Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

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

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 19March 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.

Ngā tūtohunga

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2004-104	Windy Hill Rosalie bay Catchment	Environment	Towards the cost of the Hirakimata bird survey.	$14,711.75	Eligible
LG2004-105	Tamar Warwick	Events	Towards costs of promotional materials for the on-island cancer care fundraising event.	$870.00	Eligible
LG2004-106	Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club Incorporated	Events	Towards the 2019 Guy Fawkes display and Santa Parade.	$2,300.00	Eligible
LG2004-108	Orama Christian Trust	Community	Towards 2019/2020 rates for the trust.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG2004-111	Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Events	Towards the 2019 “Spectacular by Nature - Garden Tour”.	$3,022.50	Eligible
LG2004-115	Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club Incorporated	Community	Towards the 2019/2020 rates bill for the social club	$3,457.00	Eligible
LG2004-116	Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust	Arts and culture	Towards new signage for the Gray House Museum.	$2,927.60	Eligible
LG2004-118	Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust on behalf of the Oruawharo Medlands Ecovision Group	Environment	Towards community-led biodiversity protection and restoration undertaken by the Oruawharo Medlands Ecovision Group	$21,600.00	Eligible
LG2004-119	Aotea Ora Community Trust	Events	Towards the 2020 “Off the Grid” event.	$17,825.00	Eligible
Total				$74,213.85

Table two: Aotea / Great Barrier Capital Grants, Round One 2019/2020 grant applications

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2004-101	Kotuku Peninsular Charitable Trust	Capital	Towards the costs of repairing the damage to the sanctuary perimeter fence.	$8,463.00	Eligible
LG2004-109	Barrier Social Club Incorporated	Capital	Towards the retaining wall and earthworks for the playground project.	$15,502.00	Eligible
LG2004-110	Barrier Social Club Incorporated	Capital	Towards phase two of the water system upgrade.	$9,063.00	Eligible
LG2004-112	Great Barrier Island Coastguard Rescue Incorporated	Capital	Towards the gangway and fuel costs for the rescue vessel.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2004-113	Orama Christian Trust	Capital	Towards solar panel and battery upgrades for the trust.	$42,302.50	Eligible
LG2004-114	Great Barrier Island Golf Club Incorporated	Capital	Towards the golf club toilet block upgrade project.	$50,000.00	Eligible
LG2004-117	Aotea Community Radio Trust	Capital	Towards an upgrade of the Aotea Community Radio equipment and facilities upgrade.	$37,119.00	Eligible
Total				$ 172,449.50

Table three: Aotea / Great Barrier Capital Grants, Round Two 2018/2019 deferred grant application

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1904-206	Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Capital	Towards an upgrade of the solar system	$50,000.00	Eligible
Total				$50,000

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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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.

Ngā tūtohunga

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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Education Trust accountability report	119
b ⇩	Letter from Aotea Education Trust dated 6 August 2019	129

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.

Ngā tūtohunga

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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier feasibility study of an on-island hull cleaning and maintenance facility report	179

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.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) receive the report on informal workshop summary views from local boards on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review.

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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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.

c) agree to alter part of previous resolution GB/2015/112 passed at the Governing Body meeting on 29 October 2015

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.

D) the same enforcement approach in relation to homelessness as set out in the original Statement of Proposal, which aims to offer compassionate support for people with social needs.

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.

Ngā tūtohunga

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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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.

Te tūtohunga

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:

Activity	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 13^th 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

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