I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Tuesday, 17 September 2019 1.00pm Claris Conference
Centre |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Izzy Fordham |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Luke Coles |
|
Members |
Jeff Cleave |
|
|
Susan Daly |
|
|
Shirley Johnson |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Guia Nonoy Democracy Advisor
9 September 2019
Contact Telephone: (09) 301 0101 Email: guia.nonoy@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
6.1 Valedictory Speech and Reflections 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 6
9 Public Forum 6
10 Extraordinary Business 6
11 Environmental agency and community group reports 7
12 Aotea / Great Barrier Island Local and Capital Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant allocations 43
13 Temporary arrangements for urgent decisions and staff delegations during the election period 111
14 Aotea Education Trust accountability report and approval for unspent funds 117
15 Approving the draft Aotea / Great Barrier Village Parks Activation Plan for public engagement and reallocation of funds for implementation 131
16 Receive the Aotea Great Barrier feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report 177
17 Informal local board workshop views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review 249
18 Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 287
19 Auckland Transport September 2019 update to the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 337
20 Aotea/Great Barrier Governance Forward Work Calendar 343
21 Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings 349
22 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
Chairperson IM Fordham will open the meeting and welcome everyone in attendance.
Member J Cleave will lead a karakia.
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.
That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 as true and correct record. |
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To provide the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board members the opportunity to make a brief (3 minute) end of term or valedictory address. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. This is an opportunity for the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board members to make a brief end of term or valedictory address prior to the 2019 Local Government elections. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation That the Aotea/ Great Barrier Local Board: a) receive the end of term address from 2016- 2019 local board members. |
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
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 Great Barrier 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.
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.
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.”
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Environmental agency and community group reports
File No.: CP2019/17001
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide an opportunity for Aotea Great Barrier community groups and environmental agencies with interest or role in the environment or the work of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board to have items considered as part of the board’s business meeting.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The Environment Committee of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board has been discontinued from the start of this electoral term 2016/2019. To continue with the tradition of open and more direct interaction between the board, local groups and others, the local board has extended an invitation to either speak at the board’s business meeting via Public Forum or put items forward and have reports included in the agenda.
3. Inclusion of items on the agenda is at the discretion of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Chairperson in discussion with the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Relationship Manager to ensure the material is appropriate and will not create any issues. Any items submitted will be included under a cover report which will have the recommendation that “item xyz be noted or received”.
Recommendation That the Aotea/ Great Barrier Local Board: a) note the following reports: i) Great Barrier Island Biosecurity Report July – August 2019 ii) Department of Conservation operations report – September 2019 iii) Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust report – September 2019 iv) Aotea / Great Barrier International Dark Sky Sanctuary Advisory Group (DAG) final meeting report, August 2019.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Great Barrier Island Biosecurity Report July - August 2019 |
9 |
b⇩ |
Department of Conservation operations report - September 2019 |
21 |
c⇩ |
Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust report - September 2019 |
23 |
d⇩ |
Aotea / Great Barrier International Dark Sky Sanctuary Advisory Group final meeting report |
25 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Aotea / Great Barrier Island Local and Capital Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant allocations
File No.: CP2019/15146
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To fund, part-fund or decline grant applications from Local and Capital Grants Round One 2019/2020 and one deferred application from Capital Grants Round Two, 2018/2019.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. This report presents applications received in Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Capital and Local Grants, Round One 2019/2020 (refer to Attachment B and C).
3. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board adopted the Aotea Great Barrier Local Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 19 March 2019 (refer to Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable capital and community grants submitted to the local board.
4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $115,000.00 and a total capital grants budget of $252,000.00 for the 2019/2020 financial year.
5. A total of 16 applications were received for capital and local grants round one 2019/2020. Seven applications were received for capital grants, with a total requested of $172,449.50. A total of nine applications were received for local grants, with a total requested of $72,213.85. One application has been deferred from capital grants round two 2018/2019 requesting $50,000.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Aotea / Great Barrier Capital and Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 listed in tables one and two below. Table one: Aotea / Great Barrier Local Grants, Round One 2019/2020 grant applications
Table two: Aotea / Great Barrier Capital Grants, Round One 2019/2020 grant applications
Table three: Aotea / Great Barrier Capital Grants, Round Two 2018/2019 deferred grant application
|
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; and
· any additional accountability requirements.
9. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2018/2019 on 19 March 2019 (see Attachment A) and will operate two capital and local grant rounds for this financial year.
10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
11. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria have been utilised to assess all applications. 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
12. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department, will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.
13. 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
14. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications using the priorities identified in the local board grant programme.
15. 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.”
16. A summary of each application received in round one 2019/2020 (see Attachment B and C) is provided.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
17. 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. The council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.
18. Three applicants applying to Aotea / Great Barrier capital and local grants round one indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
19. Provision for allocating grants to community groups is within the 2018-2028 Long-Term Plan and 2019/2020 local board agreement.
20. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $115,000.00 and a total capital grants budget of $252,000.00 for the 2019/2020 financial year.
21. A total of 16 applications were received for capital and local grants round one 2019/2020. Seven applications were received for capital grants, with a total requested of $172,449.50. A total of nine applications were received for local grants, with a total requested of $72,213.85. One application has been deferred from capital grants round two 2018/2019 requesting $50,000.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
22. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
23. Following the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board allocation of funding for 2019/2020 capital and local grants, round one, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Aotea / Great Barrier Island Local and Capital Grants Programme 2019/2020 |
49 |
b⇩ |
Aotea / Great Barrier Island Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant applications |
53 |
c⇩ |
Aotea / Great Barrier Island Capital Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant applications |
85 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Robert Walsh - Grants Advisor |
Authorisers |
Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager Shane King - Head of Service Support Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Temporary arrangements for urgent
decisions and staff delegations during the election period
File No.: CP2019/16852
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek approval for temporary arrangements during the election period for:
· urgent decisions
· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Between the last local board business meeting of the current electoral term, and the first business meeting of the new term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.
3. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results. The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting.
4. As for each of the previous terms, temporary arrangements are needed for urgent decisions of the local board, and decisions made by staff under existing delegated authority.
5. All local boards have made a general delegation to the Chief Executive, subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board, which require, amongst other matters, staff to consult with local board portfolio holders on certain matters. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the chair. After the election, there will be no local board portfolio holders or chairs to consult until new arrangements are made in the new term.
6. As a temporary measure, approval is sought from the local board to allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting, without consulting with the nominated portfolio holder or local board chair. Staff will consult with the local board chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.
7. Appointments made by the local board to external bodies will cease on the date of the election. New appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) utilise the board’s existing urgent decision-making process between the final local board business meeting and the commencement of the term of office of new local board members] OR [delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make, on behalf of the local board, urgent decisions that may be needed between the final local board business meeting and the commencement of the term of office of new local board members] b) note that from the commencement of the term of office of new local board members until the inaugural meeting of the incoming local board, urgent decision-making will be undertaken by the Chief Executive under existing delegations c) approve that staff, as a temporary measure, can make business as usual decisions under their existing delegated authority without requiring compliance with the requirement in the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder (or chair where there is no portfolio holder in place), from 22 October 2019, noting that staff will consult with the chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the new term d) note that existing appointments by the local board to external bodies will cease at the election and new appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term. |
Horopaki
Context
8. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results (Sections 115 and 116, Local Electoral Act 2001). The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019.
9. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting (Clause 14, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).
10. Following the last local board meeting of the current electoral term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.
11. As with each of the previous electoral terms, temporary arrangements need to be made for:
· urgent decisions
· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Urgent decisions
12. Between the last business meeting and the declaration of results on 21 October, current members are still in office, and can make urgent decisions if delegated to do so. If the board does not have an existing urgent decision-making process already in place, it is recommended that the board delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board during this period.
13. The urgent decision-making process enables the board to make decisions where it is not practical to call the full board together. The Local Government Act 2002 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees, members of the local board or Auckland Council staff, any of its responsibilities, duties and powers, with some specific exceptions. This legislation enables the urgent decision-making process.
14. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a memo stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required.
15. Board members that have delegated responsibilities, for example, delegations to provide feedback on notified resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement, may continue to exercise those delegations until their term of office ends on 22 October (or earlier if the delegation was specified to end earlier).
16. Between the declaration of results and the inaugural meeting, the current members are no longer in office, the new members cannot act until they give their statutory declaration, and new chairs and deputies will not be in place. During this period, urgent decisions will be made by the Chief Executive under his existing delegated authority (which includes a financial cap).
Decisions made by staff under delegated authority
17. All local boards have made a delegation to the Chief Executive. The delegation is subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board. These delegation protocols require, amongst other things, staff to consult with nominated portfolio holders on certain issues. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the local board chair.
18. The most common area requiring consultation is landowner consents relating to local parks. The portfolio holder can refer the matter to the local board for a decision.
19. Parks staff receive a large number of landowner consent requests each month that relate to local parks across Auckland. The majority of these need to be processed within 20 working days (or less), either in order to meet the applicant’s timeframes and provide good customer service, or to meet statutory timeframes associated with resource consents. Only a small number of landowner requests are referred by the portfolio holder to the local board for a decision.
20. Prior to the election, staff can continue to consult with portfolio holders as required by the delegation protocols (or chair where there is no portfolio holder). However, after the election, there will be no portfolio holders or chairs in place to consult with until new arrangements are made in the new term.
21. During this time, staff will need to continue to process routine business as usual matters, including routine requests from third parties for landowner approval such as commercial operator permits, temporary access requests and affected party approvals.
22. As a temporary measure, it is recommended that the local board allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting. This is irrespective of the requirements of the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder on landowner consents. Staff will consult with the local board chairperson following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.
Appointment to external bodies
23. Appointments made by the local board to external bodies will cease at the election, so local board members will not be able to attend meetings of their organisations as an Auckland Council representative from 22 October 2019, until new appointments are made in the new term. Staff will advise the affected external bodies accordingly.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
24. The arrangements proposed in this report enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. They apply only to local boards. The reduced political decision-making will be communicated to the wider council group.
25. The Governing Body has made its own arrangements to cover the election period, including delegating the power to make urgent decisions between the last Governing Body meeting of the term and the day the current term ends, to any two of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole. From the commencement of the term of office of the new members until the Governing Body’s inaugural meeting, the Chief Executive will carry out decision-making under his current delegations.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
26. This is a report to all local boards that proposes arrangements to enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. This will enable the council to meet timeframes and provide good customer service.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
27. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have specific implications for Māori, and the arrangements proposed in this report do not affect the Māori community differently to the rest of the community.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
28. The decisions sought in this report are procedural and there are no significant financial implications.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
29. There is a risk that unforeseen decisions will arise during this period, such as a decision that is politically significant or a decision that exceeds the Chief Executive’s financial delegations.
30. This risk has been mitigated by scheduling meetings as late possible in the current term and communicating to reporting staff that significant decisions should not be made during October 2019.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
31. The decision of the local board will be communicated to senior staff so that they are aware of the arrangements for the month of October 2019.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Aotea Education Trust accountability report and approval for unspent funds
File No.: CP2019/16677
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To receive the end-of-year accountability report (Attachment A) of the Aotea Education Trust (the Trust) and approve its request to use $5268.32 in unspent funds that were allocated to the Trust in the 2018/2019 work programme.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The local board received a letter from the Trust dated 5 August 2019 (Attachment B), requesting the use of $5268.32 unspent funds, that were allocated to the Trust in the 2018/2019 work programme.
3. The Trust would like to use the 2018/2019 unspent funds to engage an experienced professional to assist with the licensing process to establish an early childhood education drop-off service on Aotea/Great Barrier Island in 2019/2020.
4. The establishment of an early childhood education centre aligns with the local board plan outcomes “our people thrive and life is good”, and “our economy is sustainable and prosperous”.
5. At a workshop on 2 September 2019, the local board reviewed and discussed the proposal by the Trust to establish an early childhood education centre, including the use of local board funds.
6. Staff recommend that the local board approve the Trust’s request to use unspent 2018/2019 funds towards establishing an early childhood education service in 2019/2020 because there is a significant demand for this service in the community.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) receive the end-of-year accountability report and letter dated 5 August 2019 from the Aotea Education Trust. b) approve the Aotea Education Trust to use $5268.32 of unspent funds, allocated in the 2018/2019 work programme, towards the licensing process to establish an early childhood education drop-off service on Aotea/Great Barrier Island in 2019/2020. |
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Aotea Education Trust accountability report |
119 |
b⇩ |
Letter from Aotea Education Trust dated 6 August 2019 |
129 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Kathy Cumming – Strategic Broker, Community Empowerment Unit |
Authorisers |
Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Approving the draft Aotea / Great Barrier Village Parks Activation Plan for public engagement and reallocation of funds for implementation
File No.: CP2019/16776
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve the draft Aotea / Great Barrier Village Parks Activation Plan for community engagement and reallocation of $10,000 operational expenditure from development of the plan to implementation.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Staff have prepared a draft Aotea / Great Barrier Village Parks Activation Plan (the draft plan) for eight of the settlements on Aotea / Great Barrier Island: Claris, Tryphena, Port Fitzroy, Motairehe, Medlands, Okupu, Okiwi and Whangaparapara.
3. Preparation of the plan is identified in the 2018/2019 (Resolution GBI/2018/68) and 2019/2020 (Resolution GBI/2019/65) local board work programmes.
4. Development of the draft plan is consistent with the aspiration in the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 that: ‘All our villages have a park and community building that we love and look after, connected by walkways and cycle trails’.
5. The draft plan identifies proposed actions to improve the use of local parks and increase public satisfaction with them. There is a mixture of short and long-term actions.
6. The draft plan is now ready for the community to provide feedback and identify priorities for investment.
7. The draft plan identifies several improvements including the provision of park furniture, shelters, solar powered mobile phone recharging stations, picnic tables and tree swings.
8. The most significant action proposed in the plan is rerouting Shoal Bay Road at Mulberry Grove along the base of the cliff to better connect the park to the waterfront.
9. We recommend that the local board approve the draft plan to enable community engagement to be undertaken in January and February 2020 alongside the Aotea / Great Barrier Area Plan and the Aotea / Great Barrier Accessways and Linkages Plan.
10. The budget for development of the draft plan (including upcoming community engagement) is projected to be underspent by $10,000. We recommend the local board reallocate the remaining budget to the implementation of prioritised actions following community engagement.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) approve the draft Aotea / Great Barrier Village Parks Activation Plan (Attachment A of the agenda report) for community engagement during January and February 2020 b) approve the reallocation of the 2018/19 Locally Driven Initiative carry forward operational expenditure budget of $10,000 from the Aotea / Great Barrier Island Community Spaces and Reserves Activation Plan project to the Aotea / Great Barrier Community Spaces and Reserves Activation Plan Implementation project. |
Horopaki
Context
11. In June 2018, the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board approved the development of a plan to improve and activate local parks (the draft plan) (Resolution GBI/2018/68).
12. The focus of the draft plan is on local parks in each of the eight main settlements: Claris, Medlands, Motairehe, Okiwi, Okupu, Port Fitzroy, Tryphena and Whangaparapara.
13. The draft plan complements the draft Aotea / Great Barrier Access and Linkages Plan (also on this agenda – report number CP2019/15137) which aims to improve walkways and trails on the island. Together these seek to deliver on the aspiration in the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 that: ‘All our villages have a park and community building that we love and look after, connected by walkways and cycle trails’.
14. We engaged with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea, the public and key stakeholders to seek ideas for their parks in November and December 2018. Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aoteahave been unable to participate in the project to date (refer to paragraph 39).
15. Since then we have been working with the local board to develop the draft plan.
16. At the time of approval of the local board’s work programme for 2019/2020 (Resolution GBI/2019/65), the local board agreed that the draft plan would be presented for adoption in August 2019.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
The draft plan
17. The draft plan (Attachment A) has been prepared based on community feedback, staff advice and workshops with the local board.
18. The key themes from the community feedback are:
· tree swings are a popular item and there could be more in local parks
· children across the island want more challenging play equipment
· the idea of solar powered phone recharging stations for mobile phones and mobile devices like iPads was well supported
· provide more seating and picnic tables
· provide more shelters and hangout spaces
· the removal of bin and recycling sites next to local parks are an opportunity to enhance parks.
19. The draft plan sets out short and long-term actions for improving and making local parks and open space more useful for the community in the island’s key settlements.
20. The priority actions in the draft plan are:
· provide picnic tables including some with solar recharging stations for mobile phones, more seating and shelter
· develop a master plan for the Council-owned areas in Claris to improve use of the flat space for play and informal recreation
· re-route Shoal Bay Road along the base of the cliff at Mulberry Grove to reconnect park land either side of the road and create a more cohesive park space
· install hammocks and tree swings at Okiwi Park
· work with the Department of Conservation and the Glenfern Trust to create improved connections between Port Fitzroy Wharf, the Landing Reserve and Glenfern Regional Park
· provide a flying fox at Okupu
· install a basketball hoop on the old firefighting shed pad at Motairehe
· use bollards or planting in the grass area in front of Whangaparapara Lodge to create a more useable space and to more clearly identify this as public land
· add more challenging play equipment at Medlands playground.
21. The first phase of community engagement had a low response rate online and at the community drop in sessions. We supplemented the feedback with key stakeholder interviews and workshops at schools with local children.
22. We recommend the local board engage with the local community on the proposals in the plan, particularly around actions such as the proposed rerouting of Shoal Bay Road at Mulberry Grove.
Community engagement
23. Community engagement on the draft plan will provide the opportunity for the community to provide feedback on the proposed actions and their priorities for implementation.
24. The local board will be seeking feedback on other related projects during January and February 2020. These projects include the draft Great Barrier Trail Great Barrier Access and Linkages Plan, the Aotea / Great Barrier Area Plan (in development) and the local board plan 2020.
25. Staff will work together to prepare a coordinated approach to community engagement and feedback on these plans.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
Auckland Transport
26. Auckland Transport have provided feedback on one of the two actions which impact on roads or road reserve.
27. Auckland Transport support the rerouting of Shoal Bay Road at Mulberry Grove and have indicated they would fund the road element of the project.
28. Whangaparapara Lodge Reserve is road reserve owned by Auckland Transport and managed as local park. Auckland Transport have not provided any feedback on the proposal to restrict car parking on this space.
29. We will seek further input from Auckland Transport during public engagement on the draft plan and during the implementation phase, if these actions are confirmed in the final plan.
Community Facilities
30. Staff from Community Facilities have been involved in the preparation of the plan and have provided feedback on a wide range of areas including asset condition, the provision of skate facilities, hammocks and tree swings.
Parks, Sport and Recreation
31. Parks, Sport and Recreation staff have been involved in the development of the draft plan.
32. They have the following concerns about the proposed re-routing of Shoal Bay Road at Mulberry Grove:
· The road will need to be designed to allow for the manoeuvring of large trucks and this may negatively impact on the amount of reserve land provided.
· The realigned road will require new access to the boat ramp to be constructed if the access to the boat ramp is retained. This could be resolved by moving the boat ramp north.
· The realigned road will be under a lot of the existing tree canopy and may require the removal of some of the trees on the lower area as well.
· The road may need to be aligned to avoid a stone wall on the reserve that has potential historic heritage value.
33. The re-routing of Shoal Bay Road is an aspirational action in the plan. Community engagement will specifically seek feedback on this action, which will guide the local board’s future decision-making.
34. If the local board want to pursue this following community engagement, further feasibility work will need to be done to confirm whether this action can be progressed.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
Local Board views
35. We workshopped the draft plan with the local board in February, April and July 2019.
36. The local board generally supported the draft plan and are keen to seek further community feedback on proposed actions and priorities.
37. The local board also want to hear from the community about the suggestion to reroute Shoal Bay Road at Mulberry Grove as this road is used to access Tryphena Wharf.
Local impacts
38. The actions in the draft plan will create benefits for residents of the local board area and park users. Positive impacts include:
· improved health and wellbeing through increased opportunities to be physically active and play
· positive impact on social connectedness and belonging through provision of social spaces
· improve visible presence of Māori values in the local park network
· improved biodiversity and mauri through environmental protection.
39. Community engagement on the draft plan is an important next step in ensuring a wide range of community views are included in the plan.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
40. We asked mana whenua whose rohe cover the north and west of the region if they wanted to participate in the development of the draft plan. They deferred to Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust.
41. We invited Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust to participate in the development of the draft plan. At the time they were unable to participate. We have used the relevant outcomes in the Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust Hapū Management Plan 2013 to guide the development of actions in the plan.
42. Actions which deliver on the outcomes in the Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Hapū Management Plan 2013 are:
· providing for recreation opportunities for youth, like hard spaces for ball games
· designing parks that support health, including fitness equipment and walking trails
· providing for the integration of mātauranga and tikanga in design and development of parks
· identifying opportunities to create signage and informative displays (particularly on Aotea) that explain our cultural values and relationship to environment.
43. We will contact Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust again to provide feedback on the draft plan.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
44. The local board allocated $30,000 from its Locally Driven Initiatives budget in the 2018/2019 financial year for the development of this plan.
45. $16,000 has been carried forward from 2018/2019. The total cost of completing community engagement and finalising the plan is estimated at $6,000.
46. We recommend the remaining budget of $10,000 be reallocated to the Aotea / Great Barrier Island Community Spaces and Reserves Activation Plan Implementation project.
47. This reallocation would increase the budget for implementation to $20,000 and allow the local board to progress the priority projects identified by the community in the upcoming engagement.
48. While we have not yet estimated the full implementation costs, completing all the actions in the plan will require a staged approach and further funding to be allocated by the local board.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
49. Low community interest is a key risk for the plan. The first phase of community engagement had a low number of responses online and at the community drop ins. Staff supplemented the feedback with key stakeholder interviews and workshops at schools with local children.
50. Aligning community engagement with the area plan and the Aotea / Great Barrier Accessways and Linkages Plan will provide more opportunities for people to provide feedback on the plan. We will need to be careful to define each of the plans to get useful feedback to guide the local board’s decision making.
51. We will meet with key stakeholders and schools again to ensure we get a good range of feedback.
52. Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust may not be able to participate through the wider the community engagement phase as they are working through Treaty settlement processes. We will continue to engage with Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust to understand what works best for them in terms of influencing outcomes. In the meantime, we will continue to use the relevant outcomes in the Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust Hapū Management Plan 2013 to guide the development of actions in the plan.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
53. If the local board approve the draft plan for community engagement, a further workshop will be held following the triennial elections in October to brief the incoming local board on the content of the plan.
54. If necessary, we will update the draft plan based on feedback from the incoming local board.
55. Following the local board workshop, we will undertake mana whenua and community engagement during January and February 2020. We will also seek feedback on prioritising actions in the plan.
56. We will report back on mana whenua and community feedback to the local board in May 2020.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Draft Aotea Great Barrier Village Parks Plan |
137 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Shyrel Burt - Service and Asset Planning Specialist Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader |
Authorisers |
Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Receive the Aotea Great Barrier feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report
File No.: CP2019/16406
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To receive the Aotea Great Barrier Island feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report prepared by Morphum Environmental Limited.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. To determine if an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility would be both wanted and feasible on Aotea Great Barrier Island, Auckland Council’s marine biosecurity team engaged Morphum Environmental Limited to undertake an independent feasibility study.
3. Aotea Great Barrier Island was thought to be free of marine pests, but hull surveillance work carried out in the summer of 2018/2019 found several vessels with marine pests on their hulls. The lack of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility on Aotea Great Barrier Island has been highlighted as an issue.
4. Some vessel owners and operators on the island have been observed cleaning their vessel hulls on beaches and tidal areas. This presents a serious biosecurity risk as marine pests can be spread by vessels traveling between harbours.
5. The feasibility study commenced in May 2019. A facilitated stakeholder engagement programme helped to ascertain what resident and visiting boat operators require to enable them to meet best practice hull hygiene management and to prevent the spread of marine pests.
6. The feasibility study report presents the following recommendations for managing marine biosecurity on Aotea / Great Barrier Island:
· the concept development for a small haul-out facility should be progressed
· the use of existing tidal grids/poles for hull cleaning and antifoul application should be discouraged
· the establishment of in-water hull cleaning options should be progressed
· engagement with local Aotea fleet vessel owners should continue
· engagement with visitor vessel owners should also continue.
7. Staff discussed these feasibility study recommendations with the board at their 6 August 2019 and 3 September 2019 workshops. The board requested to formally receive the feasibility study report at their 17 September 2019 business meeting.
9. This report recommends the board receive the feasibility study report and that it asks the incoming local board to consider the report recommendations for further development, with input and advice from the council’s Community Facilities department.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) receive the Aotea / Great Barrier feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report (Attachment A to the agenda report). b) recommend to the incoming local board that the feasibility study report recommendations be considered for further development with input and advice from the council’s Community Facilities department. |
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Aotea Great Barrier feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report |
179 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Miriana Knox - Relationship Advisor |
Authorisers |
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Informal local board workshop views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review
File No.: CP2019/17033
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide a summary to local boards of informal views presented at recent workshops on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review, and to provide an opportunity for any formal resolutions from local boards.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council is reviewing the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 as part of its required five-year statutory review.
3. Staff circulated a draft finding report on the bylaw review to all local boards in May 2019.
4. Eighteen local boards requested individual workshops to ask staff questions and provide informal views on the draft findings. Staff conducted these workshops in June and July 2019.
5. The workshop discussions about the draft findings report included:
· animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally
· issues with some definitions in the bylaw
· requirements to provide identification for owned animals
· Auckland Council’s processes for managing animals
· current and suggested controls on specific animals, e.g. stock, bees, horses, and cats.
6. This report summarises the informal views provided at these workshops. These informal views will guide staff in developing and assessing options for managing animals in Auckland.
7. This report also gives local boards an opportunity to formalise any views before staff present findings and options to the Regulatory Committee in early 2020. Staff will seek direction from the committee at that time if the bylaw needs to be confirmed, amended, or revoked.
8. Local boards will have another opportunity to provide formal views when staff develop a statement of proposal following the Regulatory Committee’s recommendations.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: b) provide any formal views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review. |
Horopaki
Context
9. The Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015, Animal Management Bylaw 2015, was adopted by the Governing Body on 30 April 2015.
10. The purpose of the bylaw is to provide for the ownership of animals in a way that:
· protects the public from nuisance
· maintains and promotes public health and safety
· minimises the potential for offensive behaviour in public places
· manages animals in public places.
11. To help achieve its purpose the bylaw enables rules to be made on specific animals in separate controls (Figure 1). The bylaw contains controls for:
· beekeeping in urban areas
· keeping stock in urban areas
· horse riding in a public place.
Figure 1 – Animal Management Bylaw 2015 framework
The bylaw does not address dogs
12. Dogs are managed through the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to adopt a dog management policy.
13. The bylaw regulates owners of any animal of the animal kingdom except humans and dogs.
The bylaw does not regulate animal welfare
14. The Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956, under which the bylaw was created, provide powers to protect people from nuisance and harm, not animals.
15. Issues with predators eating protected wildlife or animals trampling natural fauna are addressed through other legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 1999, Wildlife Act 1953 and Biosecurity Act 1993.
The bylaw must be reviewed to ensure it is still necessary and appropriate
16. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the bylaw by 30 April 2020 to prevent it from expiring.
17. Following the statutory review, the council can propose the bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced using a public consultative procedure.
18. In May 2019 staff completed a draft finding report for the bylaw review. The draft report identified current issues with animal nuisance and potential areas of improvement for the bylaw.
Staff held local board workshops to obtain informal views on the draft findings report
19. Staff provided a copy of the draft findings report to all local boards in May 2019. Eighteen local boards requested workshops which were conducted in June and July 2019.
20. At these workshops local boards provided informal views and asked questions on the draft findings report. These informal views will aid staff in producing a range of options to respond to identified animal nuisance and management issues.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
21. The following sections summarise the informal local board views from the workshops collectively. The sections provide informal views on:
· ongoing animal nuisance issues
· the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’
· the bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’
· exclusion rules for companion animals
· identifying owned animals
· the council’s processes for managing animals
· views on existing and new controls for specific animals.
22. The PowerPoint presented at the local board workshops is provided in Attachment A. The subsections below reference the relevant slide pages.
23. Questions from local boards at the workshops are provided in Attachment B. These questions will be further explored during the options analysis.
There are ongoing issues with animal nuisance (Slides 9-10)
24. At the workshops staff presented known animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally. Previous engagement captured many types of nuisance, but local boards added and emphasised the nuisances listed below.
Table 2 - Local board informal views on animal nuisances
Bees |
· Bees leaving excrement on cars is a minor nuisance. · Some people, especially those with bee allergies, are fearful of bees coming onto their property. |
Birds |
· Types of nuisance caused by birds is very subjective. · People are abandoning geese and ducks. · Breeding parrots is a nuisance. · Turkeys and peacocks are causing a nuisance in rural areas. · Feeding wild pigeons and seagulls is causing a nuisance. |
Cats |
· There are large numbers of stray cats across the region. · Cats breed in construction and development spaces. · Cats cause a nuisance by defecating in vegetable gardens. · Abandoned kittens become feral and cause nuisance. · Cats are eating native wildlife. |
Pigs |
· In urban areas temporarily keeping pigs for fattening causes nuisance. |
Rabbits |
· Rabbit infestations on council land cause nuisance to neighbouring properties. |
Roosters |
· Roosters are a nuisance and can be vicious, harmful animals. · In rural areas people are abandoning roosters. · Rural areas have a higher tolerance for roosters. |
Stock |
· In rural areas there are issues with fences deteriorating and stock escaping. · Loose chickens and wandering stock are a nuisance. |
Vermin |
· People complain about vermin and water rats in waterways, low tide or the deep bush. · Open composting could create issues with vermin. · Complaints about rats are increasing. |
The bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)
25. The bylaw focuses on the responsibilities of owners of animals. It is unclear if someone who is providing for the needs of an animal, such as food or shelter, becomes responsible for that animal as their ‘owner’.
26. Most local boards view that the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ should be clearer.
Table 3 - Local Board informal views on the definition of ‘owner’
· Any animal, whether owned or unowned, should be addressed in the bylaw. · The current definition is useful as it captures a broad scope of animal owners. · The definition should elaborate on criteria for the phrase ‘under that person’s care’. · Owner definition should include accountability for feeding wild animals but should: o not punish volunteers who care for the animals’ wellbeing o allow animal control officers to feed animals to trap them. |
27. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following.
· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 manages cats that are not microchipped or identified by a collar and that are on significant ecological areas.
· The Wildlife Act 1953 provides that a wild animal is the property of the Crown until it has been lawfully taken or killed. At that point it becomes the property of the killer or trapper. This act specifically excludes some animals, such as cats, pigeons and rats, from being vested in the Crown.
· In areas of high conservation value or where there is serious threat, the council will undertake control of certain pest animals. In general, landowners and occupiers are primarily responsible for managing pests.
The bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)
28. The bylaw uses the Health Act 1956 definition of ‘nuisance’. This includes a person, animal thing, or circumstance causing unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or convenience of another person.
29. Local boards provided a mix of informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’. Some local boards commented that the definition should have more specific criteria, while others said the bylaw should retain the current broad definition.
Table 4 - Local board informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’
· The definition of nuisance in the Health Act 1956 is outdated. · Having specific and measurable criteria for nuisance is good. · The nuisance definition is difficult to enforce without some specific criteria. · Intensification and tenancy laws allowing for pets will increase nuisance incidents, so the definition needs more specific criteria. · Reporting animal nuisance can cause tension between neighbours. Specific criteria would be useful, so neighbours are not left to interpret nuisance on their own. · A broader definition of nuisance fits with common law and covers more occurrences. · There cannot be one definition of nuisance since there is no one definition of Aucklanders. · The definition of nuisance in the bylaw should have both general and specific parts. |
Incorporating companion animals into the bylaw needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)
30. Currently, the bylaw does not mention companion animals (pets). The bylaw manages animals equally unless they are stock, poultry or bees.
31. Some Aucklanders find it confusing that the bylaw does not specifically address companion animals. There is misunderstanding that stock animals which are kept as pets instead of food, such as pigs and goats, are not subject to the bylaw’s stock controls.
32. Local boards had mixed views about creating a definition for companion animals. Some viewed the rules should apply based on how the animal is kept. Other local boards said the rules should apply regardless if the animal is a pet.
Table 5 - Local board informal views on adding companion animals in the bylaw's definitions
Companion animals should have separate rules · Some animals should be defined as companion animals in the bylaw. · The bylaw should make exceptions if any animal is defined as stock but is a pet. · Companion animals should be excluded from the bylaw rules. o Goats are popular pets and can be good companions. o Farm animals as pets can provide the same benefits as traditional pets. Companion animals should not have separate rules · Companion animals which are stock animals should still require same licensing process as other stock animals. · Companion animals should not have their own rules as some neighbours are not familiar or okay with stock animals being kept as pets. · Having a specific definition increases complexity and introduces subjectivity. It should not matter what a person says about their animal. · People should not be allowed to have livestock as pets in urban areas. · An animal is an animal no matter how it is kept. Since the nuisance effects on neighbours are the same, there should be no distinctions. |
33. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops staff note that you cannot buy or take ownership of a pest animal. If you already own a pest animal, you can keep it, but you cannot abandon it, give it to a new owner, or allow the pest animal to breed. The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 classifies unowned cats as pests.
Requirements for identifying owned animals needs to be reviewed (Slide 17)
34. The bylaw does not require owners to provide their animal with identification.
35. The draft findings report revealed that requiring animal identification would facilitate addressing animal nuisance issues. Most local boards viewed animal identification as helpful but impractical.
Table 6 - Local board informal views on identifying owned animals
· If your animal is going to leave your property, it should be identified. · Council should offer a form of assistance to identify your animal. · Every farm animal should be tagged and named. · Identifying animals would prevent people from feeding unowned animals. · Identifying animals is useful but impractical. · The council should collaborate with the National Animal Identification and Tracing database. |
36. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note that provided there is a valid purpose, the council has power to regulate animal registration. Any requirement would need to match the size and scale of the issue and would need to show it would effectively reduce harm and nuisance to people.
There is uncertainty about the council’s processes for managing animals (Slide 17)
37. The draft findings report identified that some Aucklanders are unclear about the council’s processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. This confusion reduces people’s willingness to report nuisance, as they are unsure who is responsible. Only two per cent of surveyed respondents who experienced animal nuisance reported it to the council.
38. The draft findings report identified the bylaw could be strengthened by providing information about non-regulatory processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. Most local boards viewed that the council’s processes could be clearer.
Table 7 - Local board informal views on council processes for managing animals
· The bylaw should be clear on what the council does and does not do regarding animal management. · The council should clarify the process for reporting unowned animals causing nuisance. · The bylaw’s animal management processes need to align with the Regional Pest Management Plan. · The council should offer mediation services for disgruntled neighbours over animal nuisance. |
39. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following.
· A property owner may trap and/or lawfully kill an animal on their property. It is a criminal offence to kill an owned animal or destroy the animal inhumanely.
· To prove a legal claim for damage to private property by an owned animal, the property owner would need to show the owner of the animal had failed to take reasonable care to avoid the damage.
· Culling is managed by central government laws and regulations, rather than the Animal Management Bylaw 2015.
Views on existing controls for specific animals in the bylaw (Slide 22)
40. Around 90 per cent of surveyed Aucklanders said the current bylaw controls for bees, stock and horses were about right or had no view.
41. The draft findings report showed council compliance response officers would find limits to urban beehives and more specific requirements for chicken coop locations easier to enforce than the current bylaw controls.
42. Local boards had a mix of views. Some had views on needing more controls, and some had views to keep the controls the same or less.
Table 8 - Local board informal views on the current controls in the bylaw
Animal |
Current control |
Views on more control |
Views on same or less control |
Bees |
Any properties, urban or rural, can keep any number of bees. Beekeepers must manage the flight path and temperament of their bees. Beekeepers must ensure nuisance from their bees’ excrement is minimised, and the bees have a suitable water source on the premises. |
· The council should restrict beekeeping if people have bee-sting allergies. · Limit the number of beehives in an area to prevent colony competition. · Increase awareness and visibility of who keeps bees in an area. · Restrict beekeeping to rural areas. · Restrict the number of beehives a person can have in urban areas. · Restrict beehive ownership by size of property. · There should be minimum training or qualification to own bees. You need experience. · Amateur beekeepers should be treated differently to commercial beekeepers. |
· Bees are not causing much nuisance, so there is no need for more regulation. · We should be encouraging beekeeping. Should regulate rather than overregulate. · Do not restrict bees to just urban areas. · Bees should be unregulated. · Would be concerned if licensing costs for beekeeping were introduced. · Should be careful about restricting bees as they are important to the ecosystem.
|
Horses |
Local boards are able to set specific controls for horses for local parks and beaches. Horses are currently not allowed to be kept in urban areas without a licence from the council unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres.
|
· The same access rules for dogs on beaches should be applied to horses. · Do not prohibit horses on beaches but restrict them to off-peak times. · Should lobby central government to include the same powers that protect native fauna and wildlife from dogs for horses. |
· Horse owners should be responsible for removing manure. The bylaw should encourage accountability and consider that picking up manure is not always practical, e.g. on busy roads. · Should be allowed to ride horses on berms. · Horses should not be banned from roads. There are few places to ride. |
Horses cont. |
Horses are permitted in public spaces if: · manure is removed · consideration is taken to not intimidate or cause a nuisance for other public space users · beach dune damage is minimised. |
|
· Increase communication and awareness of current controls to horse owners. · Would rather have horses on the roads than scooters. |
Stock |
Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants and quail are the only stock animals currently permitted by the bylaw in urban areas without a licence from the council. Any other stock animal, including roosters, would require a licence from the council in urban areas unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres. Stock in urban areas must also be restrained within the boundaries of the premises on which they are kept, and chicken coops must not cause a nuisance and must be regularly cleaned. In rural areas the above controls do not apply. Rural residents must ensure their animals do not cause a nuisance to any other person. |
· Stock should not be kept in urban areas. This is also humane for the animal. · There should be penalties for poor stock-fencing by roads in rural areas. · The bylaw needs a mechanism to deal with repeat ‘wandering stock’ offenders. · The criteria for keeping goats and other herbivores should be defined by the amount of grassy area on the property. · There should be restrictions on how far a chicken coop should be from the property boundary. · Fewer chickens should be allowed in urban areas. · Roosters should not be allowed in rural lifestyle blocks in urban areas. |
· The current stock controls are adequate. · Support allowing pheasants in urban areas. · There are already legal consequences for not fencing your stock. The bylaw does not need to address. · If you have a large property in an urban area, goats should be allowed. · Make sure urban pet days are still allowed. · It does not matter where the chicken coop sits on the property if it is cleaned regularly. · There should not be a complete ban on roosters in urban areas. |
Views on new controls for specific animals (Slide 23)
43. A quarter of surveyed Aucklanders (26 per cent) said the bylaw should introduce controls for other animals. Of those wanting controls for other animals, over half (57 per cent) wanted controls introduced for cats.
44. The draft findings report identified that council compliance officers and the SPCA support microchipping and registering of cats.
45. Local boards provided mixed views on introducing controls for new animals. The local boards agreed that any regulatory response would need to match the scale of the issue, be cost-effective, and have measurable effects on reducing nuisance.
Table 9 - Local board informal views on controls for cats and other animals
Informal local board views on controls for cats Informal views on introducing controls for cats · The bylaw should limit the number of cats a person can own. · Should make sure extremes are restricted, such as having 30+ cats.
· The bylaw should require the de-sexing of cats. o The council should work closely with the SPCA in this matter. o Make it compulsory for cat owners. · Local boards have varying support for requiring microchipping of cats including: o full compulsory microchipping across the region o limited microchipping only to cats living in eco-sensitive areas. · The bylaw should have the same registration process for cats as the council has for dogs. · There should be a curfew for cats. · There should be controls to dissuade people from feeding stray cats, as it reinforces the cats’ behaviour. · Publish best practices for tourists with cats and other animals visiting Hauraki Gulf Islands. · The council should restrict cats from wandering. · The council should restrict certain cat breeds, like Bengals. Informal views on not introducing controls for cats · Cat registration is difficult and has failed before. Auckland Council already has difficulty registering and enforcing dogs. · Rely on the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 guidelines. · Cats naturally wander. Containing them would be cruel. · The council should invest in substantial long-term public education regarding cats. · If the council restricts caring for stray cats, it could create animal welfare issues. · Controlling cats is too trivial for the council to get involved. |
Informal local board views on controls for other animals · Rules are needed to restrict feeding wild animals in public, especially birds. · How many animals a person can own should be restricted by section size. · There should be a higher management expectation on animal owners in urban areas. · The bylaw should address the health risks that animals can cause their owners. · There should be a complete ban on snakes and ferrets. · Rabbits are a major pest, especially in urban areas. The bylaw should restrict breeding. · There should be controls on keeping birds in small cages. · Unless there is a significant problem, neighbours should sort out their own problems. |
46. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following,
· Any costs for managing stray cats would be investigated during the options development phase to respond to nuisance issues.
· The Local Government Act 2002 would give the council power to impose a curfew on cats if it was an appropriate response to the scale of the nuisance and would clearly show how the curfew would reduce harm and nuisance to humans.
· The council currently has more legal power to respond to dog nuisance than cat nuisance. The Dog Control Act 1996 gives the council wide-varying powers to address dog issues. There is no similar legislation for cats.
· Rat pest control is addressed through the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.
· The Regional Pest Management Plan lists some tropical animals that can be treated as pests. These include eastern water dragons, Indian ring-necked parakeets, and snake-necked turtles.
· Chickens were not classified as pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to protect the Auckland region’s important biodiversity assets. There are no significant biodiversity benefits to managing feral chickens at a regional level. Feral chickens are primarily a human nuisance issue centred in the urban areas where people feed them.
Other views from local boards
Rights of property owners and protection
47. The bylaw does not explain what options property owners have to handle animal nuisance on their property themselves. It is unclear which animals property owners are allowed to trap and dispose of on their own and which animals are protected.
48. Some local boards said the bylaw should clarify property owners’ rights.
Enforcement
49. Some local boards said the council should be prepared to enforce any rules it may introduce.
50. The Local Government Act 2002 does not give the power to issue an infringement notice under a bylaw. Compliance officers have said this inhibits their ability to address nuisance issues as their next step after trying to elicit voluntary compliance is prosecution. This can be costly to the council.
51. Some local boards provided views that the Local Government Act 2002 should be amended to allow for infringement fines. Some local boards viewed that the bylaw would already be fit for purpose if it could be enforced with infringements.
Education
52. Most local boards said the council needs to increase education and awareness about the current animal management rules. Some local boards viewed that the council should focus more on informing Aucklanders of responsible animal management than increasing regulation.
53. Some local boards also advised that any changes to the bylaw, if required, would need to have a strong communication and awareness plan.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
54. The bylaw affects the operation of council units involved in animal management. These include biosecurity, animal management and compliance response officers. Staff held face-to-face meetings and a workshop with council officers. These views were provided in the draft findings report and workshops.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
55. Staff captured informal local board views through cluster workshops in March 2019. The draft findings report was shared with all local boards in May 2019, and staff attended individual local board workshops through June and July 2019.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
56. Staff sought views from mana whenua at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Forum in April 2019. The members present at the hui sought clarity that the bylaw’s reference of ‘public places’ does not extend to papakāinga (communal Māori land).
57. Members were also concerned with threats to estuaries, beaches, and waterways from unregulated coastal horse trails. These views were provided in the draft findings report and options development will consider these views.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
58. The cost of the bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
59. There is a risk that the public may perceive this report as formal local board views or an attempt to regulate cats without public engagement. This risk can be mitigated by replying to any emerging media or public concerns by saying that no additions or changes will be made to the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 without full public consultation.
60. Local boards will have an opportunity to provide formal resolutions on any changes proposed to the bylaw in early 2020 before a public consultative procedure.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
61. Following any additional formalised views from local boards, staff will generate and assess options to respond to identified animal nuisances. Staff will present these findings and options in a report to the relevant committee in the new council term in early 2020.
62. Staff will seek formal local board views when developing a statement of proposal once the committee gives direction on animal management.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Presentation at local board workshops on draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review |
261 |
b⇩ |
Local board questions from the workshops |
285 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Maclean Grindell, Policy Analyst, Community and Social Policy |
Authorisers |
Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community and Social Policy Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw
File No.: CP2019/17029
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To note the resolution of the Governing Body and consider giving feedback to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. At its meeting on 22 August 2019, the Governing Body resolved as follows:
Resolution number GB/2019/82
MOVED by Mayor P Goff, seconded by Cr L Cooper:
That the Governing Body:
a) receive the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommendations.
b) defer any decision on a Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw pending advice from officers on the content of a new Statement of Proposal for a bylaw, and further information on a possible review of the Freedom Camping Act 2011.
from:
“a) confirm the following legacy bylaws, or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked …”
to:
“a) confirm the legacy bylaws in i., or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, until a new bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 comes into force at which time these bylaws or residual parts will be automatically revoked; and confirm the legacy bylaws in subparagraphs ii. to v. or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked…”.
d) direct officers to provide the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and Governing Body with advice on the following potential elements of a future Statement of Proposal:
i) proposed prohibitions in the following areas:
A) all areas the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommended should be prohibited.
B) the 61 sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as prohibited areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report.
C) all Reserves in residential areas that are Reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977.
ii) restricted freedom camping in the seven sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as restricted freedom camping areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report.
iii) restricted or prohibited freedom camping in two sites proposed in public submissions, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report.
iv) a General Rule that regulates freedom camping outside restricted and prohibited areas not listed in the proposed bylaw, which includes provision for:
A) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside residential homes (unless the resident has granted permission for the vehicle to be parked outside their home).
B) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside commercial premises, educational facilities, healthcare facilities, playgrounds, and swimming pools.
C) a maximum number of nights stay at any specific site.
v) any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal that is communicated to the Chief Executive by a councillor or Local Board before 30 September 2019.
e) note that following decisions on the advice on the matters in recommendation d) above, council officers will be directed to develop a new Statement of Proposal for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for consideration by the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and the Governing Body, following consultation with Local Boards”.
3. The Governing Body considered the following at its meeting on 22 August 2019:
a) Item 9 – Implementing the next steps for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw (Hearings Panel Report).
b) Item 10 – Chair’s Report on Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.
4. The attachments to this report show sites that are already in scope for the next phase of work. Attachment A provides a list of areas included in the previous statement of proposal and Attachment B provides a list of the 70 additional areas raised by submitters during the previous consultation.
5. This is an opportunity to provide further input on proposed sites which have not already been included within the scope of the next phase and which meet statutory requirements for inclusion in the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.
Recommendations That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) note the resolution of the Governing Body with regards to the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw. b) forward any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Freedom Camping in Vehicles – Managing freedom camping in Auckland (Statement of Proposal) |
291 |
b⇩ |
Areas proposed by submitters during public consultation and not included within the statement of proposal (Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report) |
333 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Michael Sinclair - Policy Manager, Community and Social Policy |
Authorisers |
Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community and Social Policy Louise Mason, General Manager, Local Board Services Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Auckland Transport September 2019 update to the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board
File No.: CP2019/17023
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide an update to the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board on transport related matters in their area including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and the local board’s Community Safety Fund.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. This report covers:
a) general summary of operational projects and activities of interest to the board
b) update on the board’s Transport Capital Fund and Community Safety Fund
c) other Auckland Transport news of interest to the board.
Recommendation That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) receive the Auckland Transport September 2019 update report.
|
Horopaki
Context
3. Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report monthly to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan.
4. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.
5. This report updates the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the local board area, it updates the local board on their advocacy and consultations and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and Community Safety Fund.
6. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme.
7. The Community Safety Fund is a capital budget established by Auckland Transport for use by local boards to fund local road safety initiatives. The purpose of this fund is to allow elected members to address long-standing local road safety issues that are not regional priorities and are therefore not being addressed by the Auckland Transport programme.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Report on Auckland Transport projects and activities:
8. Please see below for information on Auckland Transport’s activities:
Update |
Progress |
|
Airfields |
Claris – New LED helipad navigation lights to be installed. Brackets being fabricated by GBI Engineering.
Claris – New strobe approach lights on order from Australia. Stands and brackets to be fabricated on arrival by GBI Engineering.
Claris – resealing project Distribution of MOWP (Method of Work Plan) for consultation.
Resurfacing of runway 10/28, taxiways and apron. |
Installation by 5 Sept.
Installation by 30 Sept.
4 Sept.
2 – 5 Dec |
Wharves |
Nothing to report this month. |
|
Cowshed Bridge |
Auckland Transport’s Structures Asset Management Team met with AT consultants to initiate investigations into long term options for replacement. A Bailey Bridge was installed primarily to provide for crushing plant to be moved in October. The bailey bridge has been retained to allow safe access underneath the original bridge. Drilling investigations are required to establish the form of replacement. A price for this has been received from contractor and is being reviewed. Plan to start end of September and take cores at all GBI sites being investigated A hydrological study is to follow to determine bridge dimensions. |
Investigations planned for September 2019 |
Karaka Bay Road |
Renewals and Maintenance Team have confirmed that existing designs are not suitable. They’ll be conducting site visits to progress project. |
Investigations planned for September 2019 |
Slips on Puriri Bay Road |
Discussions regarding consents have been held with Auckland Council. Proposed options currently been put forward for community and Iwi consultation. The results of liaison will then be incorporated into the consent application. Draft retrospective resource consent prepared with comments requested. Engagement with Iwi has been confirmed for the 11 September monthly meeting. |
September Iwi engagement. |
Activity |
Update |
Progress |
Slips on Aotea Road |
Consenting requirements prepared and documentation commencing. A programme of geotechnical investigations is currently being programmed for the larger slips. A price for drilling investigations has been received from contractor being reviewed. Plan to start end of September and take cores at all GBI sites being investigated. |
Investigations planned for September 2019 |
Subsidence on Shoal Bay Road at Pah Beach |
No update this month, previous update: Holding remedial works are being priced by contractor. AT officers are following up with the contractor for this quote. |
Procurement |
Road Sealing at Kaiaraara Road |
Project is approved, and AT’s Renewals and Maintenance Team is waiting for the programme of delivery from the contractor. |
TBC |
Local Board Transport Capital Fund
9. As of the new electoral term Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board had $328,104 in their Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).
10. Following the proposal to increase the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the allocation to the board has increased by $189,732 and is now $517,836.
11. From this the Board has committed:
· $68,000 for a dust seal on Sandhills Road.
· $20,000 for remediation of fish passages in the culverts on the island.
· $350,196 for road sealing on Kaiaraara Road
· $35,242 as additional funding for the Hector Sanderson Walkway
This leaves $44,398 unallocated.
12. Auckland Transport has completed investigations into rough orders of costs for the following projects:
· To provide a walkway on Whangaparapara Road from the Cross Road to the Hot Pool access, for a cost of $63,000
· To complete the remaining sections of the Hector Sanderson from Claris Café to the Cross Roads for $287,624
· Sealing of Puriri Bay Road for $409,450
· Sealing of Whangaparapara Road for $852,425
13. The board asked if Auckland Transport would be able to contribute to any of the costs for these sealing projects and unfortunately at this point there is not the funding available to do so.
14. Auckland Transport has also been requested to investigate a rough order of cost for:
· Traffic calmers at Claris settlement
Community Safety Fund
15. All the Local Boards have finalised their prioritised lists of projects, received rough orders of cost, and approved the allocation of funds. The programme in total now stands at just under 100 projects.
16. Now that we have all the projects confirmed, Auckland Transports Programme Manager is finalising procurement for design work on all the projects.
Fish Passage remediation on Aotea Great Barrier
17. Following site visits from Auckland Transport, Environmental Services and Healthy Waters, a prioritized short list of the top three priority sites for fish passage remediation has been developed.
18. A more comprehensive report is being developed and is fairly well progressed.
19. The advice as a result of this visit is it will be necessary to replace key locations, identified according to the above, with oversize box culverts.
20. The Local Board could contribute funding to this and Auckland Transport will also consider ways that this could be funded under the existing programme.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
21. The impact of the information in this report is confined to Auckland Transport 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
22. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.
23. Auckland Transport attended a workshop on the 13th of August 2019 with the local board.
Traffic Control Committee resolutions
24. There were no Traffic Control Committee resolutions pertaining to this local board area.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
25. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
26. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
27. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for all their projects.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
28. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the newly elected members of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board at their first business meeting.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Ben Halliwell, Elected Member Relationship Manager |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon, Team Leader, Elected Member Relationship Management Team Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Aotea/Great Barrier Governance Forward Work Calendar
File No.: CP2019/17012
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To present the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board with its final governance forward work calendar for the term 2016-2019.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The governance forward work calendar for the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff for reference and information only.
3. The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice is expected and when
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
4. The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.
Recommendation That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) note the final governance forward work calendar for the political term 2016-2019 dated September 2019.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Governance Forward Work Calendar - September 2019 |
345 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |
Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 17 September 2019 |
|
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings
File No.: CP2019/17007
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To note the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board proceedings taken at the workshop held on Tuesday 6 August, Tuesday 13 August and Tuesday 27 August 2019.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Under the current Standing Orders of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board 12.1, workshops convened by the local board shall be closed to the public. However, the proceedings of every workshop shall record the names of members attending and a statement summarising the nature of the information received, and nature of matters discussed. No resolutions are passed, or decisions reached but are solely for the provision of information and discussion. This report attaches the workshop record for the period stated above.
Recommendation That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board: a) note the record of proceedings for the workshop held on Tuesday 6 August, Tuesday 13 August and Tuesday 27 August 2019.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 6 August 2019 |
351 |
b⇩ |
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 13 August 2019 |
353 |
c⇩ |
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 27 August 2019 |
355 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke |