This programme manages the triennial pump-out of septic tanks within the former Waitākere City Council area. Within the Upper Harbour Local Board area, 4300 households pay a targeted rate for maintenance of rural sewerage systems. These households are visited every three years to have their tanks pumped out and cleaned.

35. In the 2018/2019 financial year, $112,610 was received for this programme, and in the 2019/2020 financial year, $114,870 will be received for this programme.

36. In May 2019, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to retain the septic tank pump-out scheme and associated targeted rate until June 2021, as part of their decision-making on the Annual Plan 2019/2020. They also resolved that staff should report back on options for integrating the septic tank pump-out service with the new monitoring regime, including advice on the cost of the options, appropriate level of rate, and the area the service should apply to (resolution number FIN/2019/55).

37. The local board will be consulted on any proposed changes to the scheme before staff report back to a committee of council on the topics outlined above.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. The draft 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme has been developed in consultation with other council departments as part of the council’s integrated local board work programme approach. This approach aimed to improve the quality of advice for the local board through collaboration and understanding across departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. The projects proposed for inclusion in the local board’s 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme will have positive environmental outcomes across the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Local board views

40. The projects noted above align with the local board plan outcome ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’.

41. The proposed local environment work programme was discussed with the local board at workshops on 14 March 2019 and 17 April 2019. The local board indicated its support of the proposed projects outlined in this report at its workshop on 17 April 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

43. The following table outlines how each of the projects contributes towards Māori outcomes:

Māori impact assessment of proposed projects for inclusion in the Upper Harbour Local Board’s local environment work programme

Project	Māori impact assessment
Sustainable Schools Project - Our Local Streams	Managing water resources and maintaining water quality are significant issues for Māori. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki for the environment is identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.
Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale phase two	No specific engagement with mana whenua or Māori community groups has been undertaken for this project. However, it is acknowledged that environmental protection and biodiversity values have integral links with concepts of kaitiakitanga.
Upper Harbour North-West Wildlink Assistance Programme	No specific engagement with mana whenua or Māori community groups has been undertaken for this project. However, mana whenua representatives are invited and encouraged to attend the group meetings.
New project: Sediment related water quality testing - Upper Harbour	Managing water resources and maintaining water quality are significant issues for Māori. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki for the environment is identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. This project will provide information that can be used to better focus restoration efforts by mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki.
New project: Pest Free Upper Harbour	No specific engagement with mana whenua or Māori community groups has been undertaken for this project. However, it is acknowledged that environmental protection and biodiversity values have integral links with concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44. The proposed 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme requires the allocation of $192,000 of the local board’s LDI operational budget, and $114,870 of ABS operational budget. This amount can be accommodated within the local board’s total draft budget for 2019/2020. As such, the local board’s approval will not have significant financial implications unless projects experience a significant overspend or underspend.

45. Regular quarterly updates on projects will be provided to the local board tracking expenditure and identifying any projects at risk of non-delivery, over or underspend.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. If the proposed local environment work programme is not approved at the local board’s June 2019 business meeting, there is a risk that the proposed projects may not be able to be delivered within the 2019/2020 financial year.

47. If the board supports Option C for the sediment related water quality testing programme and provides additional funding towards the monitoring of a control site (costing between $10,000 and $15,000 per annum per site), this will have implications on the funding available for other local board projects within the 2019/2020 financial year. Therefore, it is not recommended that the board allocate additional budget towards this project to support the inclusion of a control site. As detailed earlier in the report as Option A, other building sites being monitored across the region can act as control sites and this would mean that additional budget is not required.

48. The risks and proposed mitigation measures associated with each of the proposed projects have been outlined in Attachment B to this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. Subject to local board approval, the delivery of this work programme will commence in the new financial year (1 July 2019). Regular reporting on project delivery will be provided through the local board’s quarterly performance report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Environment work programme	201
b ⇩	Risks of proposed 2019/2020 local environment projects	203

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Halliwell - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Services work programme

File No.: CP2019/10381

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Services work programme (refer to Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Each financial year, a work programme is developed that details the activities to be delivered in the local board area. The development process is supported by a series of workshops with the local board.

3. To prepare for the 2019/2020 work programme, staff representing relevant operational council departments worked together to ensure an integrated approach.

4. This report presents the draft 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Services work programme which responds to the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes and reflects the priorities that have been agreed by departments across council.

5. Delivery of new activities in the work programme will commence from 1 July 2019. The local board will be updated quarterly on delivery progress, highlights, potential delays and budget implications.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Services work programme (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

6. The local board decides which activities to allocate its annual work programme budget to in order to achieve the outcomes set out in its 2017 Local Board Plan.

7. The development of the 2019/2020 work programme was built on the approach piloted for 2018/2019, which enabled staff to work in a more integrated way across departments to improve local outcomes.

8. In preparation for the 2019/2020 work programme process, an overview group was created from the following council departments to develop an agreed approach to achieve improved integration:

· Arts, Community and Events

· Community Facilities

· Libraries

· Local Board Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Parks, Sports and Recreation

· Community Services - Service, Strategy and Integration.

9. Teams made up of representatives from these departments were established to explore shared priorities and objectives for each local board area, and to develop the work programme in a collaborative way in response to local board plan outcomes.

10. Table 1 shows the business objectives and strategic alignment for community services departments.

Table 1: Adopted community-based strategies and plans

Department	Business objectives	Strategies and plans
Arts, Community and Events	Provision of services, programmes, events and facilities that strengthen and connect communities and create a sense of belonging and pride	· Hire Fee Framework · Events Policy · Toi Whītiki · Thriving Communities
Libraries	Provision of library services and programmes that support Aucklanders with reading and literacy, and opportunities to participate in community and civic life	· Te Kauroa
Parks, Sports and Recreation	Provision of services to actively engage Aucklanders to lead healthy lives, connect with nature and value our cultural identity	· Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan · Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan · Auckland Growing greener framework · Urban Ngāhere Strategy
Service, Strategy and Integration	Provision of service and asset planning advice and support more integrated delivery of community outcomes	· Community Facilities Network Plan · Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. At a series of workshops between September 2018 and May 2019, the local board provided feedback on proposed activities for the new financial year.

12. Initial workshops were an opportunity for the local board to communicate to staff its strategic direction. At subsequent workshops, the local board discussed its priorities for budget allocation and requested further scoping for existing and new activities.

13. The activities in the work programme respond to the outcomes and objectives that the local board identified in its 2017 Local Board Plan.

14. The work programme is made up of approved activities from previous financial years, including annually occurring events or projects and ongoing programmes. It also includes new initiatives supported by the local board.

15. Budget is allocated to activities for the 2019/2020 financial year. If zero-dollars are shown, this reflects that the project is able to be delivered in-house with no additional external technical advice and support.

16. Table 2 shows activities and allocated budget that are new in 2019/2020 or are significantly different to the 2018/2019 work programme.

Table 2: New and significant changes activities

Line number	Activity	Activity description	FY19 budget	FY20 budget
Local board plan outcome: Our environment is valued, protected and enhanced
701 (new)	Parkwood Reserve service assessment	Complete Parkwood Reserve service assessment to consider alignment to neighbouring private development	$0	$5000
Local board plan outcome: Healthy active communities
882 (new)	Activation of parks, places and open spaces	Enable and coordinate a range of 'free to attend' activities and events that support the local community to be physically active, either through the Out and About programme or other locally focused community or partner organisations and initiatives.	$0	$15,000
Local board plan outcome: Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities
1171 (new)	Māori Responsiveness	Work with Ngati Manuhiri to support the Relationship Agreement. Support other mana whenua iwi to reach their key aspirations.	$0	$10,000
1281 (new)	Community Arts Programme - Local stories with community engagement	Fund a contract to focus on bringing together local stories with responding activities.	$0	$10,000
1283 (new)	Volunteer Recognition	Deliver an event acknowledges and recognises volunteers in the community.	$0	$10,000

17. The way in which Community Places activities are presented in the work programme has changed for 2019/2020. Work related to the operation of venues for hire, community centres, houses, hubs and rural halls will now be reported by the following levels of service: Access, Activation and Intervention Programming.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. The work programme has been developed by a collective of operational council departments.

19. The interdepartmental connections made throughout the process will enable an integrated approach to delivery of the activities and allow for further collaboration throughout the year. These working relationships will also support an integrated approach to work programme development in future years.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The local board provided direction and feedback on the draft work programme at a series of workshops.

21. These workshops provided an opportunity for staff to gain an understanding of local board strategic direction and priorities. Budget allocation, activity content and scoping were discussed and refined.

22. The activities in the final work programme support achieving local board plan outcomes and objectives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. Community Services and Community Facilities have developed Karanga Atu! Karanga Mai!, a relationship approach which guides staff to deliver on agreed work programme activities and support the local board to achieve outcomes in its local board plan.

24. The approach responds to Māori aspirations and delivers on council’s statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori.

25. Table 3 outlines the activities in the 2019/2020 work programme where Māori responsiveness is the primary outcome.

Table 3: Māori impact of proposed activities

Line number

Activity

Māori impact

915

Celebrating Te Ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori. Whakatipu i te reo Māori - Upper Harbour

Celebrating te ao Māori with events and programmes including regionally coordinated and promoted programmes:

· Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Matariki and Māori Language Week

· engaging with Iwi and Māori organisations

· Whakatipu i te reo Māori - champion and embed te reo Māori in our libraries and communities.

1171

Māori Responsiveness

Improved ways of working in partnership with mana whenua and mataawaka. Improved understanding of Māori aspirations and the ability to respond more effectively to Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. Activities are funded from one or multiple budget sources which include: asset-based services (ABS) operational expenditure; locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital expenditure and operational expenditure.

27. Each activity line has a budget allocation, which covers the delivery for the 2019/2020 period. Where activity lines show a zero-dollar budget, this reflects that the implementation costs are met through staff salary or other funding sources.

28. The LDI budget for the local board for the 2019/2020 financial year is $827,903.

29. Where activities are cancelled or no longer required, the local board can reallocate the budget to an existing work programme activity or to create a new activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The key risks for activities that are managed through the work programme are non-delivery, time delays and budget overrun. The local board will be updated quarterly on delivery including highlighting any potential delays and budget implications.

31. As the work programme includes ongoing activity and annually occurring events or projects, the associated risks have been identified and managed in previous years. Additional risk management for these activities is ongoing and can be reported quarterly.

32. Risks and mitigations for new activity lines were considered during the scoping phase. There may be risks associated with trialling a new activity for the first year. These will be continually assessed and reported to the local board through quarterly reporting when required.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Delivery of approved activities will commence at the beginning of the financial year, 1 July 2019 and progress will be reported to the local board for each quarter.

34. The work programme identifies further decisions and milestones for each activity, these will be brought to the local board when appropriate.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachment

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Services work programme	211

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Libraries & Information

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Director Community Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme

File No.: CP2019/09459

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme was developed through a series of iterative workshops between key staff and local boards, beginning in October 2018. The projects identified in the work programme have been prioritised for investment based on a combination of local board feedback, staff assessment of assets and key stakeholder input.

4. The work programme provided in Attachments A and B to this report reflect the projects that were presented in the last local board workshop, with modifications based on feedback from the local board, and with the inclusion of projects proposed to be funded from regional programmes.

5. This report recommends that the board approves the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme and associated budget in full for projects commencing in the first year of the programme and in principle for the subsequent two years.

6. The work programme includes projects proposed to be funded from regional programmes, including local and sports field development (growth), and coastal and slips prevention programmes. Inclusion of these projects in the local board work programme is subject to approval by the Environment and Community Committee in July 2019.

7. It is recommended that the local board approve the inclusion of these projects in the work programme and provide feedback for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee.

8. A number of projects have been identified in the work programme as ‘risk adjusted programme’ projects. These are projects that have budget allocated in the 2020/2021 financial year.

9. Approval is sought for staff to commence work on these projects in the 2019/2020 financial year, so they can be delivered early in the event that other approved projects are delayed for any reason.

10. In order to expedite delivery of the work programme and to manage changes that may be required in a timely way, staff recommend that the board delegate decision-making for amendments to the approved programme to the chairperson.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme as detailed in the following attachments to the agenda report:

i) Attachment A – Build, Maintain, Renew

ii) Attachment B – Community Leases.

b) approve in principle the 2020-2022 Community Facilities work programme (years 2 and 3) as detailed in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

c) approve the risk-adjusted programme projects identified in Attachment A to the agenda report as projects that may be delivered in advance of the expected delivery year, if required to meet expected financial expenditure for the 2019/2020 financial year.

d) note that approval of budget allocation in the 2019/2020 year for multi-year projects may commit the board to the allocation of subsequent years’ budgets.

e) note that the inclusion in the 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme of projects that are funded from the Coastal Renewals, Slips Prevention and Local Parks and Sports Field Development budgets are subject to approval of the identified budget allocation by the Environment and Community Committee in July 2019.

f) provide feedback for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee in relation to the projects funded from the Coastal Renewals, Slips Prevention and Local Parks and Sports Field Development budgets.

g) note that budget allocation for all projects in the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme are best current estimates, and amendments may be required to the work programme to accommodate final costs as the year progresses.

h) delegate authority to the chairperson to approve minor amendments to the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme following receipt of written advice from staff.

i) delegate authority to the Manager Community Leases to use the agreed streamlined renewal process for lease renewals without variations.

Horopaki

Context

11. Community facilities and open spaces provide important community services to the people of Auckland. They contribute to building strong, healthy, and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities.

12. These activities improve lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride amongst residents. Work programmes are presented to local boards for approval each year. The 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme (Attachments A and B), contains information on all proposed projects to be delivered by Community Facilities, including capital works projects, leasing and operational maintenance.

13. Staff have engaged with the local board in the development of the work programme through a number of workshops, including:

· 1 November 2018 – the board discussed their priorities for the future work programme

· 14 March 2019 – the board reviewed the first draft work programme and provided feedback

· 9 May 2019 – staff provided any further information requested in the March workshop and reviewed the revised draft work programme.

14. This year’s work programme is a three-year programme to clearly demonstrate the phasing of project delivery and to enable the organisation to prepare for delivery. The work programme is subject to a rolling review and each year the local board will be asked to approve a new three-year work programme.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Investment in the capital works programme will ensure that council facilities and open spaces in the Upper Harbour Local Board area remain valuable and well-maintained community assets.

16. The overall capital works programme includes projects for which the board has discretion to allocate budget, referred to as the local programme, and projects from regional programmes.

17. Specific projects within the work programme may have budget allocated from two or more budget sources, including budgets from both local and regional programmes.

18. The work programme includes both new projects and existing projects that have been continued from the previous financial year where those projects require multiple years for delivery (multi-year projects).

19. Any projects that have budget approved in the current 2018/2019 financial year, but are unable to be delivered this year, will be deferred. Deferred budgets will be added to the work programme at a later date.

Local programme

20. The local programme includes those projects that the board is funding from its discretionary capital expenditure budgets, including:

· renewals: the board can allocate its renewals budget towards the renewal of any council-owned asset.

· locally driven initiative (LDI): the board has the discretion to allocate its LDI budget to any projects that deliver a council asset or as a capital grant to a third party to deliver an asset made available for public use.

21. In preparing recommendations for the local programme, a number of matters have been considered, including:

· strategic documents, e.g. local board plan

· service assessment input from Community Services

· asset condition assessments

· input from operational maintenance teams and staff working within facilities

· budget availability.

22. The Community Facilities work programme supports the achievement of the following 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan priorities:

· empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities

· healthy and active communities

· efficient and effective transport links.

23. Other strategic documents of particular relevance have included the Upper Harbour Local Board Strategic Play Assessment, Upper Harbour Auckland Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy and the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan. These have influenced recommendations in the work programme through:

· Huntington Reserve develop play space: Upper Harbour Local Board Strategic Play Assessment

· Limeburners Reserve develop esplanade with walkway: Upper Harbour Local Board Strategic Play Assessment

· Hosking Reserve development: Upper Harbour Local Board Strategic Play Assessment

· implement actions from the greenways plan: Upper Harbour Greenways Plan and proposed refresh plan

· Auckland urban forest planting strategy: Auckland Urban Forest (Ngahere Strategy).

24. Some of the key projects to be accommodated in the work programme include:

· Upper Harbour: develop an indoor sports facility (one local initiative)

· Unsworth Reserve: sports field upgrade and new toilet facility

· Scott Point: develop sustainable sports park

· Upper Harbour: implement actions from the marine sport facility audit

· Fernhill escarpment: renewal of walkway and wayfinding signage

· Albany Lakes: plant electrical facility upgrade

· Albany Pools: remove climbing wall and install new feature.

25. The phasing of projects over various years is recommended to meet budget requirements. In this regard, careful consideration has been given to the delivery timing of the above key projects which has meant that the Hobsonville War Memorial Reserve play space, renewal of the basketball half court at Landing Reserve, and the filtration plant upgrade at the Albany Pools will be phased in later years.

26. The proposed work programme in Attachment A contains:

· 34 projects, excluding leases and contract lines over three years

· indicative cost of $2.886 million for proposed projects in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Regional programme

27. The 2018-2028 Long-term Plan includes budgets which support the delivery of regional programmes. These budgets are allocated to specific projects within a regional programme by the Governing Body.

28. Where budget is allocated to a project in the regional programme that falls within a local board decision-making allocation (e.g. a local park), that project is included in the local board work programme. The local board then has decision-making responsibility for that project, within the parameters set by the Governing Body, namely location, scope and budget.

29. Regional budgets include:

· local parks and sports field development (growth)

· coastal renewals

· slips prevention and remediation.

30. Projects in these regional programmes are identified and prioritised based on consideration of a number of factors. For the local parks and sports field development programme, these factors include:

· extent to which residential growth is generating demand for the project

· current levels of provision

· available budget.

31. For coastal renewals and slips prevention and remediation, these factors include:

· asset condition

· relative hazard and risk

· available budget.

32. The allocation of budget to specific projects will be approved by the Environment and Community Committee in July 2019.

33. The local board has an opportunity to provide formal feedback, via resolution of this report, for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee prior to approval of the regional programmes.

Capital programme delivery

Cost estimates subject to change

34. Budget allocations within the work programme are best estimates only. Project costings are subject to change and refinement as projects progress through the design and delivery process. Greater clarity will be determined around the specific work required and the cost of delivery of that work once the details are defined.

35. The delivery of individual projects is managed within the overall work programme budget for each local board. Where significant changes to project budgets may need to be considered, or if new projects are added to the work programme, changes may be required to the programme to accommodate final project costs as the year progresses.

Risk adjusted programme

36. A number of projects have been identified in the work programme as ‘risk adjusted programme’ projects.

37. These are projects that have budget allocated in the 2020/2021 financial year (i.e. year two of the three-year programme). Staff propose to commence work in the 2019/2020 year on the delivery of these risk adjusted projects.

38. By progressing these identified projects alongside the 2019/2020 projects in the programme, it is intended that, should projects identified for delivery in year one of the work programme be delayed for any reason, staff will be able to proceed with agreed alternative projects to ensure that the full annual budget is delivered each year.

39. Approval is sought from the local board for staff to commence work on those projects identified in the work programme as risk adjusted programme projects in the 2019/2020 year.

Delegation for approval of changes to the work programme

40. The delivery of the proposed work programme in an efficient and timely manner may require amendments to be made to the agreed work programme during the course of the year. Such amendments could include:

· changes to project scope, budgets, timing

· addition of new projects within available budget

· cancelling or putting approved projects on hold.

41. Any changes to the approved work programme require approval from the local board. Approval will normally be sought through resolution at a business meeting.

42. Local boards are also able to delegate authority to approve some or all amendments to the work programme to the chairperson, to another member of the local board, or to staff. Such delegation would allow changes to be made without the time-frames required to provide formal reports and would support the efficient delivery of the work programme.

43. Should the local board choose to delegate authority to approve changes to the work programme, it is anticipated that any changes would be workshopped with the local board prior to any delegated decision being taken. Any changes made under delegation would be reported back to the local board in their quarterly report.

Leasing work programme

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

45. In Attachment B, Community Leases provides a detailed list of the community leases and licences that will expire or are due for renewal over the 2019/2020 financial year. Following approval of the work programme, staff will proceed with review and renewal of these leases and licences as appropriate during the course of the financial year.

46. Two additional project lines include those leases and licences proposed to be progressed in the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 financial years respectively. It also includes the additional leases and licences that will be deferred from the 2018/2019 financial year to the 2019/2020 financial year.

47. Straightforward lease renewals without variations will be processed in accordance with agreed delegations with a written memo to the local board, providing the board the opportunity to request further information or a formal report. More complex community leases will be reported to the local board at a business meeting.

Operational maintenance work programme

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

· increasing the long-term durability of Community Facilities assets

· improving the safety of Community Facilities assets

· ensuring the enjoyment of Community Facilities assets by the users.

49. In the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme, there are three line items dedicated to all maintenance in the local board area:

· Full facilities maintenance contracts: these contracts include all buildings, parks and open space assets, sports fields, coastal management and storm damage response. From 1 July 2019, council is responsible for streetscapes maintenance which has been transferred from Auckland Transport.

· Arboriculture maintenance contracts: these contracts include all tree management and maintenance.

· Ecological restoration maintenance contracts: these contracts include pest plant management within ecologically significant areas and animal pest management across all parks and reserves.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. The 2019-2022 work programme has been developed in consultation with other council departments as part of the council’s integrated local board work programme approach. This approach aimed to improve the quality of advice for the local board through collaboration and understanding across departments.

52. In particular, the council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department were involved in the development of the Upper Harbour Auckland Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy knowing phase, and the Upper Harbour Local Board Strategic Play Assessment scoped projects that informed the three-year work programme

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. The Community Facilities work programme has been created through a combination of local board feedback, asset condition assessments and agreed levels of service.

54. The 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme has been considered by the local board in a series of workshops from October 2018 to May 2019. The views expressed by local board members during the workshops have informed the recommended work programmes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. The 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme ensures that all facilities and open space assets continue to be well-maintained assets that benefit the local community, including Māori. When developing and delivering work programmes, consideration is given to how the activities can contribute to Māori wellbeing, values, culture and traditions.

56. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua, then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

57. Staff are also attending mana whenua forums monthly to receive feedback on specific projects within the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme.

58. Activities in the work programmes that are specific to Māori outcomes include:

· Auckland Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy

· Huntington Reserve – develop play space.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

59. The following table summarises the relevant budgets, proposed allocation and the balance of unallocated budget available:

Local budgets	2019/2020	2020/2021	2021/2022
Renewals - budget	$1,083,000	$489,403	$870,693
Renewals - proposed allocation	$1,083,000	$489,403	$860,693
Renewals - unallocated budget	$0	$0	$0

Growth and development - allocation	$1,000,000	$5,000,000	$125,000
Coastal renewals - allocation	$0	$0	$0
Slips prevention – allocation	$220,000	$0	$0

LDI capex - proposed allocation	$555,000	$1,028,649	$0

LDI opex - proposed allocation	$28,000	$28,000	$28,000

60. The proposed work programme can be accommodated within the available local board budgets. Approval of the work programme does not have significant financial implications, unless projects experience a significant overspend or underspend.

61. Regular updates on the delivery of the programme will be provided to the local board. These updates will identify progress of all projects and potential amendments to the approved programme, including changes to budget allocation and timing.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. Where a work programme activity cannot be completed on time due to unforeseen circumstances, this will be signalled to the local board at the earliest opportunity. The risk adjusted programme (RAP) will be used to progress those projects identified as ready to proceed under the RAP.

63. If the proposed Community Facilities work programme is not approved at the business meeting, there is a risk that the proposed projects may not be delivered within the 2019/2020 financial year.

64. The local board may also receive additional funding from the Governing Body derived from the sale of part of some reserves to support the New Zealand Transport Agency Northern Corridor Improvement Project. Should this additional funding be provided to the local board, it may require some adjustment of the approved work programme which will be reported to the local board for decision making during the coming financial year.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. Once approved, delivery of activities identified in the Community Facilities work programme will commence from 1 July 2019.

66. The work programmes identify if further decisions are required for each activity. These will be brought to the local board when appropriate.

67. Progress and updates on work programmes will be reported to the local board for each quarter of the financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2019-2022 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme: Build, Maintain, Renew	233
b ⇩	2019/2020 Upper Harbour Community Facilities work programme: Leases	239

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Leigh Radovan - Work Programme Lead

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

New road names for the Te Uru superblocks in the subdivision at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2019/09739

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to name two new public roads and seven new jointly owned access lots (JOALs), created by way of subdivision at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, by Fletcher Residential Limited, for superblocks 2 and 3 of the Te Uru village development within Hobsonville Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its March 2019 business meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved four new road names for the Te Uru development out of the 13 options provided by the applicant, Fletcher Residential Limited (resolution number UH/2019/23). The local board deferred decisions on the remaining nine road names in order to request further information from the applicant. A workshop was held in April 2019 which was attended by the local board, the applicant, and representatives from Ngati Whatua o Kaipara.

3. This report contains the revised road name options, developed by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara using the narrative of raranga (weaving) the harakeke (flax). The names are parts of the harakeke, or parts of the body that are involved in the weaving of the flax into objects. Inclusion of the proposed name ‘Paihere’ or its alternative ‘Rangitāmiro’, help to explain through their meaning that all the names in this locality need to be joined together and thus strengthened in order to grow and sustain themselves individually.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board has already approved the road names for superblock 1 and some names for superblocks 2 and 3 of Te Uru, with all names following the themes of raranga and harakeke. Those names previously approved will ‘weave’ together with the new proposed names, to create a cohesive narrative for the whole development.

5. It is recommended that the proposed road names are approved, as they meet the requirements of the Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines, demonstrate a clear local cultural theme, and have been provided by mana whenua.

6. The revised names are shown in the table below for consideration by the local board, along with meanings for the other four road names already approved:

Road number	Proposed name	Alternate	Meaning / translation
2	Ringa Matau Road	Neke Matau Road	Ringa Matu translates to right hand, which is emphasised through the weaving process. Neke Matau translates to ‘move to the right’, as the road it is naming is going to the right.
4	Taranui Road	Tarakoi Road	Taranui translates to a threatened native plant, as does Tarakoi.
1	Waenganui Road (already approved)		The centre, the middle, among, midst, amid, between, intervening space – in reference to the location of this road.
3	Te Rito Road (already approved)		Middle strand of the harakeke - considered the baby, surrounded by parents and grandparents in order to protect it. This lends itself to the term Pa Harakeke, also with reference to family.

JOAL number	Proposed name	Alternate	Note / translation
1	Matimati Place	Mikao Place	Both mean fingers - using your fingers in the weaving of the harakeke (dexterity of fingers was crucial in the creation of woven treasures).
2	Uma Grove	Poho Place	Uma and Poho both mean chest - relating to the heartbeat of the person weaving.
3	Ringa Maui Place	Nuku Maui Lane	The left hand as it is used during the weaving of harakeke. Nuku Maui means ‘to move left’ as the road it is naming is going to the left of the development.
4	Te Rau Place (already approved)		Leaf, frond, plume, spray, feather (decoration).
5	Ko Roa Lane	Rauroa Place	Ko Roa - The long strand in the middle or the harakeke. Rauroa - to be long.
6	Ko Nui Lane	Koro Matua Place	The use of the thumb for weaving. Another meaning is ‘thumb width’ which is a traditional measurement.
7	Ko Tohu Place (already approved)		To point out, show, indicate, point at.
8	Paihere Lane	Rangitāmiro Place	Paihere means to bond, unite, unify. Rangitāmiro means to join, to twist the frayed end of the harakeke together to strengthen it and make it stronger.
9	Hapori Whānui Lane	-	Means public / wider community.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following road names for the two new public roads and seven new private roads (jointly owned access lots), created by way of subdivision at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, for the Te Uru superblocks 2 and 3:

Road number	Proposed name
2	Ringa Matau Road
4	Taranui Road

JOAL number	Location	Proposed name
1	TU3, superblock 2	Matimati Place
2	TU5, superblock 3	Uma Grove
3	TU5, superblock 3	Ringa Maui Place
5	TU6, superblock 3	Ko Roa Lane
6	TU6, superblock 3	Ko Nui Place
8	TU4, superblock 2	Paihere Lane
9	TU5, superblock 3	Hapori Whānui Lane

Horopaki

Context

7. The Te Uru village subdivision sits within the wider Hobsonville Point special housing area. The development will provide approximately 200 new dwellings split across three main ‘superblock’ stages, each split into smaller blocks for reference and labeled TU3, TU4, and so on.

8. A map and site plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the report.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board has already approved the road names for superblocks 1 and some names for superblocks 2 and 3 of Te Uru, with all names following the themes of raranga and harakeke. Those names previously approved will ‘weave’ together with the new proposed names, to create a cohesive narrative for the whole development.

10. All of the names were developed by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, who have been working closely with the developer, Fletcher Residential Limited, to create an overarching design narrative for the Te Uru development, demonstrating a clear local cultural theme.

11. The developer provides all new residents with a home user guide which gives background information and detail on the development. This will be updated so future versions will contain an explanation and story of the road names within the development.

12. Approved resource consent reference numbers for the development are: BUN60312431 (LUC60312496, SUB60312497) and BUN60331736 (LUC60331871, SUB60331872).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The proposed road names have been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All standards are met, and all names listed in this report are acceptable for use.

14. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has also confirmed that all proposed names are acceptable for use and are not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

15. Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines typically require that road names reflect a local theme, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged, such as:

· a historical, cultural or ancestral linkage to an area, or

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature.

16. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara have provided proposed road names with a local cultural theme and a narrative that links to road names already approved across the wider Te Uru development, being the raranga (weaving) of the harakeke (flax).

17. The korero of this theme is based on whanaungatanga; the role of the parents and grandparents (the outer leaves of the harakeke), protect the children (the inner younger leaves of the harakeke), the future generations. The road names for the different superblock subdivisions within the Te Uru development ‘weave’ together under this narrative.

18. It is recommended that the proposed road names are approved, as they meet the requirements of the Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines, demonstrate a clear local cultural theme, and have been provided by mana whenua.

19. The full background to the proposed names is described by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara in the letter at Attachment C, with the name meanings set out in the tables at paragraph 6 of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Mana whenua consultation requirements have been met, with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara having been closely involved in this development and providing the proposed names.

23. The review sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which are then recorded on its New Zealand-wide land information database for street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Road layout: 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville	247
b ⇩	Location and maps: 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville	251
c ⇩	Letter from Ngati Whatua o Kaipara describing background of proposed names	253

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

20 June 2019

Changes to Upper Harbour Local Board standing orders

File No.: CP2019/09782

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide information about the implications of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Act 2019, and to recommend changes to the Upper Harbour Local Board’s standing orders to align with the change in the legislation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Act 2019 (LGRSAA) makes changes to various statutes, including the Local Government 2002 Act (LGA), the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Dog Control Act 1996, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the Rates Rebate Act 1973.

3. Prior to the legislation change, the LGA provided for an extraordinary meeting where:

a) it could be called by resolution, or by requisition by the mayor or one third of the members

b) the notice period was three days (unless it was called by resolution in which case, the notice period could be not less than 24 hours)

c) if it needed to be called earlier, it could be called by the mayor or, if the mayor was unavailable, the chief executive. The notice period could be not less than 24 hours.

4. As a result of the change, a meeting called in accordance with c) above is now referred to as an ‘emergency meeting’ rather than an’ extraordinary meeting’.

5. There is a change to the definition of public notice, which requires notification on a council’s website in addition to a newspaper.

6. There is a change to the definition of ‘working day’ to exclude a province’s anniversary.

7. Staff are taking the opportunity, while considering changes to standing orders, to propose an unrelated change to the current standing orders regarding attendance by electronic link. The current standing order requires a member seeking to attend by electronic link to be representing the council and unable to attend. The proposed change removes the requirement to be representing the council.

8. As detailed in LGA Schedule 7 clause 27 (3), a change to standing orders requires a 75 per cent majority vote. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s standing orders need to be changed to reflect the changes in the law.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the new statutory responsibility of the chief executive:

facilitating and fostering representative and substantial elector participation in elections and polls held under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

b) amend standing order 2.3.3 by replacing:

Calling an extraordinary meeting at earlier time

The mayor or chairperson, or if they are unavailable, the chief executive, may call a meeting for an earlier time if this is necessary to deal with the business.

The person calling such a meeting must give each member, and the chief executive, notice of the time and place of the meeting and the matters in respect of which the meeting is being called, by whatever means is reasonable in the circumstances, at least 24 hours before the meeting.

with:

Calling an emergency meeting

The mayor or chairperson, or if they are unavailable, the chief executive, may call an emergency meeting for an earlier time than is provided in standing order 2.3.2, if this is necessary to deal with the business.

c) amend standing order 7.2.3 by replacing:

Notification of extraordinary meetings

Where any extraordinary meeting of the local board or a committee is called, and notice of that meeting cannot be given in the manner required or permitted (by Standing Order 7.2.1 as appropriate), Auckland Council shall publicly notify or otherwise advertise that meeting and the general nature of business to be transacted at the meeting as soon as practicable before the meeting is to be held, as is reasonable in the circumstances.

with:

Notification of extraordinary / emergency meetings

Where the council calls an extraordinary or emergency meeting but cannot give public notice to the extent required in standing order 7.2.1, the council must publicly notify the meeting, and the general nature of business to be considered at it, as soon as reasonably practicable before the meeting. If it is not practicable to publish a notice in newspapers before the meeting, the council must publicly notify the meeting as soon as practicable on the council’s website and in any other manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

d) amend standing order 9.4 (Definitions) by replacing:

Extraordinary meeting has the meaning defined in clause 22 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

with:

Emergency meeting has the meaning defined in clause 22A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Extraordinary meeting has the meaning defined in clause 22 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

e) amend standing order 9.4 (Definitions) by replacing:

Meeting means:

a) any first or ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the local board

with:

Meeting means:

b) any first or ordinary or extraordinary or emergency meeting of the local board.

f) amend standing order 9.4 (Definitions) by replacing:

Publicly notified means notified to members of the public by a notice printed in appropriate newspapers circulating in the Auckland region.

with:

Publicly notified means made known to members of the public by a notice on the council’s website, until any opportunity for review or appeal has lapsed, and by a notice printed in appropriate newspapers circulating in the Auckland region.

g) amend standing order 9.4 (Definitions) by replacing:

Working day means any day of the week other than:

a) Saturday, Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, ANZAC Day, the sovereign’s birthday and Labour Day

b) a day in the period commencing with 25 December in any year and ending with 15 January in the following year.

c) a day in the period commencing with 25 December in any year and ending with 15 January in the following year.

with:

Working day means any day of the week other than:

a) Saturday, Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, ANZAC Day, the sovereign’s birthday and Labour Day

b) where Waitangi Day or ANZAC Day falls on a weekend, the following Monday

c) Auckland Anniversary Day

d) a day in the period commencing with 20 December in any year and ending with 10 January in the following year.

h) amend the following standing orders:

i) standing order 2.3:

replace the heading ‘Extraordinary meetings’ with ‘Extraordinary and emergency meetings’

ii) standing order 7.2.4:

replace the heading ‘Extraordinary meetings’ with ‘Extraordinary and emergency meetings’

iii) standing orders 1.1.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 7.3.2:

replace the words ‘extraordinary meeting’ with ‘extraordinary or emergency meeting’.

i) amend standing order 3.3.3 to remove the requirement to be representing the council:

Conditions for attending by electronic link

The local board or its committees may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Situations where approval can be given are:

a) where the member is ~~representing the council~~ at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable

b) to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity

c) in emergencies

d) in any other circumstances the local board deems appropriate.

The member who is seeking to attend by electronic link may not take part in the vote to give approval. The only exception is where there is an emergency, in which case the member seeking to attend by electronic link can take part in the vote.

Horopaki

Context

9. The LGRSAA came into force on 21 March 2019. The act is an omnibus act in that it makes minor amendments to several pieces of legislation.

10. The LGRSAA amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 to include a new principle for ‘representative and substantial electoral participation in local elections and polls’, and imposes a new responsibility on the chief executive of the council by amending the chief executive’s responsibilities in the LGA section 42(2)(d):

(da) facilitating and fostering representative and substantial elector participation in elections and polls held under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

11. It amends the definition of ‘public notice’ and ‘publicly notified’ under the LGA and the LGOIMA to require notification, both on the council’s website and in newspapers.

12. It creates a new category of council meeting called an ‘emergency meeting’, separate from ‘extraordinary meeting’. Previously, extraordinary meetings had two types of notice requirements. Where the more urgent form of notice is used, the meeting is now referred to as an ‘emergency meeting’. This applies to giving notice to members under the LGA and to public notices under LGOIMA.

13. It amends the definition of ‘working day’ under the LGA and LGOIMA to exclude a province’s anniversary day being counted as a ‘working day’ and alters the dates of the Christmas non-working days period from 25 December to 25 January, to 20 December to 10 January.

14. It makes minor amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Rates Rebates Act 1973 and makes changes to the LGA by specifying timeframes for making certain documents publicly available. These legislative changes are minor in nature and do not impact on local board standing orders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The changes made by the LGRSAA are minor in nature, nevertheless it is necessary to amend the Upper Harbour Local Board’s standing orders to align the language to reflect current legislation.

16. The Upper Harbour Local Board may also wish to consider a change to standing orders which is not related to LGRSAA. Standing order 3.3.3 provides conditions for attending a meeting by electronic link:

Conditions for attending by electronic link

The local board or its committees may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Situations where approval can be given are:

a) where the member is representing the council at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable

b) to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity

c) in emergencies

d) in any other circumstances the local board deems appropriate.

17. This standing order was adopted in 2015. Since that time, technology has improved and remote attendance to most local board business meetings is now possible. However, the conditions in the standing order are very limiting and do not allow attendance by a member who is out of Auckland for non-council reasons.

18. Staff recommend amending the standing order by removing the requirement to represent the council in standing order 3.3.3 a):

a) where the member is ~~representing the council~~ at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The changes to the standing orders do not impact on the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. This is a report to 21 local boards. All local boards need to make changes to align their standing orders to LGRSAA. Changes to standing orders require a vote of not less than 75 per cent of the members present.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The changes to standing orders brought about through the LGRSAA do not impact on the Māori community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. There are no financial implications to making these changes to standing orders.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. LGA Schedule 7 clause 27 (2) states that the standing orders of a local authority must not contravene the LGA or any other act. If local board standing orders are not aligned to changes in the legislation, there is a risk that the local board may act inconsistently with the legislation by relying on standing orders that are not up to date.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board resolution to amend the standing orders, staff will make the appropriate changes and recirculate the updated standing orders.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Polly Kenrick - Business Process Manager

Authorisers

Kerri Foote – Operations and Improvements Manager

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] One of the key objectives of the detailed business case will be to identify opportunities to deliver the facilities at lower cost to council. Opportunities to increase revenue, undertake partnerships or obtain sponsorship will be investigated.

[2] Rosedale Landfill is not currently a service asset, but there are long-standing plans, dating back to the legacy North Shore City Council, to use the land to provide a range of recreational opportunities. Implementation of these plans has been delayed due to ongoing land instability and methane gas emissions.

[3] The population of the Upper Harbour Local Board area in 2018 was estimated at 67,148. Council growth models project that the Upper Harbour Local Board area will grow by 30,866 people, or 10,288 households (average of a 3-person household), by 2028. Data projections over the next 30 years, show the areas anticipated to have the most growth are Albany, Hobsonville corridor, Hobsonville Point, Scott Point and Whenuapai. Of these areas, Albany is the only area where council is not actively acquiring additional open space.

Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

Installation of tee pads	$21,513.50
Other charges (project manager time, arborist, etc)	$1,000.00
Total cost	$22,513.50
Approved budget	$16,000.00
Shortfall	-$6,513.50

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager