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

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

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

BOARD MEMBER

ORGANISATION

POSITION

Updated

Shane Henderson (Chairman)

Waitakere Licensing Trust

Waitakere Badminton

Colwill School

Elected Member

Patron

Trustee

21 August 2018

4 Dec 2018

Peter Chan, JP

(Deputy Chairman)

Cantonese Opera Society of NZ
Asian Leaders Forum
NZ-Hong Kong Business Association
NZ-China Business Association
Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA)

Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

Member
Member
Member
Member
Advisor

Trustee

21 Feb 2017

5 June 2018

Brenda Brady, JP

Safer West Community Trust

Trustee

17 April 2018

Matt Grey

West Auckland Youth Development Trust

Billy Graham Youth Foundation

Director and Board Member

Affiliate

17 July 2018

16 October 2018

Paula Bold-Wilson

Community Waitakere

Unitec Institute of Technology

Board member

Employee

17 April 2018

Vanessa Neeson, JP

Village Green Quilters

Ranui Advisory Group

Member

Chairperson

17 April 2018

Warren Flaunty, QSM

NorSGA Properties
The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd

Life North West Pharmacy

Waitemata District Health Board
Waitakere Licensing Trust
Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass.
Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Association

Henderson Rotary

Director
Director
Director

Elected Member
Elected Member
Member
Member

Member

17 April 2018

5 June 2018

18 Sep 2018

Will Flavell

Te Atatū Tennis Club

Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

Rutherford College

Waitākere Literacy Board

Board Member

Member

Employee

Board Member

15 Nov 2016

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 August 2019, including the confidential section, 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 Henderson-Massey 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 Deputation - North West Toy Library, Katherine Wilson

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report guidance

1. On behalf of North West Toy Library (NWTL), Katherine Wilson would like to thank Henderson-Massey Local Board for the grant they approved and to provide an update on what the money was spent on. Also, she wants to present to the local board the NWTL Grand Opening Day (including a short 1.30 minute video) and answer any questions about their ongoing project.

2. NWTL would like to inform the local board, so they have a greater understanding of this project and of who may benefit from becoming members of the North West Toy Library.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Katherine Wilson from the North West Toy Library and thank her for their presentation.

Attachments

a North West Toy Library presentation........................................................... 143

8.2 Deputation - Te Atatu Peninsula Annual Business Association Report

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association (TAPBA) seek to deliver their annual report to the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The TAPBA Report summarises the achievements of the organisation for the 2018-2019 financial year. Stephen Enger, Chair of TAPBA, and Robynne Pringle, Manager of Business Improvement District Te Atatu Peninsula, will speak to the annual report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Stephen Enger and Robynne Pringle, and thank them for their presentation of the Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association Annual Report.

Attachments

a Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association Report 2018-2019..................... 151

8.3 Deputation - Te Atatu Pony Club

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Te Atatū Pony Club (TAPC) would like to be able to continue to use areas A and B (marked in their lease) as well as area D.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Te Atatū Pony Club hope the Local Board and Parks would support the club to continue using Areas A and B (as well as Area D) on a month by month basis until they will be in a position to discuss a longer term lease with Council, as per the Harbourview-Orangihina Park Master Plan. Anne Williams (Secretary) and Jen du Fresne (President) will speak to the TAPC deputation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Te Atatū Pony Club, and thank Anne Williams and Jen du Fresne for their presentation.

Attachments

a Deputation - Te Atatu Pony Club - Attachment A........................................ 163

b Deputation - Te Atatu Pony Club - Attachment B........................................ 165

8.4 Deputation - Te Pai Park Tennis Club, Rosanna Leman

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The president of Te Pai Park Tennis Club, Rosanna Leman, would like to briefly present to the Henderson-Massey Local Board a request related to pickleball lines.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The request is to have the public courts at the rear of the club be permanently marked with lines for pickleball courts together with the tennis and netball lines in place.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the Te Pai Park Tennis Club deputation and thank Rosanna Leman for her presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson Massey Local Board Plan 2017 - 2020 progress report	15

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

Auckland Transport Update Report for the Henderson-Massey Local Board – September 2019

File No.: CP2019/16182

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), provide a summary of consultation material sent to the board and, provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Henderson-Massey Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report:

· Provides updates on the Local Board Transport Fund projects in the Henderson/Massey Local Board area.

· Notes consultation information sent to the Board for feedback and, details decisions of the Traffic Control Committee as they affect the Board area.

· Provides updates and responses to transport – related issues by the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update to the Henderson-Massey Local Board – September 2019 report.

b) approve an additional $600,000 budget allocation ($1.7m total allocation) from the Henderson Massey Local Board Transport Fund to the Henderson North Zone proposed Residential Speed Management project due additional costs for lighting and safety measures.

Horopaki

Context

3. This report updates the board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the local board area, it updates the board on their advocacy and consultations, and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

4. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We 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 within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

6. The Henderson-Massey Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF was $4,623,969 for the current political term. In addition, there was a sum of $1,253,083 which had been approved by Council and is available from 1 July 2018.

Henderson Massey Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$5,877,052
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$5,021,103
Remaining Budget left	$855,949

Henderson North Zone proposed Residential Speed Management project update – 21 August 2019

7. The Henderson-Massey Local Board resolved at its December 2018 meeting, approving the allocation of up to $1.1 million to the Henderson North Zone proposed Residential Speed Management project.

8. Auckland Transport held a workshop in August 2019 to present the concept and request the Local Board to consent to progress to external consultation phase. The Local Board has consented to this and AT will be undertaking external consultation.

9. Auckland Transport is also requesting approval of an increase of budget allocation for this project from $1.1m to $1.7m, this is due additional costs for lighting and safety measures.

10. Once completion of the external consultation phase, detailed design and firm estimate of costs AT will come back to the Local Board requesting approval to move into construction phase.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

Triangle Road safety issues

12. Auckland Transport is installing line marking, speed humps and safe hit posts as the appropriate safety requirements to reduce and stop the illegal maneuvers made on this stretch of road. A copy of the drawing is attached to this report.

13-15 Lincoln Road footpath repairs – safety issue

13. Auckland Transport have carried out temporary repairs with asphalt for the footpath and back filled with topsoil and grass on the berm behind the footpath to make the site safe.

14. Damage to the footpath was as a result of residential subdivision construction works that have not been repaired by the owners. Two letters informing them of the repairs required to make the site safe have been sent to the property developers. AT will continue to pursue the property owners to complete the vehicle crossing and footpath repairs as has been identified by our compliance team. These recorded repairs also form part of the street damage for the vehicle crossing process.

Sungrove Rise speeding issues

15. To address traffic speeds in residential areas Auckland Transport have adopted an area-based focus for 2019 onwards. This recognises that traffic-calming changes on one street have a flow-on effect on the surrounding neighbourhood. This plan will support all drivers to travel at the appropriate speed and to the road conditions.

16. This programme focuses delivery to areas that have been prioritised for changes to reduce the incidence and impact of crashes. This is based on several factors, including the number of crashes, safety risk, traffic speed, land use and concerns raised by local residents and their elected representatives.

17. Sungrove Rise and Nirmal Place have not been identified in the first group of areas within AT’s Residential Speed Management programme, as other areas in the region are experiencing higher speeds and greater safety risk. Auckland Transport have added your comments to our database to indicate support for safer speeds in your residential area.

18. More information, including the residential areas that will be prioritised for further investigation can be viewed on the Residential Speed Management Programme page on our website.

19. With regards to heavy vehicles parking near the bend on Sungrove Rise, that can often be an inconvenience and are problematic at times. There is no law preventing them from parking on the road in urban areas. AT cannot discriminate against any type of vehicle from using or parking on any road in Auckland, unless there is a major operational reason or safety issue. However, like all other types of vehicles they must be parked legally and those that are not are subject to enforcement

Royal Road school safety issues during drop off and pick up times

20. Auckland Transport attended a site meeting with the Royal Road principal and the Local Board in June. Auckland Transport is investigating the feasibility of low-cost safety improvements in the vicinity of Royal Road Primary and surrounding streets.

21. Auckland Transport is carrying out traffic counts and, observations will be carried out before the next school holidays start on the 28^th September. We will report out finding once completed.

Millbrook Road maintenance and safety issues - update

58 Millbrook Road

22. Auckland Transport compliance auditor visited the site in question. AT has instructed the new developer (that has purchased this development) to reinstate the footpath and proposed Vehicle crossing in hot mix because they stll have to do more excavation in future for the development. Auckland Transport will ensure that when the excavations start that a safe work practice will be adopted and enforce the standards set out by Auckland Transport. A TMP will need to be applied for which takes up to 6 weeks to approval which will mean you will not see any immediate changes. Auckland Transport has made the area safe until this can be actioned.

Westside of Millbrook

23. The vehicle that crashed into the Oratia Stream work has been programme in and will be completed in 4 to 6 weeks. The area has been made safe till further work can be done.

Waimanu Bay Reserve, Te Atatu Peninsula speeding and antisocial behaviour issues

24. In general, boy racers are an enforcement issue that Auckland Transport refer to the Police. This road is not a priority area for any other improvement investigations. As AT understands there is boy racer activity at the cul-de-sac end of Onemana Way too, so AT are proposing to install bollards to discourage this. We expect this work to be done by end of October 2019. Bollard installation within the reserve is Auckland Council’s responsibility.

Local Board issues being investigated

25. The Local board have requested the following issues be investigated. These are still under investigation:

· Health and Safety Issues at Massey Primary School

· Rutherford College Bus Run

· Bruce Mc Laren Road Safety Issues outside Bruce McLaren Intermediate School.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

26. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for its feedback and are summarised below for information purposes only.

27. After consultation, Auckland Transport considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on or proceed with an amended proposal if changes are considered necessary.

· Proposal to improve road safety in Central Park Drive, Te Atatū South;

· Proposal to improve Emergency Services' Access in Covil Avenue, Te Atatū South;

· Sturges Road, Henderson (between Swanson Road and Spring Grove) footpath, kerb and channel and vehicle crossing works;

· Universal Drive, Henderson (between Swanson Road and Bittern Place) renewal of footpath, kerb and channel and roadside drainage works.

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

28. Decisions of the TCC during the month of July 2019 affecting the Henderson-Massey Local Board area are listed below:

Date

Street (Suburb)

Type of Report

Nature of Restriction

Decision

1-July-19

Edmonton Road, Great North Road, Edsel Street, Henderson

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined

Lane Arrow Markings, Bus Lane, Cycle Lane, No Stopping At All Times, Traffic Island, Road Hump, Pedestrian Crossing, Traffic Signal Control, Flush Median, Give-Way Control

CARRIED

1-July-19

Rathgar Road, Maurice Borich Place, Henderson

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined

No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Removal of Bus Shelter, Traffic Island, Removal of Traffic Island, Pedestrian Crossing, Road Hump, Footpath, Give-Way Control, Flush Median, Edge Line, Road Markings for Speed Management.

CARRIED

1-July-19

Titoki Street, Te Atatu Peninsula

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined

No Stopping At All Times, Traffic Island, Removal of Traffic Island

CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. 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

30. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Auckland Transport provides the Henderson-Massey Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment AT report - Concept Drawing	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Members Relationship Manager (Western Boards)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges,Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

New Road Name Approval: One New Private Road at 6-9 Hulme Place, Henderson

File No.: CP2019/16790

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot, created by Stage 1 of a subdivision development at 6, 8 and 9 Hulme Place, Henderson.

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 developer and applicant, Shah Homes Ltd, has proposed the following names for consideration by the Local Board:

· Assalaam Lane (applicant preferred)

· Sharjah Lane (alternative 1)

1. Following engagement with iwi, Te Kawerau a Maki suggested the following additional option:

· Kaha Lane

2. This report is a re-submission of a road naming application that was deferred by the Henderson-Massey Local Board in August 2019, due to the developer not being in support of the names submitted by their consultant at the time. The developer has since been in direct contact with council staff and has now submitted new names for consideration by the local board.

3. The proposed names have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met, and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region. Mana whenua were also consulted.

4. It is for the local board to decide upon the thematic suitability of the proposed names within the local context.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the name Assalaam Lane for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 6, 8 and 9 Hulme Place, Henderson in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN30578717, SUB60039915).

Horopaki

Context

5. Resource consent BUN30578717 and SUB60039915 (SUB-2016-1561) was issued on 15^th September 2017 for the construction of 15 new dwellings and one private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), Stage 1, approved under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Area Act 2013 (HASHAA).

6. The remaining Stage 2 will be completed at a later stage, including the extension of the COAL and the construction of additional residential dwellings.

7. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

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 one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

- a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

- a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

- an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

10. Theme: The applicant has proposed names around two themes: The founder of the development at Hulme Place; and Arabic words that symbolise the strength and support from all of New Zealand after the Christchurch Mosque attacks on the 15^th March 2019. In light of this theme, iwi have also suggested a name option meaning ‘strength’.

11. The proposed names and meanings are set out in the table below:

Proposed Names & Preferences

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Assalaam Lane

(applicant preferred)

Arabic word meaning: Peace

According to the applicant: “After the Christchurch attack, all of NZ showed their support, and in order to reflect on this, we have chosen ‘Assalaam’ - as this reflects on peace.

Sharjah Lane

(alternative option)

Arabic word meaning: Rising Sun

According to the applicant: “After the Christchurch attack, all of NZ showed their support, and in order to reflect on this, we have chosen ‘Sharjah’, because at every end there is hope and the sun will rise creating this hope.”

Kaha Lane

(alternative option)

Māori word meaning: strength

Suggested by Te Kawerau a Maki in light of the above sentiments and the themes of strength and support.

12. Assessment: The names proposed by the applicant have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region, therefore it is up to the local board to decide upon the thematic suitability of the names within the local context.

13. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua responded to defer to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, who in turn deferred to Te Kawerau a Maki. Te Kawerau a Maki suggested the name outlined above. Two others were also suggested, but these were unable to be used due to duplications.

No other iwi provided a response or comments. It is therefore implicit that no iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names in this location for this small private road.

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

15. Road type: ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the road, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. The review sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. One Māori road name option has been offered.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. 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

20. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site Plan	55
b ⇩	Attachment B - Location plan	57

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

Kauri Dieback Disease - Local Park Track Mitigation in the Henderson-Massey Local Board Area

File No.: CP2019/16349

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 Henderson-Massey 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. To protect healthy kauri and reduce the impact of kauri dieback disease, staff have analysed all local parks and reserves in the Auckland region and developed recommended mitigation measures for each park.

4. An interim report was presented to the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 19 March 2019 (HM/2019/25). 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.

5. This report focuses on the specific programme of works for each park, including the associated costs and timeframes.

6. 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 Henderson-Massey, tracks in Shona Esplanade Reserve have been closed temporarily.

7. Seven local parks in Henderson-Massey were initially assessed and prioritised. Six of these were deemed to be low risk as they are not easily accessible and/or had no formed tracks. Detailed investigation was carried out in Shona Esplanade Reserve to determine the appropriate mitigation measures (Attachment A).

8. A workshop was held with the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 20 August 2019 to discuss the proposed detailed mitigation programme.

9. 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.

10. Mitigation measures proposed for Shona Esplanade are detailed in Attachment A. One other site requires mulching over kauri roots to protect the roots and to discourage access. Location maps are provided in Attachment B.

11. Further detailed design and procurement is planned for September and October 2019. The identified mitigation works are planned to be undertaken from November 2019 to March 2020, subject to any required consents and other approvals.

12. Track mitigation works will be carried out in accordance with the kauri-safe standards and specifications provided by the Ministry for Primary Industries for Kauri Dieback Management.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the following proposed mitigation work programme to protect healthy kauri and reduce the impact of kauri dieback disease in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area, to be funded by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

Park	Recommendation	Cost Estimate (physical works only)
1. Shona Esplanade Reserve	· Closure of section of track B-C and removal of assets, together with planting and fencing · Mitigate track within Kauri Hygiene Areas to national kauri-safe standards · Upgrade remainder of track to dry track standard · Install hygiene stations.	$ 150,000
Low Risk tracks/parks
2. Moire Park	· Fence and mulch around kauri trees to prevent access and protect roots. · Assess four kauri that pose a health and safety risk for removal	$4,000

Horopaki

Context

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. An interim report (Resolution number HM/2019/25) regarding proposed kauri dieback mitigation in local parks was presented to the Henderson-Massey Local Board on the 19 March 2019. The local board resolved the following:

That the Henderson-Massey 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 prevent potentially infected kauri ecosystems in Category A park Shona Esplanade Reserve from becoming a source of infection

ii) discourage public access through barrier planting and signage in the Category B park Colwill Esplanade

iii) investigate appropriate measures to protect kauri in Category C park Moire Park

iv) discourage public access through closure of the northern entrance to Category C park Lowtherhurst Reserve to protect kauri

v) note that the remaining Category C and Category D parks are considered 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) Epping Esplanade

B) Palomino Esplanade

C) Henderson Valley Park

D) Sunhill Scenic Reserve

E) Chorley Reserve

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. 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

17. The interim report provided to the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 19 March 2019 (HM/2019/25) 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.

18. 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 Henderson-Massey, tracks within Shona Esplanade Reserve have been closed temporarily.

19. Seven local parks in Henderson-Massey were initially assessed and prioritised. Six of these were deemed to be low risk as they are not easily accessible and/or had no formed tracks adjoining kauri. A detailed investigation was carried out in Shona Esplanade Reserve to determine appropriate mitigation measures (Attachment A and Attachment B).

20. 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.

21. 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.

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

23. 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.

24. The mitigation options for Shona Esplanade in Henderson-Massey are described in detail in Attachment A. Precautionary mitigation measures for the low risk Moire Park are also proposed. Location maps are provided in Attachment B.

25. The recommended mitigation works are summarised as follows:

a. Shona Esplanade Reserve: Indefinite closure of a small section of track (B-C), removal of public assets, fencing and planting. Mitigation of track sections within Kauri Hygiene Areas to national kauri-safe standard, and upgrading the remainder of the track to a dry track standard. Installation of Hygiene Stations. The estimated cost is $150,000. The estimated timeframe for completion of the works is March 2020, subject to contractor availability and weather conditions.

Low Risk Tracks/ Reserves

b. Moire Park: Fence and mulch around kauri close to open green space to prevent access and protect roots. Assess four diseased trees for removal alongside the rugby club facilities.

26. An assessment of Sunhill Scenic Reserve, Palomino Esplanade, Epping Esplanade, Lowtherhurst Reserve and Colwill Esplanade concluded that mitigation is not required as the kauri trees are difficult to access, with no formed tracks leading to/ passing the kauri. The risk to kauri has therefore been assessed as low.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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

30. On 19 March 2019, an interim report was presented to Henderson-Massey Local Board where multiple high-level kauri protection measures for local parks and reserves were endorsed.

31. 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.

32. Key stakeholder groups that have an interest in the tracks have been informed regarding the proposed mitigation works and will continue to be kept informed on the timing for the planned track works.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. Mana Whenua were engaged during the scoping of the parks but did not attend. A workshop with Mana Whenua was held on 7th August 2019 where the proposed mitigation works were discussed in detail. Mana Whenua were supportive of the works required to protect kauri. Any further updates regarding feedback received will be provided at the business meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. 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).

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

38. 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.

39. 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

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

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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).

44. Risk mitigation includes the provision of appropriate information and effective implementation of track closures, including signage and physical barriers.

45. 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

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

47. 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.

48. 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 mitigation works for local parks in Henderson-Massey	67
b ⇩	Location maps	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Grant Jennings - Principal Sports Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

Waitākere BMX Club grant for facility improvements

File No.: CP2019/15674

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a grant to Waitākere BMX Club Incorporated towards the costs of facility improvements at the BMX track at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve, Ranui.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Waitākere BMX Clubs requires urgent financial support in order to progress during summer of 2019/2020 earthworks and foundations for future floodlighting poles.

3. Having considered various options for supporting Waitākere BMX Club during 2019, the Henderson-Massey Local Board has and decided to make a grant of $14,000 to assist the club to progress it floodlighting project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) allocate $14,000 Locally Driven Initiatives operational funding from the Community Response Fund for a grant to Waitakere BMX Club Incorporated towards the costs of facility improvements at the BMX track at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve, Ranui.

b) authorise the General Manager Parks, Sport and Recreation to prepare and execute development funding agreement in favour of the Waitākere BMX Club Incorporated.

c) note that the grant to Waitākere BMX Club Incorporated is primarily intended to ensure the club will be able to complete earthworks for floodlights during the summer of 2019/2020 and, as a secondary outcome in case of a surplus, support other facility improvement projects at the track.

d) congratulate Waitākere BMX Club Incorporated for successfully fundraising $249,000.00 towards facility improvements projects.

Horopaki

Context

4. Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve is a 37.44 hectare park located north of Glen Rd, Ranui and east of Birdwood Rd, Ranui. The park is designated as open space - sport and active reaction zone. The park accommodates a destination youth playground and various community sport and recreation groups including: Massey Pony Club, West City Darts Association, Western Districts Model Railway Association, and Waitakere BMX Club.

5. Waitākere BMX Club Incorporated is a volunteer-run community sports organisation providing BMX cycle training and racing.

6. Waitakere BMX Club holds a lease of an area approximately 9,400m² within Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve, outlined green in Attachment A, within which it maintains its BMX track, outfield and ancillary facilities. The BMX facility is immediately adjacent to a destination youth park (outlined red in Attachment A).

7. Between 2015 and 2018 Waitākere BMX Club redeveloped its track and outfield, with financial support from Auckland Council (facility partnership fund, since disestablished) and third-party funders. The track was closed during this time, and the club lost members as a result.

8. The redeveloped BMX track reopened in 2018 and membership is recovering.

9. Further facility improvements are required for the Waitākere BMX track to comply with new Cycling NZ criteria for hosting accredited BMX competitions.

10. At a business meeting on 16 October 2018 the Henderson-Massey Local Board received a deputation from Waitākere BMX Club. The club requested financial support from the local board in order to undertake the necessary facility improvements. The local board resolved to request staff to investigate options to support Waitakere BMX Club.

11. Options to support Waitākere BMX Club were discussed with Henderson-Massey Local Board in workshops on 5 February 2019, 14 May 2019 and 20 August 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Design and construction of the BMX facility occurred alongside the development of the destination youth park by council. The two facilities lend amenity to each other further supporting the desired active recreation outcomes. The club is trying to ensure its facility aligns with and complements the youth park.

13. Waitākere BMX Club is actively working to build capability and improve its promotions in order to increase BMX participation and club membership. A new logo and website have been developed, new programming and promotional activities are planned or underway (Attachment B).

14. To meet Cycling NZ specification for hosting accredited BMX competitions, Waitākere BMX Club needs to erect a canopy over its start gate and install an electronic timing system to the track.

15. Waitākere BMX Club also plans further improvements including floodlights, drainage and track works, mural-painting on containers, and sealing high traffic areas.

16. To meet the costs of these works, Waitākere BMX Club has successfully fundraised approximately $250,000 from non-council sources.

17. In light of historic landfill activities in the vicinity of the BMX track, safe earthworks practice requires that earthworks for floodlighting pole foundations must occur during dry summer months. This a critical project deadline, because if missed it means a 12-month delay.

18. However, due to the timing of project payments the club has a current cashflow shortfall of $14,000 for progressing the floodlighting project. There is a risk that the club will miss the earthworks window and the project will be significantly delayed.

19. Henderson-Massey Local Board has discussed options to support Waitākere BMX Club and identified that this cashflow dilemma is an opportunity to assist the club maintain momentum in its facility improvement projects.

20. It is recommended that the Henderson-Massey Local Board grant $14,000 to Waitākere BMX Club to ensure that the club is able to progress earthworks on schedule.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The facility improvement projects proposed by Waitakere BMX Club are aligned with the following strategic documents:

a) Auckland Plan 2050

Participation in sport and recreation contributes to belonging and participation outcomes by enhancing quality-of-life for Aucklanders.

b) Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017

See ”Local impacts”, below.

c) Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (2017 refresh)

Provision of fit-for-purpose facilities supports increased participation in sport and recreation

22. A council Closed Landfill Management Specialist from Infrastructure and Environmental Services has assessed potential contamination issues arising from historical landfill practices at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve. The assessment has found low risk of contamination problems and Asset Owner Approval is awaiting receipt of a site management plan from Waitākere BMX Club.

23. Other council views have been provided via Land Owner Approval process. This application will be brought before the local board once Asset Owner Approval has been confirmed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The Waitakere BMX Club proposed facility improvements align with the Henderson-Massey Local board Plan 2017 Outcome 3: “Community facilities are vibrant and welcoming places at the heart of our communities”:

Objective	Key initiatives
People are more active.	Partner with community sport and recreation groups to lift residents’ exercise levels.
People are more active.	Support our sport and recreation groups to find appropriate accommodation and playing venues.
Our parks and recreational services provide a range of accessible experiences for our diverse community.	Extend the variety of play and exercise experiences for a range of ages and abilities.

25. Local board has discussed supporting Waitākere BMX Club in three workshops during 2019, including the option of making a grant.

26. The local impact of the proposed facility improvements will be an increase the capacity (riding hours) of the track, and Waitākere BMX Club being able to host national level BMX competition races. In both cases, the improved venue will enable the club increase its activities and service offering to the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The Waitākere BMX Club proposed facility improvements were presented to mana whenua representatives on 3 August 2019. Further information was requested due to historical landfill activities at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Reserve. Waitākere BMX Club has obtained detailed site investigation (DSI) for its proposed works. The DSI concludes low risk of contamination. The DSI was provided to mana whenua on Wednesday 4 September 2019.

28. Mana whenua feedback will be included in consideration of Land Owner Approval and resource consent applications.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. It is recommended that $14,000 Locally Driven Initiatives operational funding be allocated from the Community Response Fund for the purposes of a grant to Waitākere BMX Club.

30. Together with third-party funding, the $14,000 contribution from Henderson-Massey Local Board is expected to be sufficient to meet the costs of proposed facility improvements at Waitākere BMX Club. Once these projects are completed, the club will have a fit-for-purpose facility that should require little further investment for several years.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. Risk of contamination problems arising from historical landfill activities has been assessed by council staff and found to be low. Final mitigations will be made by requiring Waitākere BMX Club to submit a site management plan for earthworks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Staff will prepare a funding agreement and progress the grant payment as a matter of urgency in order to facilitate the Waitākere BMX Club floodlighting project.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitākere BMX Club lease area aerial	77
b ⇩	Example of Waitākere BMX promotions 2019	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nick Harris - Sport & Recreation Team Lead

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/15701

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary to local boards of informal views presented at recent workshops on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review, and to provide an opportunity for any formal resolutions from local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 as part of its required five-year statutory review.

3. In May 2019, staff circulated a draft findings report on the bylaw review to all local boards. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

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

b) provide any formal views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 (Animal Management Bylaw 2015) was adopted by the Governing Body on 30 April 2015.

9. 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.

10. To help achieve its purpose, the bylaw enables rules to be made on specific animals in separate controls (see Figure 1 below). 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

11. 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.

12. The bylaw regulates owners of any animal of the animal kingdom except humans and dogs.

The bylaw does not regulate animal welfare

13. 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.

14. 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

15. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the bylaw by 30 April 2020 to prevent it from expiring.

16. Following the statutory review, the council can propose the bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced using a public consultative procedure.

17. 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

18. In May 2019, staff provided a copy of the draft findings report to all local boards. Eighteen local boards requested workshops which were conducted in June and July 2019.

19. 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

20. The following sections summarise 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.

21. The PowerPoint presented at the local board workshops is provided in Attachment A. The sub-sections below reference the relevant slide pages.

22. 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)

23. 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 1 - 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)

24. 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’.

25. Most local boards view that the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ should be clearer.

Table 2 - 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.

26. 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)

27. 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.

28. 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 3 - 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)

29. Currently, the bylaw does not mention companion animals (pets). The bylaw manages animals equally unless they are stock, poultry or bees.

30. 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.

31. 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 4 - 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 the 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.

32. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note that you cannot buy or take ownership of a pest animal. If you already own a pest animal, you can keep it, but you cannot abandon it, give it to a new owner, or allow the pest animal to breed. The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 classifies unowned cats as pests.

Requirements for identifying owned animals needs to be reviewed (Slide 17)

33. The bylaw does not require owners to provide their animal with identification.

34. 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 5 - 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.

35. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note that provided there is a valid purpose, the council has power to regulate animal registration. Any requirement would need to match the size and scale of the issue and would need to show it would effectively reduce harm and nuisance to people.

There is uncertainty about the council’s processes for managing animals (Slide 17)

36. 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 2 per cent of surveyed respondents who experienced animal nuisance reported it to the council.

37. The draft findings report identified the bylaw could be strengthened by providing information about non-regulatory processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. Most local boards viewed that the council’s processes could be clearer.

Table 6 - 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.

38. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following:

· A property owner may trap and/or lawfully kill an animal on their property. It is a criminal offence to kill an owned animal or destroy the animal inhumanely.

· To prove a legal claim for damage to private property by an owned animal, the property owner would need to show that 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)

39. Around 90 per cent of surveyed Aucklanders said the current bylaw controls for bees, stock and horses were about right or had no view.

40. 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.

41. 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 7 - 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 4000 square metres.

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.

· 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.

· 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 4000 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)

42. 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.

43. The draft findings report identified that council compliance officers and the SPCA support microchipping and registering of cats.

44. 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 8 - 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.

45. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following:

· Any costs for managing stray cats would be investigated during the options development phase to respond to nuisance issues.

· The Local Government Act 2002 would give the council power to impose a curfew on cats if it was an appropriate response to the scale of the nuisance and would clearly show how the curfew would reduce harm and nuisance to humans.

· The council currently has more legal power to respond to dog nuisance than cat nuisance. The Dog Control Act 1996 gives the council wide-varying powers to address dog issues. There is no similar legislation for cats.

· Rat pest control is addressed through the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 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 2019-2029. 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

46. 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.

47. Some local boards said the bylaw should clarify property owners’ rights.

Enforcement

48. Some local boards said the council should be prepared to enforce any rules it may introduce.

49. 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, after trying to elicit voluntary compliance, the next step is prosecution. This can be costly to the council.

50. 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

51. 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.

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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).

56. 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

57. The cost of the bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. 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.

59. 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

60. 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.

61. 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	93
b ⇩	Local board questions from the workshops	117

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Tracey Wisnewski - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/15791

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Henderson-Massey Local Board 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, there may be decisions needed or routine business as usual to process that cannot wait until after the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

3. As for each of the previous terms, temporary arrangements are therefore needed for urgent decisions of the local board, and decisions made by staff under existing delegated authority.

4. Between the last business meeting and the declaration of election results on 21 October, current members are still in office, and can make urgent decisions if delegated to do so. If the board does not have an existing urgent decision-making process already in place, it is recommended that the board delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board during this period.

5. Following the declaration of results, the current members are no longer in office. New members come into office the day after the declaration of results but cannot act until they give their statutory declaration at the inaugural meeting. During this period, urgent decisions will be made by the Chief Executive under his existing delegated authority.

6. All local boards have made a general delegation to the Chief Executive. This delegation is 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. The most common area requiring consultation is landowner consents relating to local parks. Where there is no portfolio holder, staff consult with the local board chair.

7. After the election, there will be no local board portfolio holders or chairs to consult until new arrangements are made in the new term. During this time, staff will need to continue to process routine business as usual matters, including routine requests from third parties for landowner approval.

8. As a temporary measure, approval is sought from the local board to allow officers to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until after 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 chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.

9. 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) utilise the board’s existing urgent decision-making process between the final local board business meeting and the commencement of the term of office of new local board members OR delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make, on behalf of the local board, urgent decisions that may be needed between the final local board business meeting and the commencement of the term of office of new local board members.

b) note that from the commencement of the term of office of new local board members until the inaugural meeting of the incoming local board, urgent decision-making will be undertaken by the Chief Executive under existing delegations

c) approve that staff, as a temporary measure, can make business as usual decisions under their existing delegated authority without requiring compliance with the requirement in the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder from 22 October 2019, noting that staff will consult with the chair following the inaugural meeting until the 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

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. Following the last local board meeting of the current electoral term, there may be decisions needed or routine business as usual to process that cannot wait until after the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

13. 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

14. Between the last business meeting and the declaration of results on 21 October, current members are still in office, and can make urgent decisions if delegated to do so. If the board does not have an existing urgent decision-making process already in place, it is recommended that the board delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board during this period.

15. Board members that have delegated responsibilities, for example, delegations to provide feedback on notified resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement, may continue to exercise those delegations until their term of office ends on 22 October (or earlier if the delegation was specified to end earlier).

16. Between the declaration of results and the inaugural meeting, the current members are no longer in office, the new members cannot act until they give their statutory declaration, and new chairs and deputies will not be in place. During this period, urgent decisions will be made by the Chief Executive under his existing delegated authority (which includes a financial cap).

Decisions made by staff under delegated authority

17. All local boards have made a delegation to the Chief Executive. The delegation is subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board. These delegation protocols require, amongst other things, staff to consult with nominated portfolio holders on certain issues. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the local board chair.

18. The most common area requiring consultation is landowner consents relating to local parks. The portfolio holder can refer the matter to the local board for a decision.

19. Parks staff receive a large number of landowner consent requests each month that relate to local parks across Auckland. The majority of these need to be processed within 20 working days (or less), either in order to meet the applicant’s timeframes and provide good customer service, or to meet statutory timeframes associated with resource consents. Only a small number of landowner requests are referred by the portfolio holder to the local board for a decision.

20. Prior to the election, staff can continue to consult with portfolio holders as required by the delegation protocols. However, after the election, there will be no portfolio holders in place to consult with until the local board makes new arrangements 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 after 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 chair 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. New appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term. Staff will advise external bodies that local board members will no longer attend meetings of their organisations as an Auckland Council representative from 22 October 2019, until new representatives are appointed in the new term.

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.

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	Tracey Wisnewski - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Business meeting	Month	Topic	Governance Role	Purpose
Business Meeting	September	Animal management bylaw review	Input to regional decision-making	Define board position and feedback
Business Meeting	September	Last business meeting report (delegations for election period)	Local decision-making	Formal adoption
Business Meeting	November	First business meeting report	Local decision-making	Formal adoption
Business Meeting	November/ December	Auckland climate action plan (previously Low Carbon Auckland)	Input to regional decision-making	Define board position and feedback
Extraordinary Business Meeting	Early December	Agree consultation material	Engagement	Confirm priorities

Topic	Can Te Atatu Pony Club continue to Areas A and B (marked in their lease) as well as Area D?
Purpose: (Why do you want to speak at a deputation?)	My understanding is that when Michelle Knudsen spoke to the Local Board on our behalf she asked if we could continue use of Areas A and B until the ground and grass in Area D had settled enough to be used by us for grazing rotation again. And that the Local Board was very supportive of that. We're very appreciative of Michelle making this request on our behalf but we'd actually hoped for this to be a fall back or secondary position and what we'd hoped the Local Board and Parks would discuss was whether they could support us to continue using Areas A and B (as well as Area D) on a month by month basis until we are in a position to discuss a longer term lease with Council, as per the Harbourview-Orangihina Park Master Plan. We were disappointed when we learned that this had not been discussed, for whatever reason - maybe time pressures, lack of continuity between our meetings (I met with Michelle and Tracey way back in May and perhaps things have got lost with time) or maybe I didn't present our request clearly enough when I spoke with them.
Background:	we would like it to be considered because:- - bottom line - the land is really useful to us as it helps us get through the winter by allowing us to rotate the horses across more paddocks, reducing the amount of damage they cause to wet ground and allowing each paddock to have a longer recovery time. - the coastal and shore birds use the paddocks extensively because the grass is longer and they are protected from dogs and humans by the fencing. Last year we had dotterels nesting in Area A and as a pony club we alerted DOC and then worked with them to cordon off their nesting site and protect them from kids and horses until the chicks had hatched and the family was mobile and moved back to the coast - it saves the council from the time and expense of removing all the fencing which we understand you provided as part of the deal to use pony club land for the NZTA works - it saves the council / parks from having to mow and maintain this large expanse of land if we continue to graze it - when the Marae is under construction we know will need to give up grazing to accommodate these activities, just like we did for the motorway construction works - Without the use of some or all of Areas A and B, the final footprint of the Marae, access road, bird viewing platform etc will split the club grounds into two sections and permanently reduce the amount of riding land and grazing (and therefore the sustainability of our membership, reducing the number of kids we can offer this facility to) and when that time comes (and the Council is ready to talk to us about a longer term lease as supported by the Harbourview-Orangihina Master Plan) we would be asking the Council to consider if we can again lease some or all of Areas A and B anyway. Although it is hard to know without surveying, the Harbourview-Orangihina Master Plan indicates that Area B will be used for overflow parking for events on the peninsula (and therefore might be suitable as an ongoing shared resource with the pony club if it remains in grass), and Area A seems to indicate that, in addition to planting around the culvert, it might also still be used by Pony Club. We have some maps to show you which seem to support this.
Meeting Outcomes: Clearly articulate What do you want from the Board?	Approval that our new month-by-month lease can include Areas A and B
Proposed Date/Time:	17 September 2019 / 4.00 pm
Duration of deputation:	Up to 10 minutes after which members may ask questions
Venue:	Council Chamber (level 2) 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson
Presenters	Jen du Fresne President), Anne Williams (Secretary), TBC – Delia Cato (Grazing Manager)
Email through preparatory material and / or presentation no later than:	By Monday 2^nd September 2019

Chairperson	Shane Henderson
Deputy Chairperson	Peter Chan, JP
Members	Paula Bold-Wilson
	Brenda Brady, JP
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Vanessa Neeson, JP

Author	Shane Hendersaon – Chair Henderson-Massey Local Board
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Author	Rodica Chelaru – Acting Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau