Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance.

An apology from Member V Watson has 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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 August 2019, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays 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.

8.1 Hibiscus and Bays Pest Free Group

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Ms Sally Cargill from the Hibiscus and Bays Pest Free group has requested a deputation to provide an update to the local board on the work of the group.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Ms Cargill for her update on the Hibiscus and Bays Pest Free Group.

Attachments

a Powerpoint presentation............................................................................... 183

8.2 East Coast Bays Community Project

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The East Coast Bays Community Project has requested a deputation to provide an update to the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank the representatives of the East Coast Bays Community Project for their update.

Attachments

a Powerpoint presentation............................................................................... 189

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Silverdale matters

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Mrs Lorraine Sampson will be in attendance to discuss signage and safety in Silverdale.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Mrs Sampson for her presentation on signage and safety matters in Silverdale.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Hibiscus and Bays Local and Multiboard Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant allocations

File No.: CP2019/16394

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2019/2020, including Multiboard Grant applications.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 (Attachment B) and Multiboard Grants Round One 2019/2020 (Attachment C).

3. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted the Hibiscus and Bays Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 15 May 2019 (Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $526,129 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

5. Forty-eight applications were received for Local Grants Round One 2019/2020, including eleven multiboard applications, requesting a total of $336,644.27.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2006-108	Rick Evitt	Arts and culture	Towards the venue hire and food to provide a collaborative building space for the community.	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-123	Centrestage Theatre Company (Orewa) Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the lighting costs to deliver "Oliver!" the musical.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-128	Mairangi Arts Centre Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the project management and provision fees, artist stipend, publication design and printing costs to create a distributed resource centre.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-129	Centrestage Theatre Company (Orewa) Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to upgrade the sound and lighting equipment.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-131	Hibiscus Coast Concert Band Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the purchase of an information technology (IT) pencil to digitise concert music.	$1,968.00	Eligible
LG2006-105	Literacy Aotearoa Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the tutor fees to run an English language and literacy programme for new parents of Mairangi Bay School.	$4,560.00	Eligible
LG2006-106	Long Bay Baptist Church	Community	Towards the wages of two youth workers to be on site at Long Bay College.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-107	Garden to Table Trust	Community	Towards the programme coordinator salary to deliver a food education programme to Mairangi Bay, Torbay and Silverdale schools.	$9,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-112	Torbay Business Association	Community	Towards the costs to deliver "Through Their Eyes" and four retail competitions.	$7,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-113	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Community	Towards the printing and advertisement costs to host "Moments of Mairangi."	$3,500.00	Eligible
LG2006-116	Browns Bay Business Association	Community	Towards the purchase and installation of fairy lights.	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-121	Age Concern Rodney Incorporated	Community	Towards the venue hire, sound, lighting and refreshments to deliver an annual Christmas concert for the elderly.	$2,730.00	Eligible
LG2006-122	The Pinc and Steel Cancer Rehabilitation Trust	Community	Towards the costs of medical screenings, the "Next Steps" programme and the "PaddleOn" programme.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-124	Silverdale Area Business Association	Community	Towards the salary of the business coordinator for the business association.	$8,750.00	Eligible
LG2006-130	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the purchase of two laptop computers for youth workers.	$2,485.00	Eligible
LG2006-132	Hibiscus Coast Branch of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists	Community	Towards the purchase of two computers.	$5,513.00	Eligible
LG2006-133	The Scout Association of New Zealand	Community	Towards the salary of the general manager to oversee scout groups in the Hibiscus and Bays area.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-135	North Shore Group Riding for the Disabled Incorporated	Community	Towards the overall costs to host a community open day, including wages, overhead costs and volunteer reimbursements.	$4,200.00	Eligible
LG2006-136	Long Bay Okura Great Park Society	Community	Towards the costs to host two community information events, including venue hire, printing, guest speaker fees, volunteer petrol and website support.	$6,869.85	Eligible
LG2006-139	Kids Safe with Dogs Charitable Trust	Community	Towards instructor wages, administration and printing to deliver the "Kids Safe with Dogs" programme to local schools.	$8,775.00	Eligible
LG2006-141	Stoney Homestead Trust	Community	Towards the installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system and the design and setup of a community garden.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-143	Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	Environment	Towards expansion of current services to Stillwater and East Coast Bays road area.	$20,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-104	Rotary Orewa Satellite Club	Events	Towards the overall costs to host the “Greek Extravaganza 2019” fundraiser event, including venue hire, lighting and sound, catering and equipment, cleaning fee, flight cost and printing.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-111	Long Bay Baptist Church	Events	Towards the overall costs to deliver a family-friendly Christmas event in the Long Bay development area.	$3,680.00	Eligible
LG2006-114	New Zealand Health Association Limited Trading as Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing	Events	Towards the temporary fence hire for the 2020 "Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon."	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-117	Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust	Events	Towards the costs to host two snorkel days and one Kaitiaki day including administration and coordinator costs, instructor fees and equipment rental.	$9,048.70	Eligible
LG2006-120	Murrays Bay Residents Association	Events	Towards the overall costs of the 2020 'Birdman Festival,' including entertainment, stage costs, security, waste management, sound, portaloos and St John hire.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-145	Supshed Limited	Events	Towards the water safety cost to deliver a summer series of beach and water-based activities.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-102	Weiti Boating Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase and installation of a replacement pontoon.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-103	Browns Bay Bowling Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase and installation of a bowling green shelter.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-115	Hibiscus Sea Rescue Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of a scoop stretcher and a communication system.	$5,949.00	Eligible
LG2006-125	North Harbour Hockey Association	Sport and recreation	Towards the turf hire and coordinator fees to deliver a six-week after school hockey programme.	$4,058.87	Eligible
LG2006-126	Manly Sailing Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of an outboard motor for the rescue inflatable.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-127	East Coast Bays' and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase and installation of cricket net fencing.	$4,014.10	Eligible
LG2006-137	Torbay Sailing Club	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of a rigid inflatable boat for safety and support.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-140	Metropark Community Sports Charitable Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the mechanical services and engineering services component for the Pavilion building project.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2006-142	Hibiscus Coast Association Football Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of goals and nets to run a youth summer football programme.	$8,576.96	Eligible
Total				$270,678.48

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB1920-153	The Operating Theatre Trust	Arts and culture	Towards 2,000 free show tickets and transport for children to attend the theatre production "Greedy Cat."	$3,103.55	Eligible
MB1920-104	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Community	Towards a proportion of operational costs, excluding wages, for three centres in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.	$15,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-134	The Yes Disability Resource Centre Services Trust Board	Community	Towards the costs to create a "Disability Youth Advisory Group" for the North Shore, including catering, transport, coordination fees, two events and a training day.	$3,500.00	Eligible
MB1920-138	North Shore Women’s Centre	Community	Towards the wages of a community resource worker and a social worker to deliver services for the North Shore Women’s Centre.	$1,500.00	Eligible
MB1920-141	Royal New Zealand Foundation of The Blind Incorporated	Community	Towards the purchase of digital talking books for the Blind Foundation library.	$3,500.00	Eligible
MB1920-161	The Parkinson's New Zealand Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the salaries of six Parkinson's community educators for the period of 1 October 2019 to 1 October 2020.	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-170	Environmental Education for Resource Sustainability Trust	Environment	Towards the purchase of native plants, the purchase of classroom bins and the courier fees to deliver the classroom bins.	$3,355.99	Eligible
MB1920-110	The Korean Society of Auckland Incorporated	Events	Towards the event costs for 2020 'Korean Day,' including venue hire, catering, sound, advertising and performance fees.	$2,200.00	Eligible
MB1920-102	Badminton North Harbour Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to upgrade 11 court surfaces.	$6,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-142	Harbour Sport Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the transport, toilet, sound, waste management, event photography, temporary fencing and event timing costs to deliver the "Shore to Shore" 2020 event.	$6,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-169	Gymnastics Community Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of landing mats and foam cubes for the foam landing pit.	$19,806.25	Eligible
Total				$65,965.79

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 the world’s most liveable city.

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2019/2020 on 15 May 2019 and will operate two quick response and two 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. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. Based on the main focus of an application, subject matter experts 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

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 through Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 (Attachment B) and Multiboard Grants Round One 2019/2020 (Attachment 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. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

18. Ten applicants applying to Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One and two applicants applying to Multiboard Grants Round One indicate projects that target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

20. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $526,129 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

21. Forty-eight applications were received for Local Grants Round One 2019/2020, including eleven multiboard applications, requesting a total of $336,644.27.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grants Programme 2019/2020	21
b ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 Grant Applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Multiboard Grants Round One 2019/2020 Grant Applications (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Makenzie Hirz - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Shane King - Head of Service Support

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Classifying additional Hibiscus and Bays local parks

File No.: CP2019/16935

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To declare and classify land held under the Local Government Act 2002, and to classify and reclassify land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and approve public notification where required.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In September 2018 officers completed a comprehensive park land status investigation for local parks in Hibiscus and Bays area. This was an essential preliminary task in developing the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan (the local parks management plan).

3. Subsequently the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approved a large number of parks to be classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (resolution number HB/2019/20). This is because for parkland to be included in the local parks management plan it must either be correctly classified under the Reserves Act 1977 according to its primary purpose or alternatively held under the Local Government Act 2002.

4. Thirteen additional parcels of land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and four held under the Local Government Act 2002 have since been discovered that were not included in the initial investigation and classification process.

5. We have assessed each of these parcels and propose that:

· Nine unclassified reserve parcels be classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (Attachment B)

· Four parcels held under the Local Government Act 2002 are declared as a reserve and classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (Attachment C)

· Four reserve parcels which are to be reclassified under the Reserves Act 1977 be publicly notified (Attachment D).

6. In proposing land to be classified or reclassified under the Reserves Act 1977, our considerations included the current and likely future use, continuity with adjoining land parcels and the benefits and disadvantages of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002 in managing and enabling the use, protection and development of each local park.

7. Completing classification and reclassification will enable staff to include these parcels in the future public notification of the draft local parks management plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the classification of nine parcels of reserve land pursuant to sections 16(1) and 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment B of the agenda report (dated 18 September 2019)

b) approve four parcels of land to be declared a reserve and classified according to their primary purpose, under section 14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as proposed in Attachment C of the agenda report (dated 18 September 2019)

c) approve public notification of the proposals to reclassify four parcels of reserve land pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment D of the agenda report (dated 18 September 2019).

Horopaki

Context

8. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has decision-making responsibility for all local parks in the local board area (the local board area).

9. On 13 December 2018, the local board resolved to prepare an omnibus open space management plan for all local parks in Hibiscus and Bays to assist park management and meet obligations for reserve management planning under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) (resolution number: HB/2017/207).

10. The local parks management plan will be a statutory reserve management plan prepared in line with section 41 of the Act and cover park land held under the Act as well as the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), including land covered by existing reserve management plans.

11. On 20 March 2019, the local board resolved to classify Hibiscus and Bays park land held under the Act that was to be included in the management plan (resolution number HB/2019/20).

12. In preparing the provisional draft local parks management plan (the draft plan), we have discovered nine additional land parcels held as unclassified reserve under the Act that require classification, so they can be included in the local parks management plan.

13. In addition, four parcels currently held under the LGA are proposed to be declared reserve and held under the Act and four land parcels, currently classified, require reclassification to better align with the current primary purpose of the reserve or to correct an existing classification error.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The local board has the option to hold park land under the LGA or the Act.

15. For land held under the LGA we have considered the following options

· continue to hold the land under the LGA

· declare land currently held under the LGA to be reserve under the Act and classify appropriately.

16. For land held under the Act, the following options have been considered:

· classify according to its primary purpose

· reclassify to align to its primary purpose

· revoke the reserve status and hold the land under the LGA

· continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the Act (status quo).

17. We have discounted the status quo option as it would mean that if this park land was included in the local parks management plan, the plan would not comply with the Act, the council would not be meeting its statutory obligations under the Act and we would not be able to recommend public notification of the draft plan.

18. Attachment A summarises the different options for land held under the Act.

19. In considering whether to proceed with the options for each land parcel, staff have considered:

· the intended purpose of the land when it was acquired; for example, was it vested as a recreation or esplanade reserve on subdivision?

· the long-term protection that the Act provides from inappropriate use and development

· the benefits of unified and integrated management of individual parks and the local parks network as a whole

· whether underlying Crown ownership of the local park prevents the reserve status being revoked

· whether statutory processes and future decision-making will be streamlined

· the need for greater flexibility and choice in how local parks are used by the public

· whether revoking the reserve status of a particular land parcel would materially lead to a greater range of park activities being able to occur.

Classification of land held under the Reserves Act 1977

20. Classification involves assigning a reserve (or part of a reserve) a primary purpose, as defined in sections 17 to 23 of the Act, that aligns with its present values. Consideration is also given to potential future values, activities and uses.

21. For the nine parcels currently held as unclassified reserve under the Act and requiring classification, we have considered the Reserves Act Guide^{^[1]} and the following questions when determining the primary purpose and appropriate classification for each parcel.

· Why does the council own the land? Why was it acquired?

· What are the main values of the land or potential future values, uses and activities?

· What potential does the land have for protection, preservation, enhancement or development?

· What is the status of adjacent parcels of land in the park?

· What potential does the land have for protection, enhancement and development?

· Is there likely to be a need to retain flexibility for future use?

22. Attachment B identifies land parcels that we recommend the local board classify under section 16(1) or 16(2A) of the Act.

Reservation and classification of land held under the LGA

23. Attachment C identifies four parcels of land held under the LGA recommended for declaring and classifying under Section 14 of the Reserves Act

24. These parcels sit within Metro Park East and the reason for declaring and classifying these parcels is to align with the recreation reserve status of adjacent parcels of land within the park.

Public notification of classification

25. The Act requires the proposed classification of reserve parcels or the reservation and classification of parcels to be publicly notified, except where:

· the proposed classification aligns with the open space zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan,

· the reserve has been held under previous legislation for a similar purpose, or

· the proposed classification was a condition under which the land was acquired.

26. Our investigation has found that public notification of the proposed classifications or reservation and classification is not required for any of these land parcels.

Reclassification of some land held under the Reserves Act 1977

27. Reclassification involves assigning a different class to a reserve (or part of a reserve) to better cater for its primary purpose.

28. We have identified four parcels of reserve land requiring reclassification (Attachment D) for the following reasons:

· to better align with the current or anticipated future use of the reserve

· to correct previous classification errors.

29. Section 24(2)(b) of the Act requires all proposals to reclassify reserves to be publicly notified, together with the reasons for the proposed change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. We have discussed the land classification investigations with council units including Parks, Sports and Recreation, Infrastructure and Environmental Services and Community Facilities (including Leasing).

31. Heritage, biodiversity, parks and stormwater specialists have also informed the recommendations for classifying and reclassifying reserves according to their primary purpose.

32. Classification of reserves together with developing the local parks management plan will provide a consistent management direction for all parks and reserves

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. At a local board workshop on 29 August 2019 staff presented details of all parcels held under the Act proposed to be classified and reclassified and parcels held under the LGA proposed to be declared and classified under the Act. We also presented to the local board the principles that underpinned the investigation and gave an overview of the methods and rationale we used to determine the recommendations for unclassified reserves.

34. Local board feedback generally supported the rationale and proposals for declaring and classifying LGA land reserve under section 14(1), classification under sections 16(1) and 16(2) and reclassification of reserves that were discussed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. We have consulted interested mana whenua about our proposals to classify or reclassify the remaining seven parcels of land to be included in the local parks management plan.

36. We have applied the knowledge gained from engagement with mana whenua in 2018 when working with them on the classification programme as part of the local parks management plan.

37. We have received responses from Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngaati Whanaunga, all responses supported our proposed classification actions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. Financial implications include costs for public notices to reclassify land held under the Act.

39. The operational budget of the council’s Community Facilities department will cover these costs.

40. There are no financial implications associated with classifying the 13 parcels of unclassified land held under the Act.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. The following table outlines the risks and mitigation for classification and reclassification of reserves.

Risk	Mitigation
Reserves Act 1977 classifications constrain the range of uses for land	We have followed the considerations in paragraph 21 above and the Reserves Act 1977 Guide in assessing the current and likely future use of each individual parcel we propose to classify or reclassify under the Act.
Public objections to proposed classifications delaying the management plan process	Four parcels require public notification. Due to the small number of parcels, we anticipate the potential impact on timeframes for the management plan to be minimal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Next steps vary depending on whether land is to be classified or reclassified. Attachment E outlines the next steps for each action.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Possible actions for Reserves Act 1977 land	31
b ⇩	Parcels to be classified under the Reserves Act 1977	33
c ⇩	Parcels to be declared reserve and classified under the Reserves Act 1977	35
d ⇩	Parcels to be reclassified (public notification mandatory)	37
e ⇩	Outline of next steps for different actions	39

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader

Dafydd Pettigrew - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Recommending the provisional draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan to the incoming local board

File No.: CP2019/16817

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the incoming Hibiscus and Bays Local Board that the provisional draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan be considered and publicly notified.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. We have prepared a provisional draft local parks management plan (Attachments A and B) that provides a framework and guidance to manage use, protection and development of local parks in Hibiscus and Bays.

3. The provisional draft local parks management plan covers park land held subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002. It has been developed following the Reserves Act 1977 process for creating a reserve management plan as most parks covered by the plan are held under the Reserves Act 1977.

4. The local board reference group consisting of members from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has worked extensively with staff on the development of the provisional draft local board management plan. Regular meetings have provided valuable local knowledge and direction for general and park specific guidance included in the document.

5. The provisional draft plan has been developed in partnership with mana whenua and was informed by the first round of consultation with park user groups, stakeholders and the wider community.

6. We are seeking local board’s recommendation of the provisional draft local board management plan to the incoming local board. This will ensure it reflects the current local board’s views on how Hibiscus and Bays local parks should be managed in the future.

7. We intend to seek approval from the incoming local board to notify the future provisional draft local parks management plan in December 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) recommend the provisional draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Park Management Plan (Attachments A and B to the agenda report dated 18 September 2019) to the incoming local board for their consideration and public notification of the draft document under the Reserves Act 1977.

Horopaki

Context

8. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has decision-making responsibility for all local parks in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area (the local board area).

9. The Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) requires a reserve management plan be developed for most types of reserves administered by the local board.

10. On 13 December 2018 the local board resolved to approve public notification of its intention to prepare a combined Open Space Management Plan for all community parks and reserves in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area (excluding reserves covered by the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves Management Plan) and invite written suggestions on the proposed plan (HB/2017/207).

11. The provisional draft local parks management plan (as it has been renamed) (Attachments A and B) is a statutory reserve management plan prepared in line with section 41 of the Act and covers park land held under this Act and the Local Government Act 2002, including land covered by existing reserve management plans.

12. It is recommended practice that a local board does not make any significant decisions in the three-month period leading up to the triennial election day which may bind an incoming local board.

13. Once adopted the provisional draft local parks management plan (the plan) will establish policy for the management of all local parks in the local board area and the Act requires the local board to comply with any management plan for reserves in its area. It is prudent for the current local board to refer the decision to confirm and publicly notify the plan to the incoming local board.

14. If the local board agrees, we intend to seek approval to notify the plan from the incoming local board in December 2019.

15. In the meantime, the current local board can recommend the provisional draft plan for public consultation to the incoming local board, recognising their contribution and involvement in developing the draft.

16. This will provide the incoming local board with an understanding of the current local board’s recommended intentions for the future management of Hibiscus and Bays local parks and confidence that these intentions have been articulated accurately through the plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

How we engaged with mana whenua, park user groups and the wider community

17. A range of consultation and engagement activities were undertaken with mana whenua, the community and the local board to inform the plan including:

· Mana whenua: presentation to Parks Sport and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum, following this we held four hui with mana whenua representatives

· Engagement with park user groups: individual face to face and phone interviews with a range of stakeholder groups who use, lease, undertake volunteer or community activities on Hibiscus and Bays parks

· Statutory public consultation: public views were collected in response to statutory notification of the intention to prepare a draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Local Parks Management Plan. This consultation period was open for one month from 22 February 2018; however submissions were accepted up until 6 April 2019.

Development of the provisional draft Local Parks Management Plan

18. Several work streams contributed to the design and development of the plan including:

· consultation and engagement as outlined in paragraph 17 above

· review of existing reserve management plans covering 38 parks

· review of service need assessments, existing park concept plans, ecological reports, contracts and restoration plans and cultural and historic inventory registers

· review of the legal status of all land parcels and completing reservation, classification or reclassification of any local parks under the Act as required

· development of general park management guidance applicable to all parks covered by the plan and development of specific park management guidance for individual parks

· legal review of the provisional draft plan to ensure statutory compliance of the content

· compliance with the Act for local parks held as reserves, particularly the specific provisions of reserve classification under the Act which have guided the development of the park-specific section (part C) of the plan

· consideration of strategic alignment e.g. Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan; Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan; Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Network Plan.

The provisional draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan – in a nutshell

19. The plan covers 273 parks that extend over approximately 600 hectares of land within Hibiscus and Bays. The plan consists of three key parts plus appendices. The structure and content contained in each part is as follows:

Plan Structure	Overview
Part A – Introduction and context	Sets the context for the plan and why it is required, how to use it and the fundamental values that underpin local parks
Part B – General Parks Policies	General management guidance for all local parks including activities that require authorisation and specific activities that often occur on parks
Part C – Park Classification and Individual Parks	Specific information and management guidance for individual parks
Part D – Appendices	Supporting or relevant reference information

20. Attachment A contains Parts A and B; Attachment B contains Parts C and D; and Attachment C contains the map legend.

21. A variety of factors influenced the design and layout of the plan including:

· the large number of parks the plan covers and the ability to convey a large amount of information concisely

· the readability/usability for a wide audience that includes mana whenua, key stakeholders, general public, the local board and council staff

· the ability to create both an online digital version of the plan and paper version

· the desire to create an enduring plan that reduces the need for regular minor updates to maintain accuracy and integrity throughout its potential 10-year lifespan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. A council project group has met regularly to support the project, understand implications of the plan and ensure alignment with other council plans and projects. This group included staff from Community Facilities, Parks Sport and Recreation, and Community and Social Policy.

23. Other council departments and Council Controlled Organisations have provided specialist input into the development of the plan including Infrastructure and Environmental Services, Legal Services, Local Board Services, Auckland Transport, Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

24. Once approved for notification by the incoming local board, the plan is intended to convey to the public how the local board intend to manage Hibiscus and Bays local parks over the next 10 years. The public will have the opportunity to make submissions on the plan once the incoming local board has considered and approved it for consultation.

Local board views

25. Local board members formed a political reference group and provided informal feedback to staff during the drafting of the plan between June 2018 and August 2019.

26. In addition, workshops were held with the wider local board at key points through the development of the provisional draft plan to inform them of progress and seek feedback.

27. Workshops were held with the local board on 1 and 29 August 2019 to seek final feedback on the plan prior to this recommendation for endorsement. At the workshops local board members were largely supportive of the plan. Specific issues raised which have been addressed, include:

· seeking assurance that the plan would allow the local board to have flexibility in their decision making

· the large size of the document

· public access including the need for it to be digitally searchable and physically accessible by placing copies in libraries as a reference document

· amendments to correct errors or clarify some management issues and/or management intentions in a small number of individual park chapters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Staff have partnered with mana whenua who had capacity to be involved in the development of the plan, including Ngāti Manuhiri, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and Ngaati Whanaunga

29. Points of interest and input from mana whenua relate to the management of natural and coastal areas, sites and areas of cultural significance and the ability for mana whenua to provide input into future decisions on local parks.

30. The plan acknowledges council’s obligation to iwi under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi in local parks management planning and seeks to embed te ao Māori world view throughout the document. For example, section 4 of the plan explains the four overarching park values and how mana whenua relate to these values.

31. The plan also acknowledges the benefits of strengthening mutually beneficial working relationships between the local board and mana whenua and enabling mana whenua to strengthen their connection to taonga within parks.

32. Mana whenua priorities for local parks are:

· Kaitiakitanga (guardianship) – ecological management: the ongoing health of the waterways and bush areas, especially protection from kauri dieback (see below); biocontrol of pest species; the impact on water quality of current and planned infrastructure on and near the park

· living Māori presence: ensuring that signage and narratives on the park reflect iwi past and present

· protecting cultural landscapes and ensuring connections between parks and other sites are recognised and managed in a respectful and culturally appropriate way

· providing mana whenua with the opportunity to give input into future decisions on local parks particularly where implications for the environment and culturally significant sites and landscapes potentially exist.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. Costs associated with developing the plan have been covered by previously approved budgets. There are no costs associated with recommending the plan to the incoming local board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. The following table outlines the risks and proposed mitigation associated with recommending the plan to the incoming local board.

Risk	Mitigation
That the public misunderstand the difference between local board recommending the plan to the incoming local board and approving a draft plan for public notification.	The report clearly states that staff will seek approval to notify the plan in December 2019 after the local body elections. The draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan consultation page on the Auckland Council website shows: · information advising the next steps in the plan development process · reporting to the incoming local board for consideration and approval to notify the draft plan. Those that provided feedback in the first round of consultation will be advised of the revised timeframe for notifying the plan.
Public awareness of the content of the plan leading to debate ahead of the incoming local board being able to consider the plan and decide whether to publicly notify it.

Risk

Mitigation

That the public misunderstand the difference between local board recommending the plan to the incoming local board and approving a draft plan for public notification.

The report clearly states that staff will seek approval to notify the plan in December 2019 after the local body elections.

The draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan consultation page on the Auckland Council website shows:

· information advising the next steps in the plan development process

· reporting to the incoming local board for consideration and approval to notify the draft plan.

Those that provided feedback in the first round of consultation will be advised of the revised timeframe for notifying the plan.

Public awareness of the content of the plan leading to debate ahead of the incoming local board being able to consider the plan and decide whether to publicly notify it.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. We will prepare a report to the incoming local board seeking approval to confirm and publicly notify the plan (subject to any further changes sought by the incoming local board and updates required as a result of changes to policies, strategies or bylaws). The report will include the local board’s resolutions arising from this report.

36. Subject to approval from the incoming local board to notify the plan, public consultation is planned for early 2020 for two months in accordance with the Act. Analysis of submissions and hearings will follow the consultation period.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Provisional Draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan - Parts A & B (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Provisional Draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan - Parts C & D (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	Local Parks Management Plans - Map Legend	47

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Dafydd Pettigrew - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Hibiscus and Bays – Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon and Bushglen Reserve track

File No.: CP2019/14217

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the revocation of subsection c) of resolution HB/2019/62 and reallocate $70,000 of Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget from Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan #2174 towards:

· the construction of a kayak pontoon in Deep Creek (Kayak pontoon – SPID#2413) and

· obtaining resource consent for the Bushglen Reserve Concept Plan (Bush track – SPID#1905).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board previously approved the allocation of $280,000 Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget from the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan programme, to enhance the renewal of Lotus Walkway.

3. Due to site restrictions, this walkway cannot be enhanced, and this budget is no longer required. A like for like renewal is now underway on the Lotus Walkway.

4. This report seeks to revoke a previous resolution to allocate Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget to enhance the renewal of Lotus Walkway and recommends reallocating additional funding to the Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon and Bushglen Reserve bush track projects.

5. The primary objectives for these projects is to empower communities and to help restore and protect local areas. The allocation of additional funding will enable these community projects to progress.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) agree, pursuant to standing order 1.10.1 to revoke subsection c) of resolution HB/2019/62, adopted at the ordinary meeting held on 15 May 2019 which reads as follows:

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

c) approve the allocation of $280,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget Implement actions from the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan in the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 financial years towards the renewal of the walkway from Sharon Road to Manly Esplanade (Lotus Walk)

and replace it with:

c) approve the re-allocation of $50,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget for construction of the kayak pontoon at Deep Creek Reserve

b) approve the re-allocation of $20,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget for consenting of the Bushglen track

c) note that the remaining $210,000 Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget will remain unallocated and staff will workshop alterative options with the local board

d) approve the kayak pontoon concept design, as per Attachment A to the agenda report

e) approve proceeding with procurement and construction in accordance with the kayak pontoon design.

Context

Background

6. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board formerly resolved the allocation of $280,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) capital budget “Implement actions from the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan” in the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 financial years towards the renewal of the walkway from Sharon Road to Manly Esplanade (Lotus Walkway) (HB/2019/62).

7. At that time, staff anticipated that the Lotus Walkway renewal project could receive an increased level of service with the reallocated greenways LDI budget. During the design phase, it became apparent that site limitations meant that the increased level of service was not achievable, and the original renewal budget was adequate to renew the walkway.

Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon (Ecological management plan)

8. An ecological management plan for Deep Creek Reserve was completed in 2017 and adopted by the local board (HB/2017/63). The plan included recommendations to improve the condition of the Deep Creek estuary and provide access to the water for the local community.

9. One of the recommendations in the plan was to install a formal kayak/small boat launching area next to the Torbay Sailing Club.

10. The local board approved the allocation of $25,000 of LDI budget in the FY2018/2019 programme to complete a concept design, resource consent and cost estimate for a kayak pontoon within the reserve (HB/2018/122). An additional $25,000 was also included in the FY2019/2020 work programme (HB/2019/90).

Bushglen Reserve track

11. In July 2018, the local board adopted a concept plan for the development of Bushglen Reserve (HB/2018/120). The implementation of the plan was supported by the local board to provide the following outcomes;

a) track improvements

b) community access

c) protection of the swamp maire

d) improve knowledge of reserve

e) allows the community group to prepare funding applications to build tracks

12. Funding of $10,000 was approved in the 2018/19 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Work Programme to complete the design of a track within the reserve and obtain a resource consent (HB/2018/122).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon

13. In May 2019, staff workshopped the Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon concept design and cost estimate with the local board.

14. The preferred location of the pontoon is to the rear of the Awatuna Sea Scout Den/Torbay Sailing Club and is accessed off the existing concrete path as per Figure 1 and Attachment A.

15. The proposed pontoon will be constructed using medium density polyethylene (‘plastic’), which floats on the water. The proposed pontoon will have a total length of 10m from the extended pathway and will be stabilised on each side with eight driven poles. Refer to Attachment B for an example.

16. The floating platform and 10m length provides access for high and low tides. The surface will be slip resistant due to the wood grain texture finish.

Figure 1: Proposed pontoon

17. To date $17,000 of the FY2018/2019 approved $25,000 has been spent on design and consent. The remaining $8,000 is committed to complete the engineering drawings, preparation of the documentation for tender and project management costs.

18. The $25,000 allocated in FY2019/FY2020 is still available.

19. The total cost estimate including design and construction is $100,000, therefore there is a budget shortfall of $50,000.

Bushglen Reserve track

20. Staff have progressed the bush track design through to resource consent stage and in order to obtain resource consent an additional $20,000 is required.

21. Up until this point all design and project management has been done in house to keep costs down. It has been identified that specialist reports (ecology and arboriculture) are required to support the resource consent application. Due to the specialist nature of these reports external consultants are required.

22. The additional funding is to cover the cost of the required specialist reports and the preparation of the resource consent application.

23. Once resource consent is approved it will allow the Friends of Bush Glen to apply for funding for the physical works and to continue their work with the preservation of the swamp maire.

Options on how to proceed

24. Options to progress the projects have been considered and are outlined below –

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1	Community groups to lead and fund the next stages of the projects	The projects will be fully community funded and community led	The groups do not have the resources, ability or funding to complete the projects.
2	Local Board to allocate LDI Capex funding	The reallocation of funding will enable the work for the two projects to commence in FY 2019/20	Funding would not be available for other possible LDI projects
3	No additional funding allocated, and Council continue to lead	No foreseeable advantage	Projects will be put on hold until funding is available

25. Funding previously allocated to the enhancement of Sharon Road to Manly Esplanade (Lotus Walkway) has become available for reallocation.

26. Staff recommend Option 2 is approved and LDI funding of $50,000 is allocated to the Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon project, and a further $20,000 to the Bushglen Reserve track project to enable both projects to progress.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The report recommendations have been developed collaboratively between staff from Community Facilities.

28. Staff leading the Lotus Walkway renewal project have been consulted and are supportive of the proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Links to the local board plan

29. These projects align with the following Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcomes and objectives:

Outcome	Objective
Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation	Protect, maintain and improve access and amenity for activities on our coastlines, parks and reserves
Our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas	Communities in our area are empowered to plan for their future
A protected and enhanced environment	Continue to work with the community, volunteer groups, schools, iwi and businesses to protect and enhance the environment.

30. Consultation with the Deep Creek Restoration Society and Friends of Bushglen was undertaken during the concept design phase.

31. The views of the Deep Creek Restoration Society were taken into consideration by the local board at a workshop in May 2019. The local board indicated support at the workshop for options to be investigated that enabled both projects to progress.

32. The kayak pontoon and bush track works are anticipated to improve safety for the local community and provide an improved level of service. The proposed works will also help to preserve the estuary at Deep Creek Reserve.

33. Further collaboration with the Deep Creek Restoration Society and Friends of Bushglen will continue throughout future phases of both projects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. In August 2017, mana whenua were consulted throughout the development of the Waiake ecological management plan. No further engagement is foreseen for the Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon project as it was part of the original ecological management plan.

35. Engagement with mana whenua on the Bushglen Reserve track will occur through the resource consent process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Proposed LDI capital budget transfer

Project	Current LDI budget allocation	Proposed LDI budget allocation
Implement actions from the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan (Lotus Walk)	$280,000	$0
Deliver ecological management plans (kayak pontoon)	$50,000	$100,000
Bushglen Reserve - implement concept plan (bush track)	$10,000	$30,000
Unallocated LDI budget	$0	$210,000
Total	$340,000	$340,000

36. If the local board support the allocation of additional funding towards the Deep Creek Reserve kayak pontoon and Bushglen Reserve track projects, a total of $70,000 will be reallocated from the Implement actions from the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan (Lotus Walkway). This will enable both projects to be progressed in 2019/2020.

37. The unallocated budget remaining of $210,000 will be available for alternative projects. Options will be discussed with the local board in the future.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. If the local board choose not to support the reallocation of funding, construction and resource consent processes will be delayed until funding is secured in future financial years.

39. This will result in a delay to the implementation of the Deep Creek Reserve ecological management plan and Bushglen Reserve concept plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. If budget is approved, procurement will commence from October 2019 for the kayak pontoon. Construction would begin summer 2019/2020.

41. An application for resource consent for the Bushglen Reserve track will be lodged in November, when the Ecological and Arborist reports are complete.

42. Options for allocating the remaining $210,000 of LDI funding will be workshopped with the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Kayak pontoon concept design	55
b ⇩	Attachment B - Kayak pontoon example	61

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tyla Otene - Sports Parks Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Draft Urban Ngahere (Forest) Report

File No.: CP2019/16195

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Hibiscus and Bays Urban Forest (Ngahere) Analysis Report 2019 (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board provided funding in 2018/2019 financial year to undertake the ‘Knowing’ phase of the Urban Ngahere (Forest) programme.

3. The ‘Knowing’ phase has involved detailed analysis of the urban tree cover; using a variety of data sources from the council, Statistics New Zealand, and other local government sources. The analysis has looked at the urban tree cover extents from the 2013 aerial analysis work, alongside population statistics, and current growth projections outlined in the Auckland Plan.

4. The report has established that urban tree coverage in the local board area is approximately 25 per cent of the overall land area in 2013. The total tree cover is good when compared to the averages across the region and 10 per cent above the minimum target that has been set by Auckland Council in the regional Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy 2017. The strategy sets a regional target to have no local board with a tree canopy coverage less than 15 per cent.

5. To continue to increase canopy cover over the long-term new specimen trees should be planted every year.

6. In the 2019/2020 financial year the local board has provided funding to undertake the ‘Growing’ phase of the Ngahere program. This will commence work to develop the long-term planting plan (1-10years) to help coordinate and direct local planting initiatives to increase the tree cover in areas where it is most needed, along with working to develop partnerships to help grow native plants locally.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the Hibiscus and Bays Urban Ngahere (Forest) Analysis Report (Attachment A of the agenda report).

b) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the General Manager, Parks Sport and Recreation to make minor changes and amendments to the text and design of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Urban Ngahere (Forest) Analysis Report that are required before public release.

Horopaki

Context

7. In 2017, Auckland Council staff developed a regional tree strategy to address concerns around tree cover changes resulting from: development pressures, disease threats, climate change, and changes to tree protection rules. The development of the strategy included workshops and consultation with elected members, mana whenua, and internal stakeholders. The work resulted in the regional Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, which was adopted by the Environment and Community Committee in February 2018.

8. Currently the region has an average tree canopy cover of 18 per cent. The strategy sets targets that encourages all local boards to have a minimum tree canopy cover of at least 15 per cent, and on a regional scale the target is set at 30 per cent by 2050, in line with the Auckland Plan.

9. Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy recommends implementation and analysis at the local level. Local boards were offered the opportunity to invest in area specific Urban Ngahere programmes’ of work.

10. The local board Urban Ngahere (Forest) programme has three phases: ‘Knowing’, ‘Growing’ and ‘Protecting’. The ‘Knowing’ phase involves establishing an accurate current state analysis report with recommendations for future actions. The ‘Growing’ phase involves a number of activities including annual tree plantings’ ongoing to address areas of low tree cover. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has allocated funding to begin the ‘Growing’ phase in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The analysis report highlights the good overall tree canopy coverage at 25 per cent for the Hibiscus and Bays local board area.

The report provides a number of key statistics:

· 25 per cent of the local board area has tree canopy coverage

· 70 per cent of urban tree cover exists on private land, which is noticeably higher than the regional average of 63%

· 22 per cent of urban tree cover is in parks

· 6 per cent of local roads have tree canopy cover, which is low

· 2 per cent of the urban tree cover is on other publicly owned land (e.g. Ministry of Education land)

12. Section 6.4 of the report sets out key focus areas for increasing the tree canopy coverage across the local board area. These are intended to help provide long-term lasting benefits for local communities.

13. Funding for a multi-year programme of tree planting on public land in parks, open space areas and within the road corridor is necessary to help increase the overall tree numbers in the local board area which will help to increase the areas overall tree canopy coverage.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) has collaborated with Community Facilities to help inform where the current maintenance and renewal programme for trees can help to improve the overall health diversity and extent of the tree canopy cover.

15. PSR will help inform the Community Facilities renewals programme to ensure an ongoing program of tree renewal occurs to replace poor and ailing stock and to replant where dead, dying, or diseased trees are removed.

16. PSR and Community Facilities will collaboratively manage local board funding and project manage the delivery of the new tree plantings in the 2020 planting season.

17. PSR will investigate the opportunities for a wider collaborative approach across the council family to grow more trees in local communities and schools for local use.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. The local board has provided direction and support for the project at workshops in September 2018 to complete the ‘Knowing’ phase. The board provided in-principle support for the report at the July 2019 workshop.

19. The local board requests a wider collaborative programme be considered with other areas of council including, volunteer programme as part of the next steps for the Urban Ngahere (Forest) ‘growing’ work.

20. The local board requested more detail on the areas outside of the original Metro Urban Limit with the new detail contained in the regional data set. This will be included in the final version.

21. The local board has also provided funding for the next stage of the Ngahere (Forest) programme in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The Urban Ngahere (Forest) is pivotal to mana whenua and the use of native trees will take place as the first choice in alignment with the council’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy. New tree plantings will benefit local Māori and the wider community by providing increased opportunities for access to nature, and providing shade in the local park network.

23. Mana whenua will be engaged to support tree planting preparation and provide a cultural narrative in the choice of species for the local areas.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The local board has provided further funding in the 2019/2020 financial year to undertake development of a long-term planting plan and initial scoping of sites for new tree plantings. Further detail on this programme will be presented to the local board at the beginning of 2020.

25. It is proposed that the local board funds an annual programme in future work programmes of new tree planting in parks and along streets to increase the level of tree canopy coverage on public land across the entire local board area. The planting programme should take place annually into the future to help increase tree canopy cover in local parks and reserves.

26. The ‘Growing’ phase should include funding to help develop a collaborative programme with local schools and community groups to develop a locally based programme to grow native trees, and shrubs for planting in local area.

27. Further work is required to establish other options for financial assistance from the private sector within the local board area. Planting on private land is needed and large land holders such as the Ministry of Education can help by funding the plantings of new trees.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. Failure to provide further funding for the Urban Ngahere (Forest) program will result in no sustained and long-term planting plan. There will be no specific new tree planting programme taking place in neighbourhood parks and along the road berms on suburban streets. Instead, current renewal planting will be the only mechanism for improving the current tree asset.

29. The analysis report highlights a need for additional efforts to significantly increase tree canopy cover to help provide increased shade and the additional social and health benefits that come with more tree cover. In addition, the planting of new trees is increasingly being recognised as a local solution to help with climate related changes that are taking place.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. The latest data showing canopy cover change update will be added to the results section once the 2016 data is ready later this year. The updated canopy change results will be presented to the local board in early 2020.

31. Community Services and Community Facilities will work collaboratively to develop an outline of the ‘Growing’ programme, setting out new tree planting plans for next five years. The long term growing plan for the planting programme will be adopted via a report in Quarter 4 of the 2019/2020 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Draft Urban Ngahere (Forest) Report (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Howell Davies - Senior Advisor - Urban Forest

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Kauri Dieback Disease - local park track mitigation in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area

File No.: CP2019/16965

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the proposed mitigation work on tracks in local parks to protect healthy kauri and prevent kauri dieback spread within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. There are 307 local parks throughout the Auckland region that contain kauri. Protection of healthy kauri is the primary objective of council’s kauri dieback management approach, as is preventing the spread of kauri dieback through - among other things - the isolation of any diseased specimens.

3. An interim report was presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 20 March 2019 (HB/2019/19). This report obtained the local board’s endorsement of the proposed high-level kauri protection measures prior to the development of a detailed programme of works.

4. There are currently 47 local parks across Auckland subject to partial or full track closures. These closures were implemented between April and July 2019, as a temporary measure while mitigation options were developed. Temporary closures will continue until the mitigation works have been completed and tracks have been upgraded to be kauri-safe. In the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area tracks in three parks have been closed temporarily.

5. Recommended mitigation measures include re-alignment or re-routing of tracks, installation of new track surface, steps, boardwalks and installation of hygiene stations. Where appropriate, indefinite track closure is also considered as a mitigation option. Public education and engagement are always a part the proposed mitigation measures.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the following proposed mitigation work programme to protect healthy kauri and reduce the impact of kauri dieback disease in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area to be funded by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate:

Park	Recommendation	Cost Estimate (physical works only)
1. Awaruku Reserve	Upgrade tracks to kauri-safe standard: Track S2 install barrier fencing and signage to prevent access to kauri Track S4 install edging and form side drain Track S5 reroute track to keep users away from kauri zone	$ 12,870
2. Emlyn Place Reserve	Close track S2 indefinitely with barrier planting across track entrances and fencing and signage until planting is sufficiently established	$7,722
3. Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve	Upgrade existing track surface to kauri-safe standard with the provision of boardwalks and formation of dry track surfacing. Close track S7 indefinitely. Upgrade track S3 to kauri-safe standards	$391,205
4. Dacre Historic Reserve and Esplanade	The single mature kauri tree has already been mitigated by DOC to kauri-safe standard however the overall general condition of this track requires renewal in some areas but is not included in this programme of work	$0
Low Risk tracks/parks
5. Karaka Cove	Provide buffer planting and or signage and barriers to prevent access	$4,000
6. Silverdale War Memorial Park	Provide buffer planting and or signage and barriers to prevent access	$4,000
7. 36 Hibiscus Coast Highway	One kauri no mitigation required as not easily accessible to public	$0
8. Esplanade Reserve off industrial place	One kauri no mitigation required as not easily accessible to public	$0
9. Northcross Reserve	One kauri no mitigation required as not easily accessible to public	$0

b) note that budget allocation for all projects in the Kauri dieback mitigation work programme are best current estimates, and amendments may be required to the Kauri dieback mitigation work programme to accommodate final costs as the year progresses

c) note that the the following proposed mitigation work programme as detailed in Attachment A (Proposed Kauri Dieback Mitigation Work Programme) is incorporated into the 2019 - 2022 Community Facilities Work Programme

d) delegate to the chairperson authority to approve minor amendments to the Kauri Dieback Mitigation Work Programme, following receipt of written advice from staff.

Horopaki

Context

6. There are 307 local parks throughout the Auckland region that contain kauri. The funding available from the natural environment targeted rate will not be able to provide for the protection of all kauri in the region.

7. To manage investment across the region, a risk-based prioritisation approach has been applied. Local parks have been analysed in terms of kauri ecosystem value, recreational value and kauri health status, noting that the council’s primary objective is the protection of healthy kauri.

8. This report outlines the proposed mitigation works for parks that have been prioritised, including the associated implementation costs and estimated timeframes.

9. An interim report (Resolution number HB/2019/19) regarding proposed kauri dieback mitigation in local parks was presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 20 March 2019. The local board resolved the following:

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse the following high-level kauri protection measures for local parks and reserves:

i) undertake detailed investigations to determine appropriate mitigation measures (such as track upgrades, track re-alignment, track re-routing, or other physical works), and consider temporary closure until mitigation works are completed to protect symptom free high value kauri ecosystems in the following Category A parks:

A) Awaruku Reserve, Torbay

B) Emlyn Place, Long Bay

ii) undertake detailed investigations to determine appropriate mitigation measures (such as track upgrades, track re-alignment, track re-routing, or other physical works), and consider temporary closure until mitigation works are completed to prevent potentially infected kauri ecosystems in a Category A park Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve from becoming a source of infection.

iii) note that the remaining Category C and Category D parks are considered to be to be low value kauri ecosystems with low value recreational use, thus making them a lower priority for mitigation investment at this stage. These parks are:

A) Karaka Cove, Whangaparāoa

B) Forest Glen Esplanade, Orewa

C) Roberta Crescent, Orewa

D) 36 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale

E) Esplanade Reserve off Industrial Place, Silverdale

F) Silverdale War Memorial Park

G) Clifftop Walkway - Murrays Bay to Churchill Reserve

H) Portal Place, Murrays Bay

b) note that a detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme with costs and timelines will be developed and submitted to a local board business meeting in mid-2019 for approval.

10. The kauri dieback budget is dedicated to protecting kauri and preventing the spread of kauri dieback disease, through the provision of new assets or upgrading of existing assets. Natural environment targeted rate budget cannot be used for the renewal of tracks in kauri forest, unless it is specifically allocated to protecting kauri.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The interim report was provided to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 20 March 2019 (HB/2019/19) included the results of the prioritisation of local parks and sought endorsement of the recommended high-level kauri protection actions prior to the development of the detailed programmed of works.

12. There are currently 47 local parks across Auckland subject to partial of full track closures. These closures were implemented between April and July 2019, as a temporary measure while mitigation options were developed. In the Hibiscus and Bays area tracks in three parks have been closed temporarily. The tracks are in the following parks:

· Awarauku Reserve

· Emlyn Place Reserve

· Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve

13. Eleven local parks in Hibiscus and Bays were initially assessed and prioritised. Two of these were subsequently removed as they were deemed to be low risk. Detailed investigation was carried out in nine parks to determine the appropriate mitigation measures (Attachment A).

14. Each track was assessed and prioritised on the following basis:

· the value of the kauri ecosystem, which was classified as high, medium or low. A kauri ecosystem value was assigned by council ecologists based on the work undertaken by Singers et al (2017): Indigenous terrestrial and wetland ecosystems of Auckland

· the health status of the kauri, which was noted as infected, possibly infected or symptom free. This information was sourced from the council’s active surveillance programme, which includes soil sampling

· the recreational value of the park, which was identified as high, medium or low. The analysis considered key recreational activities such as recreational trails, active transport, visitor destinations, volunteer activity and sports and recreation use, whether there were alternative tracks available and potential future growth. Reviews of reserve management plans (if applicable) and any other relevant strategic documents were undertaken.

15. The priority for natural environment targeted rate funding is on formal tracks with high value kauri areas and high recreational use. Mitigation of unformed or informal tracks is generally not a high priority. Those tracks are normally recommended for indefinite closure.

16. Consultation has been undertaken with the local board, key park stakeholders and mana whenua.

17. The kauri dieback disease mitigation programme below identifies some of the key milestones. Timeframes are estimates only, and are subject to resourcing, weather conditions (for construction) and the actual scope of the works that are required to be undertaken.

18. The mitigation options for the identified parks are described in detail in Attachment A as well as the precautionary mitigation measures for the low risk parks. Location maps are provided in Attachment B.

The recommended mitigation works are summarised as follows:

1. Awaruku Reserve: upgrade tracks to kauri safe standards - on track S2 install barrier fencing and signage to prevent access to kauri, on track S4 install edging and form side drain, on track S5 reroute track to keep users away from kauri zone. The estimated cost is $12,870. The estimated timeframe for completion of the works is March 2020, subject to possible consent requirements, contractor availability and weather conditions.

2. Emlyn Place Reserve: Close track S2 indefinitely with barrier planting across track entrances with fencing and signage until planting is sufficiently established. The estimated cost is $7,722. The estimated timeframe for completion of the works is March 2020, subject to contractor availability and weather conditions.

3. Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve: Upgrade existing track surface to kauri-safe standard with the provision of boardwalks and formation of dry track surfacing. Close track S7 indefinitely, upgrade track S3 to kauri-safe standards. The estimated cost is $391,205. The works will be staged over two financial years and will be subject to possible consent requirements, contractor availability and weather conditions.

4. Dacre Historic Reserve and Esplanade: The mitigation for this track has already been carried out by DOC so the kauri hygiene zone is protected as per the kauri-safe standards and therefore no further works are required.

Low Risk Tracks/ Reserves:

5. Karaka Cove: Provide buffer planting and/or signage and barriers. The estimated cost is $4,000. The estimated timeframe for completion of the works is March 2020.

6. Silverdale War Memorial Pak: Provide buffer planting and/or signage and barriers. The estimated cost is $4,000. The estimated timeframe for completion of the works is March 2020.

7. An assessment of 36 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Esplanade Reserve (off industrial Pl) and Northcross Reserve concluded that mitigation is not required as the kauri trees are difficult to access with no formed tracks leading to/ passing the kauri and therefore they are low risk.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The recommendations in this report have been developed through collaboration between council’s Environmental Services department, Parks, Sports and Recreation department and Community Facilities department.

20. Representatives from these key departments are working as part of a dedicated and ongoing project team, to ensure that all aspects of the kauri dieback mitigation programme are undertaken in an integrated manner.

21. Auckland Council Biosecurity specialists and kauri dieback team members have visited all parks in the Auckland regions that have kauri in close proximity to tracks to assess possible mitigation options.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. On 20 March 2019, an interim report was presented to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board where multiple high-level kauri protection measures for local parks and reserves were endorsed.

23. On 17 July 2019, a key park stakeholder meeting was held with local community members and local board members. The purpose of the meeting was to gain feedback on the proposed detailed mitigation works. The community group representatives were understanding of the need to temporarily close the tracks until mitigation works were completed however they did raise concerns around compliance issues should the tracks be closed for a long period.

24. On 8 August 2019, a workshop was held with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to discuss the proposed detailed mitigation programme.

25. Closing tracks in parks or reserves will have an impact on recreational activities available in the local board area. These impacts were taken into consideration when determining suitable kauri dieback mitigation measures.

26. Key park stakeholder groups that use the tracks have been informed regarding the proposed mitigation works and will continue to be kept informed on the timing of the planned track works.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents: the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

28. Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Kaimahi representatives have stressed the importance of the kauri species and expressed a desire to work more closely with the council and the Department of Conservation. Staff will work with mana whenua on the approach to kauri dieback on a site by site basis, where appropriate.

29. Mana whenua were involved during the site walkovers for the initial site scoping of the parks and provided valuable feedback on the use of the reserves.

30. On 7 August 2019, a presentation was made to the North West Mana Whenua forum regarding the proposed mitigation works. There was general support of the proposed options to protect kauri.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. In May 2018, the Governing Body approved a natural environment targeted rate to support environmental initiatives, including addressing kauri dieback. The rate will raise $311 million over the duration of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution GB/2018/91).

32. The natural environment targeted rate provides funding for kauri dieback control, including new infrastructure such as track upgrades to kauri-safe standard.

33. Where track works are already programmed in the renewals budget, additional works required to protect kauri, such as removing muddy sections of track where kauri are at risk, will be funded by the natural environment targeted rate.

34. Due to the required new standards and hygiene operating procedures the costs for building tracks to kauri-safe standard are expected to be higher than previous track projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The main risk is the spread of kauri dieback disease, where tracks are located within three times the drip line radius of kauri.

36. Closing tracks in parks and reserves, whether temporary (until upgrade works are completed) or indefinitely (where upgrade works are not recommended), will have an impact on the recreational activities available in the local board area. This may result in additional recreational pressure on other parks and reserves.

37. To mitigate this risk, information will be provided to the public about alternative recreational activities. As part of the kauri dieback community engagement and education programme, the public is provided with information about the reasons for the track closures, the objectives of the kauri dieback mitigation programme and hygiene around kauri.

38. There is also a risk of non-compliance, where mitigation measures are disregarded by the public, particularly with respect to track closures (where tracks continue to be used despite closure notices) and hygiene stations (where hygiene stations are not used, or not used correctly).

39. Risk mitigation includes the provision of appropriate information and effective implementation of track closures, including signage and physical barriers. Surveillance equipment and intelligence gathering may be used for compliance purposes.

40. In undertaking the mitigation works, strict adherence to the standards and hygiene operating requirements will be required and enforced to reduce the risk of the spread of kauri dieback disease by contractors, volunteers and council staff.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Following the local board’s decision on the recommendations provided in this report, further design, consenting (if required) and procurement will be undertaken. Contractors will then be engaged to undertake park/track mitigation works in late 2019 and/or early 2020.

42. A priority system will be in place to determine the order of works, considering the impact on the community, volume of track users, alternative routes and safety.

43. The local board and the local community will be kept updated and informed on the timing for the planned works.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed track mitigation works	75
b ⇩	Location maps for local parks	85

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Grant Jennings - Principal Sports Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board September 2019

File No.: CP2019/16834

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· A summary of the local board’s transport capital fund

· Auckland Transport’s Community Safety Fund

· A summary of consultation activity

· Traffic Control Committee resolutions

· An update on issues raised

· Hibiscus Coast Busway Station

· Part-time Barnes Dance in Silverdale

· Update on Speed Bylaw Process

· Free Child Weekend Fares

· AT’s Community Bike Fund.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport September 2019 Update Report

b) note the responses following requests for investigations into direct bus services along Whangaparāoa Road to the Silverdale Bus Station and a direct bus service from Long Bay and Torbay to Browns Bay.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

6. AT’s Community Safety Fund (CSF) comprises $20 million in total allocated across all 21 local boards, with $5 million to be allocated during the 2019/2020 financial year and the balance of $15 million over the 2020/2021 financial year. This is a safety fund that sits within AT’s safety budget so the major component of the funding allocation formula is the Deaths and Serious Injury (DSI) numbers.

7. The purpose of the fund is to allow local communities to address long-standing road safety issues that have yet to become regional priorities and have therefore not been addressed by AT.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

8. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s share of the LBTCF allocated with effect from 1 July 2018, as per the local board funding policy, is $1,237,015 per annum.

9. The total remaining in the current electoral term to the Hibiscus Local Board is $1,350,304.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$4,193,075
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$2,842,771
Remaining Budget	$1,350,304

10. The table below reflects the status of projects to which LBTCF has already been committed during this political term:

Status update on current of Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects
Project	Description	Current status	Changes since last update	Funds allocated in current political term
091 – Mairangi Bay Art Walk	Construction of footpath amenities on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay from the retail centre to Mairangi Bay Reserve.	Completed	No	$17,508
411 – Torbay Revitalisation	Upgrade of Torbay town centre.	Completed	No	$602,537
558 - Orewa Pedestrian Crossings	Facilities to improve pedestrian safety at the intersections of Moana and Moenui Avenues with the Hibiscus Coast Highway.	Completed	No	$127,510
578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3	Extension of existing Boulevard concept from Riverside Road to Empire Road.	A second workshop was held on 9 May 2019.	Yes	$1,330,000
579 - Torbay Parking Stage 2	Construction of 5 car park spaces on the Auckland Council reserve at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay.	Completed	Yes	$69,024
580 – Town Centre Slow Zones	Traffic Calming in the town centres of Mairangi Bay and Torbay.	Discussed at a workshop on 14 March.	Yes	$689,731
581 – Seat Upgrades, Orewa	Supply and installation of 14 arm rests on seven seats located in the area between 292 and 350 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.	Completed	Yes	$5,306
644 – Centennial Park Path, Campbells Bay	Auckland Council led Greenways project in Centennial Park, Campbells Bay.	Discussed at a workshop on 4 April.	Yes	$1,155
Totals				$2,842,771

11. A speed reduction on Hibiscus Coast Highway and those roads intersecting within the Boulevard area associated with Project 578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3 was consulted on as part of AT’s Speed Limit Bylaw Review.

12. Further discussions on the design options for the physical works included in Project 578 took place at a workshop on 9 May 2019 following completion of the detailed designs.

13. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 21 August 2019 the local board resolved to (HB/2019/134):

a) advise Auckland Transport that the local board prefers Option Two, with a shared pedestrian/cycle path on the seaward side, for Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project 578, Orewa Boulevard Stage Three.

14. Members of the public will now be consulted on the design for Option Two.

15. Speed reductions in the Mairangi Bay and Torbay town centres associated with Project 580 – Town Centre Slow Zones, were included in AT’s Speed Limit Bylaw Review.

16. At the local board meeting on 21 August the local board resolved to (HB/2019/132):

b) endorse the final designs in Attachments A and B of the agenda report for improvements in the town centres of Torbay and Mairangi Bay, to be constructed from the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund under Project 580 – Town Centre Slow Zones and note that Auckland Transport has agreed to fund any overrun in the cost of the crossing outside the Four Square in Torbay.

17. Whilst internal approvals are still required from AT’s Traffic Control Committee for the installation of the traffic calming devices to be installed in Torbay and Mairangi Bay, it is anticipated that the contract for construction will be awarded during October and the work completed this calendar year. No work will be carried out in these locations on weekends.

Community Safety Fund

18. At its meeting on 19 June, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved the following priority for projects nominated for construction using AT’s Community Safety Fund (CSF) monies (HB/2019/91):

i) 20 Ramsgate Terrace – conversion of existing raised table to a zebra crossing;

ii) 214 Hibiscus Coast Highway – Toucan crossing (signalised crossing for pedestrians and cyclists) linking shared paths across Hibiscus Coast Highway;

iii) Hatfields Beach pedestrian crossing to public toilet;

iv) Saddleback Rise pedestrian crossing.

19. At its meeting on 21 August 2019 the local board resolved (HB/2019/132) to maximise the use of the Community Safety Fund on construction of these projects, authorising top-up funding from the LBTCF to meet any shortfall in funding for construction of the final project,.

20. Staff will advise the local board if this situation should eventuate, providing full details of costings etc. at that time.

21. Design work is now progressing on these projects and it is anticipated that those funded through the CSF process will be completed during the 2020/2021 financial year.

Responses to Local Board Resolutions

22. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 21 August 2019 the local board resolved to (HB/2019/132):

a) request that Auckland Transport investigate a direct bus service along Whangaparāoa Road to the Silverdale Bus Station, similar to the previous 992X and report back to the local board.

b) request that Auckland Transport investigate a direct bus service route from Long Bay and Torbay to Browns Bay and report back to the local board.

23. In response to the request for an investigation into a direct bus service along Whangaparāoa Road to the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station, AT advises that the route 992X which operated prior to October 2018 did not travel straight along Whangaparāoa Road but followed the same route as the current route 982.

24. There is always a trade off when designing bus routes – directness vs accessibility. Generally, the more direct a bus service is, the fewer potential customers live within easy access of the service. By running along Brightside Road the 982 serves the people who live on or near this road. If AT was to introduce an additional, direct service that ran along Whangaparāoa Road only, all the services on the Hibiscus Coast would need to run less frequently as a result of AT’s limited resources; a new direct service would therefore probably disadvantage more people than it would help.

25. When AT consulted on the Hibiscus Coast routes in 2014, the proposal was as it is now, i.e. there was no direct service proposed along Whangaparāoa Road. There were a number of key themes where responses were received opposing the routes proposed, but the 982 was not one of those.

26. In response to the request that AT investigate a direct bus service route from Long Bay and Torbay to Browns Bay and report back to the local board, AT advises that when AT consulted on the New Network for the North Shore in 2015, there was no direct bus through the East Coast Bays from Long Bay. As a result of feedback, including that from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, it was decided to extend a route (856) from Torbay to Milford, largely along Beach Road, to connect the ‘villages’ of the East Coast Bays.

27. To operate a bus from Long Bay through the East Coast Bays would mean either unnecessary (and costly) duplication or changes to other routes which would then potentially impact on other passengers. This would also mean a much longer journey or additional transfers for passengers from Long Bay going to areas other than the East Coast Bays. As a result of the New Network services, the relatively direct route of the 861 to Albany Station, coupled with the direct route of the Northern Express services means that a passenger travelling from Long Bay to the City Centre during the day has a trip which is 18 minutes shorter than the single bus trip under the previous network, including the transfer time from the route 861 to the Northern Express.

28. When timetabling these services, the connection from Long Bay to continue through the East Coast Bays was taken into account. The route 856 from Albany to Takapuna via Beach Road is timetabled to go through Torbay Shops a few minutes after the route 861 from Long Bay has gone through. This allows passengers to make the transfer without deviation from Beach Road at a stop where there is shelter and shops.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The impact of information (or decisions) in this report are confined to AT and do not impact on other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Location	Proposal	Details and Local Board Feedback
Dalmeny Close, Mairangi Bay	Proposed P120 parking restrictions on Dalmeny Close, Mairangi Bay.	Documentation explaining a proposal to install P120 parking restrictions, which will operate Monday – Friday, 8.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m. in Dalmeny Close, Mairangi Bay, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 8 August 2019. Member Bettany advised that she supported the suggested parking restrictions, though was aware it may affect students driving cars to school, but hoped it would encourage an increased use of public or active transport. Member Holmes advised he supported the proposal. Member Parfitt said she hoped that Rangitoto College had been included in the consultation process, wondering whether AT had considered just one side of the street being restricted parking, also noting that residents in Sunrise Avenue had sought this in the past so she was sure we will see requests for more of these restrictions. No objections were received to the proposal.

Traffic Control Committee Decisions

31. AT's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced. Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board during July are shown below. There were no decisions made during August relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Decision	Report Type	Nature of Restriction	Decision
East Coast Road, Northcross	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes	No Stopping At All Times, Angle parking, P120 Time-Restricted parking, Lane Arrow markings, Edge Line	Carried
Whangaparaoa Road, Red Beach	Permanent Traffic and Parking Changes	Bus Shelter	Carried

Issues Raised by Elected Members

32. Most issues raised by elected members and local board staff are resolved promptly by AT’s Elected Member Relationship Manager. Those which require further investigation are responded to by the relevant department of AT through its customer response team. The following list summarises these issues to 2 September 2019:

	Issue	Location	Status
1	2/301 Beach Road, Campbell’s Bay	Request to upgrade the pedestrian crossing located at 2/301 Beach Road, Campbell’s Bay.	A presentation was made to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its meeting on 17 July requesting an upgrade of the pedestrian crossing located opposite 2/301 Beach Road (near the intersection of Park Rise and Huntly Road), Campbell’s Bay. On 19 August members were advised that improvements to the existing pedestrian crossing will be considered for prioritisation under AT’s Mass Action Pedestrian Improvements programme (MAPI) programme. The majority of upgrades carried out under the MAPI programme involve placing the existing crossings on raised tables to slow the speed of vehicles approaching the crossings. The outcome of the prioritisation is likely to be known by late-October 2019.
2	Beach Road, Mairangi Bay	Request for pedestrian crossing on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay.	Member Parfitt requested construction of a pedestrian crossing on Beach Road, close to Sunrise Avenue, Mairangi Bay, to improve safety for Murrays Bay Intermediate pupils. She advised that there is only one crossing point over Sunrise Avenue and this is closer to Clematis Avenue so that it services the primary school, but that there is no crossing near this point. Referred to Traffic Engineering and Safety
3	Hibiscus Coast	Feeder buses to Hibiscus Coast Busway Station.	Querying the effectiveness of the feeder buses on the Hibiscus Coast, Member Watson asked for percentage increases of people using the feeder buses running to the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station from areas such as Army Bay, Orewa, Millwater, Waiwera etc., compared to (say) July 2018. On 2 September 2019 Member Watson was advised of the percentage increase for passengers who boarded bus routes 981, 982, 983, 984 and 985 within the Hibiscus Coast, travelling to Hibiscus Coast Station, comparing July 2018 to July 2019 (42.5%). In relation to the two express routes operating in July 2018, the 991X and 992X, passenger numbers for those who travelled south of Hibiscus Coast Station had increased by 2.7%. Member Watson was advised that these numbers only take into account passengers travelling to Hibiscus Coast Busway Station and do not include passengers making journeys within the Hibiscus Coast to other destinations.
4	Glenvar/Lonely Track/East Coast Bays, Torbay and Carlisle/Beach Roads, Browns Bay	Traffic signals at the intersections of Glenvar/Lonely Track/East Coast Bays, Torbay and Carlisle/Beach Roads, Browns Bay.	Member Parfitt asked that the intersection of Glenvar/Lonely Track/East Coast Road be included in the planned CCTV rollout; and that red Light running at the intersection of Carlisle/Beach Roads, Browns Bay, be addressed. Referred to Traffic Operations
5	441 Whangaparāoa Road, Stanmore Bay	Request for improved safety exit from 441 Whangaparāoa Road, Stanmore Bay.	Cr Watson requested an investigation into a safer right hand turn from the Peninsula Retirement Village at 441 Whangaparāoa Road, Stanmore Bay onto Whangaparāoa Road for the retirement village’s elderly residents and their visitors. Referred to Traffic Engineering and Safety

Hibiscus Coast Busway Station

33. The contract for the second stage of the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station has been awarded to Wharehine Group for $6 million. The contractor is based in Wellsford and expects to start work during September 2019.

34. Construction of the station area began in late 2017 with earthworks, a new stormwater pond and the creation of 516 car parks. The second stage involves the construction of the station building, an additional 90 car parks and minor re-configuration of the lanes at the intersection with Painton Road.

35. The completed station will include ticket and AT HOP top-up facilities, toilets, secure cycle parking and waiting areas that are well lit and protected from the elements.

36. Hibiscus Coast Busway station is the northern terminus of the Northern Express bus services, which connect to eight bus routes servicing the wider Hibiscus Coast and Warkworth area. The North Shore bus network introduced in September 2018 has been a great success, with more people now crossing the harbour bridge in buses rather than cars.

37. Construction is expected to be completed late next year.

Part-time Barnes Dance in Silverdale

38. The local board and members of the Silverdale community raised concerns about the safety of school children at the intersection of Millwater Parkway, Bankside Road and Longmore Lane during the latter part of 2017. These roads serve several schools and are therefore used regularly by primary and secondary school-aged students. Signal phasing and the layout of the intersection were not optimal in supporting high volumes of pedestrians, despite Millwater Parkway being the only road connecting the Millwater subdivision of around 1000 dwellings to Hibiscus Coast Highway.

39. Increasing capacity at the intersection was not a priority in the short-term, so AT staff had to find a way to balance pedestrians’ and drivers’ needs. A part-time Barnes Dance was installed at the intersection so that pedestrians could cross on all legs at the same time during school peak periods, giving priority to vulnerable pedestrians during their peak movement while minimising delays for vehicle movements outside the pedestrian peak. Pedestrian crosswalks were also highlighted in red paint, yellow hatchings were installed, together with pipe barriers to ensure that children use parallel crossings when the Barnes Dance is not operating.

40. The Barnes Dance was installed in June 2018 with a planned trial period of six months. Overall, the trial has been very well-received by the public and delays to both pedestrians and vehicle traffic have been reduced as a result of signal optimisation. Following these positive outcomes, the trial has been extended until the end of 2019.

Update on speed bylaw process

41. AT is taking more time to consider a proposal to reduce speeds on some of high-risk roads in the region.

42. An extensive public consultation exercise proposed lower speeds on around ten per cent of the region's high risk roads in order to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries occurring daily across the region. AT also received requests from the public for an additional 876km of roads to be included in the proposal. More than 11,700 submissions were received in relation to the proposal.

43. Evaluating the implications and supporting evidence associated with a wide range of implementation options, including levels of community support, was thoroughly considered prior to the matter being presented to the AT Board.

44. The AT Board recently decided that more work needs to be done on the timing of any implementation, and more importantly the effects any changes to the original bylaw proposal might have on death and serious injury rates. AT will now reconsider the matter by 31 October.

45. Further information on the bylaw process is available at: www.at.govt.nz/speed

AT’s Community Bike Fund

46. Applications to AT’s Community Bike Fund opened on Monday 2 September 2019 and close on Sunday 29 September 2019.

47. Grants are available to community groups across Auckland to deliver projects and events that encourage and support riding bikes. Groups themselves do not need to be cycling-focused, rather any group interested in promoting bike riding in their community may apply.

48. Applications can be made for between $300 to $5000 for community-focused projects and events that encourage riding a bike as a regular transport option, improve cycle safety and contribute to the normalisation of cycling in Auckland.

49. Further information on the Community Bike Fund, together with information on projects previously funded by this grant, is available at https://at.govt.nz/cycling-walking/at-community-bike-fund/.

50. All interested applicants should read the Community Bike Fund policy.

Free Child Weekend Fares

51. Aucklanders are embracing transport choice, with more than 100 million journeys taken on public transport in the past year.

52. To encourage greater use by families, with effect from Saturday 7 September 2019 children aged 5 to 15 using a registered AT HOP card are able to travel free at the weekends on AT’s bus, train and selected ferry services (Bayswater, Beach Haven, Birkenhead, Devonport, Half Moon Bay and Hobsonville Point). Note that children under the age of five travel free with a paying adult at any time.

53. This new scheme comes as part of the $1.1 million contribution from Auckland Council towards public transport initiatives announced earlier in the year, with more spending than ever before on building the public transport network across the region.

54. Making public transport free for under 16s on weekends and public holidays will encourage more people to leave their cars at home and use existing capacity. Every person on public transport is one less car on the roads, helping to reduce carbon emissions and traffic congestion.

55. To be eligible, children must have an AT HOP card that is registered with a child concession. Setting up a child discount concession is easy, with:

· the purchase of an AT HOP card for each child aged 5 to 15;

· creation of a MyAT account; and

· registration of the child’s AT HOP card.

56. A child concession will be applied automatically when a child’s AT HOP card is registered with the correct date of birth. It may take 24 - 72 hours after registration for the concession to be applied, so card/s should be registered at least two days before any travel.

57. Further information on the free child weekend fares is available at: https://at.govt.nz/childweekendfares.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. AT will provide a further report to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its next meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Informal local board workshop views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review

File No.: CP2019/15554

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 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 findings 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

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays 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) provides 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 findings 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, 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, 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 commented 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, 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.

o 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, 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	113
b ⇩	Local board questions from the workshops	137

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2019/16433

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the resolution of the Governing Body on the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 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:

i) Item 9 – Implementing the next steps for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw (Hearings Panel Report).

ii) 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 for local boards 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

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) note the resolution (GB/201/82) 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) (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Areas proposed by submitters during public consultation and not included within the statement of proposal (Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report)	143

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Orewa Community Centre 2019/2020 hire fee subsidy

File No.: CP2019/17042

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the hire fee subsidy for the Orewa Community Centre in 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. In 2018/2019, 29 users of the Orewa Community Centre identified as community groups and received the local board priority rate, which provides a 50 per cent discount on the standard rate.

4. There are the following three options for venue hire subsidy in 2019/2020:

· Standard application of Hire Fee Framework

· Allocate $9,000 Locally Driven Initiatives funding for venue hire fee subsidy

· Redirect subsidy requests to the local board contestable grants process.

5. Staff recommend the standard application of the Hire Fee Framework as the model for venue hire fee subsidy at the Orewa Community Centre, as it is consistent with council policy and is accessible to all in the community.

6. This will provide all hirers with a clear and transparent process for access to the subsidies provided by the local board and does not require allocation of funding for a venue hire fee subsidy.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the standard application of the Hire Fee Framework for hirers of Orewa Community Centre, including a local board priority activity rate that offers hirers a 50 per cent discount.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

9. Table 1 outlines the community places located in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area, by operational model.

Table 1 – Community places in the local board area

Operational model

Community place

Council delivered

Orewa Community Centre

Community delivered

· Bays Community Centre (including St Annes Hall)

· Okura Hall

· Silverdale Hall

10. Utilisation of the Orewa Community Centre (the Centre) has remained constant and revenue has increased over the last three years of operation due to improvements to the venue hire booking and payment systems, as well as application of the Hire Fee Framework.

11. Table 2 outlines the schedule of current fees and charges for the Centre, which are included in the 2019/2020 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement.

Table 2 – 2019/2020 fees and charges for the Orewa Community Centre

Room	Standard hourly rate	Off-peak hourly rate
Main Hall	$49	$39
Small Hall	$24	$19.20

12. In 2018/2019, 29 users of the Centre identified as community groups and received the local board priority rate, which provides a 50 per cent discount on the standard rate.

13. Since the adoption of the Hire Fee Framework, the local board have provided an additional subsidy to allow some legacy hirers of the Centre to remain on their legacy rates. For the last three years, the following three groups have made applications and received this this subsidy, as outline in table 3.

Table 3 – Community group additional legacy subsidies

Group	Legacy rate	Annual charge - current	Annual charge - framework	Local board additional subsidy
Hibiscus Coast Country Music Club Inc	$162 per month (7.25 hours per month)	$1,944	$2,540.40	$596.40
Hibiscus Coast Senior Citizens Association Inc	$297.44 per month (32 hours per month)	$3,569.28	$8,970.24	$5,400.96
SALT	Full fee waiver (25 and 26 December)	Free	$2,143.28	$2,143.28
Total				$8,140.64

14. During 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, staff investigated and progressed the option to transition the Centre from a council delivered operational model, to a community delivered operational model, which would remove responsibility for fee setting by the local board.

15. However, in February 2019, staff confirmed with the local board that there is not current capacity or capability within any established groups to take on the management of the Centre at this time.

16. Following this conclusion, the 2019/2020 work programme did not include a subsidy for the Centre because of the previously planned transition of the Centre to become community-led. Staff have identified this error and the groups who have received a subsidy for the last three years have requested to apply for a subsidy for 2019/2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. Staff have considered the following options for amending the 2019/2020 work programme to include allocating funding for a venue hire fees subsidy for the Centre, as outlined in table 4.

Table 4 – Options for 2019/2020 venue hire fees subsidy

Option	Opportunities	Challenges
Standard application of Hire Fee Framework (Recommended)	No additional LDI funding is required and hirers will continue to pay in line with Hire Fee Framework. The process is clear and transparent for access to the subsidies provided by the local board through the framework. The Hire Fee Framework includes the local board activity priority rate which grants hirers a 50 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee. This continues to be available to hirers who meet the criteria. The Hire Fee Framework includes a regular hirer rate which grants hirers a 20 per cent discount off the standard venue hire fee. This continues to be available to hirers who have ten or more bookings in a financial year.	This option does not include the venue hire fee subsidy, therefore groups that received financial assistance in 2018/2019 will be required to pay additional hire fees in 2019/2020 as follows: · SALT - $2143.28. · Hibiscus Coast Senior Citizens - $5400.96. · Hibiscus Coast Country Music Club Inc - $596.40.
Allocate $9,000 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding for venue hire fee subsidy	Based on 2018/2019 approved venue hire fee subsidies, this amount will cover the cost of hire for those community groups, therefore the activity of specific legacy, long term hirers can continue to be subsidised.	Not all community groups will be aware of the provision of this fund to assist with venue hire fees as it is not advertised and not clear what the qualifying criteria is. Additional LDI budget will need to be reallocated from an existing activity in the 2019/2020 work programme.
Redirect subsidy requests to the local board contestable grants process	Venue hirers request for financial assistance can be supported through the existing contestable community grants budget and process. Requests for subsidy can be balanced against all community group requests for support, providing a clear and transparent process and needs analysis. This option can be applied in conjunction with the standard application of the Hire Fee Framework.	The community groups are restricted to the dates of the funding rounds and the application process can be lengthy in comparison to submitting a hire fee subsidy request through an email or phone call direct to staff.

18. Staff recommend the standard application of the Hire Fee Framework as the model for venue hire fee subsidy at the Centre, as it is consistent with council policy and is accessible to all in the community.

19. This will provide all hirers with a clear and transparent process for access to the subsidies provided by the local board and does not require allocation of funding for a venue hire fee subsidy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Auckland Council provide fair, easy and affordable access to safe and welcoming venues through Community Places in the Arts, Community and Events department of the Customer and Community Directorate.

21. Community Places manage bookings, fees and charges and relationships with users.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

23. The local board discussed the options for venue hire subsidy at the Centre at a workshop in February 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. There are no identified impacts for Māori associated with the hire fee subsidy at the Centre.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. Staff recommend the standard application of the Hire Fee Framework as the model for venue hire fee subsidy at the Centre, which does not require local board budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

27. While these risks have been considered, staff do not recommend allocating funding for the purposes of subsidising venue hire fees. A hire fee subsidy means that only certain hirers will benefit as this would not be available to all hirers.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Staff will administer the venue hire subsidy approach and update the 2019/2020 work programme accordingly.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Teirney – Senior Project Lead, Community Places

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

New road name in the Junwei Niu subdivision at 38 and 52 Newman Road, Silverdale

File No.: CP2019/15842

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the new private road in the Junwei Niu subdivision at 38 and 52 Newman Road, Silverdale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region.

3. The applicant, Junwei Niu, has submitted the following names for the commonly owned access lot serving the new subdivision at 38 and 52 Newman Road, Silverdale.

· Rui Place (preferred)

· Purotu Place (alternative)

· Riri Bright Place (alternative)

· Reed Place (alternative)

4. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s preference of Rui Place.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve a name for the new private road in the Junwei Niu subdivision at 38 and 52 Newman Road, Silverdale, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

5. This subdivision of six lots at 38 and 52 Newman Road, Silverdale has been approved and the council reference is SUB60069739-A and SUB60309700.

6. A condition of the subdivision consent was to suggest to council names for the new commonly owned access lot.

7. In accordance with the national addressing standard the commonly owned access lot requires a name if it serves more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

9. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

· A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature; or

· An existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

· The use of Māori names is actively encouraged.

10. The applicant has submitted the following names for consideration.

*Preferred Name*	*Meaning*
Rui Place	“to shake” and also a personal name “Louis”
*Alternative Name*	*Meaning*
Riri Bright Place	“riri” – aggression, violence
Reed Place	Tall slender plant
Purotu Place	Beauty and elegance

11. The preferred and alternative names are all supported by the Ngati Whanauga and they have also suggested the name ‘Purotu Place’.

12. All of the names are approved for use by Land Information New Zealand.

13. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s preference of Rui Place.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on council groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16. The applicant has consulted with local iwi, Ngati Whanaunga, and sought their comment. Iwi has said that they thought the names suggested did not truly reflect the area/place and suggested three alternative names, one of which was acceptable to LINZ. This was ‘Purotu Place’. The other two names have not been included in this report as they were duplicates.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

19. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Newman Road Scheme Plan	157
b ⇩	Newman Road Locality Map	159

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove, Subdivision Advisor, Orewa

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Assignment of lease from Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, at 1A Sidmouth Street, to North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated

File No.: CP2019/16759

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To assign and renew the operative community lease, held by Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, to North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust holds an operative community lease for its premises at 1A Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay.

3. The lease commenced on 1 August 2009 and reaches final expiry on 31 July 2029.

4. Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust no longer uses the space and it is currently utilised by the North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated, formerly part of the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust.

5. The toy library has established its own incorporated entity and wishes to continue with its occupation of the building, by taking over the lease as well as ownership of the New Zealand Plunket Trust building.

6. Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust proposes to assign the operative lease to the North Shore Community Toy Library.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the assignment of lease from Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust to North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated

b) approve the renewal of the assigned lease on the terms as provided for in the lease agreement, effective from 1 August 2019.

Horopaki

Context

7. This report considers the assignment and renewal of the lease from Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust (Plunket) to North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated (the toy library).

8. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Land, Buildings and Lease

9. Plunket holds an operative community lease for its group-owned building situated at 1A Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay, described as Lot 2 DP 64418 contained in Record of Title NA30A/1134, held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

10. The lease commenced on 1 August 2009 and makes provision for one 10-year right of renewal, reaching final expiry on 31 July 2029.

11. The building is owned by Plunket. Council asset assessors indicate that the building was originally constructed in the 1970’s and was historically utilised as a Plunket clinic.

12. A building condition report was prepared which identified the building as “well located for its purpose”, being that of a toy library.

13. The condition report raised some concerns regarding the condition of the building, which was subsequently rectified by remedial works undertaken by Plunket, in conjunction with the toy library, and consisted of;

· seal coat and painting of the stipple ceiling

· replacement of east side spouting

· repair of storm water connections

· removal of excess vegetation around the property

· replacement of the roof.

14. The above repairs align with the recommendations received from Asset Management Intelligence Support, to bring the condition of the building up to an acceptable level for further occupation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. In response to an update provided to local board members on 26 June 2019, the local board has indicated that its preference is to consider options regarding this lease at a formal business meeting.

16. Staff have prepared options for the local board to consider, contained briefly in Table 1 and extrapolated in paragraph 18.

17. TABLE 1

Option	Implementation	Consequence	Staff advice
1. Assign the operative lease	Implemented by preparing a deed of assignment which will transfer Plunket’s rights and obligations in terms of the lease to the toy library.	The entity responsible for the lease covenants will be the toy library. The assigned lease will expire on 31 July 2029. Any further occupation will be assessed against the guidelines in force at that time.	This is the recommended option as the operative lease is simply transferred to another, suitable entity. The activities undertaken by the toy library align with the land status and the use of the building conforms to the community’s expectation.
2. Terminate the operative lease and grant a new lease to the toy library	Implemented by a contemporaneous surrender and grant of new lease. As the current lease will be surrendered, engagement with mana whenua will be required as well as public notification of council’s intention to grant a new lease	The new lease must be a ground lease stipulating that the toy library is the owner of the building. The recommended lease term is 10 + 10, alternatively 5 + 5. This will require a further report to the local board.	This option is a viable alternative to the recommended option. Subject to iwi engagement and public notification.
3. Call for expressions of interest to identify an alternative community group	Implemented by preparing a notice, to be published in the local paper and on council’s website, calling for expressions of interest.	All interested community groups will be able to apply to lease the building. The expressions of interest process will make it clear that the successful community group is to take ownership of the improvements on the land and be responsible for ongoing maintenance. This will require a report to the local board after the expressions of interest process has been concluded and a suitable applicant chosen	This option is not recommended as the community occupancy guidelines do not provide for expressions of interest over privately-owned buildings. The express permission of the group is required before this option becomes available.

Local Board Options

18. The local board has been provided with three options, as contained in Table 1, with staff recommending option one based on:

i) the expediency with which an assignment of lease is achieved, providing more resources to address the remainder of the 2019/2020 Work Programme

ii) as this is already provided for in the work programme, as a lease renewal item, it does not significantly alter the work programme or the current land use

iii) as the operative lease has already been granted, it does not dispose of any further interests which council may have in the land

iv) it transfers security of tenure to another, suitable group, whose activities align with the land status, current use and at a location ideally suited to its purpose, as identified by council’s Asset Management Intelligence Support team

v) it falls within the ambit of advice received by Service Strategy and Integration, as it does not place additional strain on existing budgets

vi) it aligns with Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

19. An alternative option to consider is option two:

i) this option aligns with Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

ii) it allows for the lease to be updated to the latest format

iii) although it is more time consuming than the first option, it is still deliverable, taking into account the items in the 2019/2020 Work Programme.

20. Option three is not recommended, after obtaining feedback from legal services on a similar matter, staff advise that this is not a reasonable option in the present situation:

i) it does not accord with Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 as it blurs the distinction between council-owned and group-owned improvements

ii) depending on how this option is entertained by the incumbent tenant, council might have to take ownership of the building. This is not supported as it increases the local board’s financial obligations and any disposal of this building will require a governing body decision

iii) this is the most time-consuming option and becomes especially relevant when taking into consideration the possibility of staff having to undertake expressions of interest on two other sites within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

iii) even though this option can be contractually enforced (clause 13.2.1) it requires a form of consideration to be negotiated and is not provided for in council’s latest leasing guidelines or budgets.

21. The toy library and Plunket have expended capital on renewing the building, it is therefore equitable that the entities get to enjoy the rights provided for in the operative lease agreement.

North Shore Community Toy Library Incorporated

22. The toy library originally operated as part of Plunket. It has recently established its own entity and proposes to continue its occupation at 1A Sidmouth Street after taking ownership of the building.

23. There is already an operative lease in place, which was assigned, on 14 September 2017, from Plunket Waitemata to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Incorporated. The lease is still operative and can be assigned to the toy library to provide it with security of tenure.

24. The toy library operates on a membership model, with certain categories of membership requiring a time commitment from its members, further strengthening community engagement. Non-rostered memberships are also available.

25. Staff were informed that the toy library receives approximately 2,700 individual member visits per annum, around 30 families visit the building each Saturday and Sunday.

26. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 sets out the requirements for community occupancy agreements.

27. Staff advise that the toy library qualifies for a community lease, based on:

i) the activities of the toy library align with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: “Our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas”, and “Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation”.

ii) it is a registered incorporated society

iii) the toy library has been reasonable and compatible tenants under the lease given to Plunket

iv) in conjunction with Plunket, the toy library has remediated the building to be in a condition fit for further occupation

v) the premises are well utilised and the toy library reports around 4,000 toy loans per annum, averaged over the past three years.

vi) the building meets the needs of the toy library and is ideally located.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. The 2019/2020 Leasing Work Programme was shared with key staff, including Service Strategy and Integration, Asset Management and Intelligence Support, Parks Sports and Recreation and Arts and Culture. No concerns regarding this land parcel or lease was raised.

29. Asset Management and Intelligence Support commented that the building is well-utilised and ideally located for its intended purpose, it is assessed as having significant community value.

30. The proposed lease assignment has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. This is an approved renewal item on the Community Facilities Work Programme for 2019/2020.

32. This item was workshopped with the local board on 14 February 2019. The local board indicated that it did not wish to consider the assignment and asset transfer prior to the building being repaired. As per the local board’s direction the building has been repaired by Plunket in partnership with the toy library.

33. Plunket and the toy library have furnished council officers with letters, in support hereof, appended to this report as Attachments A and B.

34. On 26 June 2019 the local board was sent an update through local board services, informing the board of the updated building status and that options can now be considered. The local board indicated their preference to consider options at a formal local board business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. There are no changes to the use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. There are no direct financial implications associated with the assignment of lease.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. Maintenance obligations are avoided by assigning the lease, transferring ongoing maintenance obligations to the toy library.

38. Auckland Council’s risk stems predominantly from having to take ownership of a dilapidated building on expiry of the assigned lease. This is mitigated by the building removal provisions and ongoing maintenance obligations contained in the lease to be assigned.

39. Calling for expressions of interest for this building could lead to council having to take ownership of the building, increasing council’s maintenance obligations and blurring the line between council-owned and group-owned improvements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Subject to local board approval, council staff will work with the groups to prepare a deed of assignment for execution. The assigned lease will be renewed for the remaining period.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Gert van Staden - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 September 2019

Temporary arrangements for urgent decisions and staff delegations during the election period

File No.: CP2019/16370

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 chairperson. After the election, there will be no local board portfolio holders or chairpersons 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 chairperson. 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.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) utilise the local 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

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 chairperson where there is no portfolio holder in place), from 22 October 2019, noting that staff will consult with the chairperson 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 2019, current members are still in office, and can make urgent decisions if delegated to do so. If the local board does not have an existing urgent decision-making process already in place, it is recommended that the local board delegate to the chairperson and deputy chairperson the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board during this period.

13. The urgent decision-making process enables the local board to make decisions where it is not practical to call the full local 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. Local 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 chairpersons 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 chairperson 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

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

[1] Local Government New Zealand and Department of Conservation (n.d), Reserves Act Guide, retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/legislation/reserves-act-guide.pdf

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

Portfolio	Description	Resolution	Local Board Members
Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events	To confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation for landowner approvals To approve minor landlord approvals	HB/2016/190	Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson Gary Holmes - Alternate
Transport Information Group	Discuss transport issues/projects	HB/2016/190	Julia Parfitt -Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson David Cooper - Alternate
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	HB/2016/190	Gary Holmes Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson David Cooper - Alternate
Notified Resource Consents Notified Plan Changes Notices of Requirement	To prepare and submit local board views and speak to those local board views at any hearings	HB/2018/55	Gary Holmes or Julia Parfitt –Chairperson or Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson
Urgent Decision Making	To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board	HB/2016/195	Julia Parfitt – Chairperson Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson Christina Bettany - Alternates
Infrastructure and Environmental Services	To approve minor changes to 2019/2020 work programme	HB/2019/96	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Community Services	To approve minor changes to 2019/2020 work programme	HB/2019/97	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Parks, Sport and Recreation	To approve minor changes to 2019/2020 work programme	HB/2019/90	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Service, Strategy and Integration	To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme	HB/2019//97	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Economic Development	To approve minor changes to 2019/2020 work programme	HB/2019/95	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Community Facilities and CF: Leases	To approve minor changes to 2019/2020 work programme/s	HB/2019/90	Chairperson Deputy Chairperson
Silverdale Led Heritage Character Design Guidelines	To approve any minor changes		Janet Fitzgerald – Deputy Chairperson Caitlin Watson
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Annual Report 2017/2018	To approve any minor changes		Janet Fitzgerald – Deputy Chairperson

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

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