Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

Auckland Transport September 2019

File No.: CP2019/16074

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) on transport-related matters in its area and an update on its local board transport capital fund (LBTCF). Relevant public consultations and any decisions of Auckland Transport’s (AT’s) Traffic Control Committee as relevant to the Board area are also included.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Board’s Greenways Route D is discussed and the Board is asked to consider the project moving forward through detailed design, procurement and possibly construction should the costs remain within the Board’s funding envelope of $600,000.

3. Progress on the Board’s Mt Roskill Streetscape upgrade is briefly discussed in the report. The project is due to begin in the first half of September 2019 and be completed by December 2019.

4. Information is given on the progress on the Board’s funded local board capital fund projects (LBTCF). The current balance is zero, as the Board has allocated all of its LBTCF for this electoral term. If any savings are made on projects, it will be credited back to the fund. The Board will receive another allocation on 1 July 2020.

5. A brief update on the Tāmaki Makaurau Vision Zero strategy is included as well as an update on the progress of AT’s Speed Management Bylaw.

6. The report provides a brief update to the Board on significant Auckland Transport (AT) projects in the Board area.

7. Relevant consultations and decisions of AT’s Transport Control Committee are noted, as they affect the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport September 2019 report.

b) approve the Greenways Route D - Mount Roskill project (Britton Avenue to Hillsborough Road walking and cycling improvements) to move to detailed design, procurement and construction, providing the work remains within the Board’s $600,000 approved financial envelope.

Horopaki

Context

8. This report addresses transport related matters in the local board area.

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

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

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Greenways Route D Mount Roskill – Britton Avenue to Monte Cecilia Park - Walking and Cycling Improvements

Background

11. A project to provide improved cycling and walking connections in Mount Roskill, instigated by the Board, was investigated by Auckland Transport. A rough order of costs was provided in 2018 and the Board subsequently resolved to proceed with the scheme design.

12. In the meantime, another project, Safer Communities designed a link on Frost Road to Britton Avenue linking both projects to the Roskill school campus. In addition, the Board has approved another project to provide a pedestrian refuge on Hillsborough Road to improve access to Monte Cecilia Park.

13. AT sought public feedback on the scheme design - Britton Avenue to Monte Cecilia Park which was largely supported.

14. Feedback on the proposal was invited from Monday 1 July to Friday 26 July 2019. In total, 36 feedback responses were received: 24 via the online survey and 12 by freepost feedback forms.

15. Submitters were asked:

· Do you have any issues or suggested changes regarding the specific measures used and/or locations of the measures?

· Do you have any other comments or suggestions on improving walking and cycling connections in Mount Roskill?

As a result of the feedback received on the proposal AT:

· Will make minor adjustments to the positions of the speed humps/side islands.

· Acknowledge the request for fewer speed humps. However, this suggestion cannot be accommodated in this instance because the speed humps need to be a certain distance apart to be effective in speed calming.

· Acknowledge the request for a wider footpath leading from the laneway to the raised crossing on Hayr Rd and note that this is already part of the proposed design.

Next Steps

16. The detailed design will be completed within 4-6 weeks following the release of the consultation report. This phase of the project may involve some further engagement with directly affected residents and property owners.

17. Once the final detailed design is completed, AT would like to go ahead with the tendering process. In order to avoid any delay due to the election process and the establishment of the new Board, AT is requesting that the Board approve the project proceeding through procurement to construction provided the final costs stay within the Board’s approved envelope.

18. If tenders exceed the Board’s approved financial envelope, AT will come back to the Board in February 2020 to seek direction.

Mt Roskill Streetscape Upgrade

19. The Board has been assisted by Auckland Council to design a streetscape upgrade project in the Mt Roskill Village area. The project will provide a discrete enhancement to the village and it will be delivered by Auckland Transport.

20. AT’s stakeholder manager has been active with the retailers in the area to ensure that everyone is fully aware of the upcoming work.

21. A letter advising of the upcoming work has been delivered and this will be followed up by a ‘notice of work’ letter which outlines the start date as 12 September 2019. It is expected that the work will be completed in December 2019.

22. AT is putting up corflute signs around the works to showcase the outcome of the project and to assure customers that the shops are still open.

Update on Puketāpapa Local Board Transport Capital Funded Projects

23. The table below reflects the status of projects which have been supported by resolution and are progressing using the LBTCF.

Project	Description	Status	Projected Cost
Greenway Cycling Project – Route D (modified)	This route includes shared paths on Frost Road and then a combination of traffic calming measures, signs, markings along Britton and Dornwell Roads, shared paths through the laneways and then traffic calming on Hayr Road and Haughey Avenue through to, but not across Hillsborough Rd.	Public consultation closed on the 26 July 2019. AT has already responded to queries from our major stakeholders. The next step is to release the close-out report. The project can now move to detailed design.	$600,000 (allocated)
Hillsborough Road Crossing (1)	The installation of a pedestrian refuge on Hillsborough Road, vicinity of Haughey Street/Delargey Avenue. This will support the greenway cycle route by aiding access to Monte Cecilia Park.	Scheme design work is in progress.	$90,000
Hillsborough Road (2) Signalised Pedestrian Crossing	The installation of a signalised crossing of Hillsborough Road in the vicinity of Goodall Street. Residents have reported that Hillsborough Road can be very difficult to cross as there is a considerable distance between pedestrian facilities.	Scheme design work is in progress.	$338,000
Mt Roskill Village Upgrade	The Board approved a small allocation from its local board transport capital fund to move this project forward. The aim is to create an improved environment for pedestrians, bus passengers, shoppers and the business community at Mt Roskill village. Improved footpaths, seating and landscaping are proposed within the road corridor.	Work on the upgrade will commence in September 2019 and is expected to be completed by December 2019.	$244,787

Community Safety Fund

Hillsborough Road (2) Signalised Pedestrian Crossing

The installation of a signalised crossing off Hillsborough Road in the vicinity of Goodall Street. Residents have reported that Hillsborough Road can be very difficult to cross as there is a considerable distance between pedestrian facilities.

Scheme design work is in progress.

$338,000

Mt Roskill Village Upgrade

The Board approved a small allocation from its local board transport capital fund to move this project forward.

The aim is to create an improved environment for pedestrians, bus passengers, shoppers and the business community at Mt Roskill village. Improved footpaths, seating and landscaping are proposed within the road corridor.

Work on the upgrade will commence in September 2019 and is expected to be completed by December 2019.

$244,787

Progress being made on significant investigations and projects in the Board area

Project	Details	Status
Safer Communities 2018-21	This programme focuses on walking improvements in the Mount Roskill community. It aims to create safer walking environments for local people to get to and from key destinations such as schools, public transport hubs, shops, community centres and more, on foot.	AT will attend the Infrastructure and Heritage Cluster in September 2019 to report back on the recent consultation and next steps with the Three Kings Plaza section. The consultation close out report is to be released to the public in early September.
Carlton Street	AT has reviewed the safety audit completed by consultants and provided responses to the matters raised at the May 2018 public meeting. AT has designed bus-friendly infrastructure designs that will ensure all vehicles travel slowly on Carlton Street.	The consultation results and report has now been sent out to submitters. The project now awaits Traffic Control Committee approval. Once this is obtained, changes to Carlton Street are expected to take place later in 2019 to allow the 68 bus route to use the road.
May Road pedestrian crossings	AT is developing a design for two new signalised crossings on May Road, in the vicinity of Glynn Street and Roma Road. A pedestrian refuge is proposed close to Denny Avenue.	Board and public consultation was completed in May 2019. Some minor changes were made to the design as a result of the consultation. The project will now move to detailed design. Construction is expected to be at the end of the current financial year.
Connected Communities	This project aims to make public transport, walking and cycling more attractive to Aucklanders, and provide safer, healthier streets. It brings together a range of bus, cycling, walking and road safety projects across 12 major routes and the CBD, to address traffic congestion in key parts of our growing city. AT will roll out the programme over 10-years, partially funded by the RFT and NZTA.	Progress on routes in the Puketāpapaarea will be workshopped with the Board in February 2020.

Community Safety Fund

24. The Community Safety Fund (CSF) was established in the 2018 Regional Land Transport Plan and it allocated $20 million for local initiatives in road safety: $5 million in the financial year 2019/2020 and $15 million in financial year 2020/2021. It is apportioned to local board areas by a formula focused on numbers of Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI).

25. The fund has been named the Community Safety Fund (CSF) and PuketāpapaLocal Board was allocated $604,664 over two years. The Board developed a list of safety projects which were prioritised after assessment and a rough order costs established.

26. Currently projects are being further assessed and design work is in progress. It is expected that the first year will see the projects largely in design with most not being delivered until year two of the programme.

Puketāpapa Local Board Community Safety Projects

Location	Description	Funding Stream
383 Hillsborough Road	Signalised crossing	In assessment/design
639 Richardson Road	Safety improvements to the existing crossing	RoC provided
Pah Road Crossing Awareness	Signage and road marking to highlight existing crossing	RoC provided
Wesley Primary School	Replace existing kea crossing on Potter Avenue with a raised table.	RoC provided
40 Stoddard Road	Improvements to the existing crossing	RoC provided
Melrose Rd Shops	Pedestrian Refuge	RoC provided
Hillsborough Rd/Mt Eden Rd Crossing	Safety Improvements for pedestrians at this busy intersection	RoC provided
Arundel Street/Rogan St	Safety improvements which may include a roundabout	Discussion at September Infrastructure and Heritage cluster. Now likely to be funded by AT.

Tāmaki Makaurau Vision Zero Strategy

27. Auckland is now a Vision Zero region. The AT Board approved and released the Tāmaki Makaurau Vision Zero Strategy and Action Plan to 2030 in early September.

28. This is a significant step in Auckland’s (and New Zealand’s) transport journey. Auckland is now a Vision Zero region with a goal of no deaths or serious injuries on our transport network by 2050.

29. The success of this goal will be built on strong partnerships across all AT departments as well as with our Tāmaki-Makaurau Road Safety Governance partners - Police, NZ Transport Agency, Ministry of Transport, Auckland Council, Auckland Regional Public Health Service and Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

30. As the custodian of our region’s transport systems, AT plays a vital role in shaping the future of our region. We will make this happen using an evidence-based approach and by refusing to trade off people’s safety for other benefits.

31. This new approach to Safety includes the development of new tools and guidance (Urban Streets and Road Design Guide and draft Safe System Assessment Framework) to make it happen. The Strategy’s 2019/21 Action Plan also refers to a range of tasks across all AT departments and we will be working to progress these.

32. The AT Board also approved the AT Road Safety Programme Business Case which recommends an investment of $700+ million over ten years to progress many of the actions in the Vision Zero Strategy.

33. You can download the Vision Zero Strategy and Action Plan here:

https://at.govt.nz/media/1980787/vision-zero-for-t%C4%81maki-makaurau.pdf

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. 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.

35. AT is delivering the Mt Roskill Streetscape project for the Board, who has been assisted to develop the project by Auckland Council’s Planning and Places team.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Infrastructure and Heritage Meeting – August 2019

36. AT provided a written update to the meeting on Carlton Street and a financial update on the local board transport capital fund and the community safety fund.

Auckland Transport Consultations

AT’s Speed Management Bylaw

37. Auckland Transport is taking more time to consider a proposal to reduce speeds on some of the highest high-risk roads in the region.

38. The AT Board today decided that more work needs to be done on the timing of any implementation - and more importantly the effects any changes to the original bylaw proposal. The AT Board will now reconsider the matter by 31 October 2019.

39. An extensive public consultation exercise proposed lower speeds on around 10% of the region's high risk roads in order to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries which occur daily across the region. AT also received requests from the public for an additional 876km of roads to be included in the proposal. Evaluating the implications and supporting evidence associated with a wide range of implementation options, including levels of community support, is being thoroughly considered prior to the matter being presented to the AT Board, says Chief Executive Shane Ellison.

40. Over 11,700 submissions were received in relation to the proposal.

Other Consultations

41. AT provides the Puketāpapa Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in their area.

Street

Proposal

The Avenue, Lynfield

AT is proposing Broken Yellow Lines (BYLs) parking restrictions on The Avenue in Lynfield. This proposal responds to a request from the PuketāpapaLocal Board to investigate the issue of parked vehicles blocking visibility for drivers entering and exiting the carpark to the shopping complex. The proposed restrictions are expected to make it easier and safer for those visiting the shops by preventing vehicles from parking near the carpark driveway.

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

42. The Traffic Control Committee decisions that affected the Board area in July 2019 are reported below. There were no decisions affecting the PuketāpapaLocal Board area in August 2019.

Griffen Park Road, Hillsborough Road, Commodore Drive, Orcades Place, Lynfield	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Removal of Bus Stop, Lane Arrow Markings, Traffic Islands, Flush Median, Stop Control
Queenstown Road, Onehunga	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	Lane Arrow Markings, No Stopping At All Times, Clearway, Bus Stop, Traffic Signal Control, No Passing, Removal of Traffic Island

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. 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.

44. The Mt Roskill streetscape upgrade design was based on a cultural landscape report in 2013. Te ao Māori input was provided by iwi representatives for that report.

45. The final design was amended to implement changes requested at a hui in September 2018. Iwi, the construction company and local board members are invited to a karakia to mark the start of the construction in September 2019.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. There are no financial implications that result from receiving this report

47. Once the firm estimate of costs for the Greenways D project is established, if it exceeds the Board’s allocation, it will be reported back to the Board for direction.

48. Any savings from projects currently underway or recently completed will be credited back to the Board’s account.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund Summary

Puketāpapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,702,161
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$2,702,161
Remaining Budget left	$0

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The Board is asked to approve the Greenways Route D project proceeding to procurement and possibly construction without formal approval of the detailed design. There is a small risk that some design details might have been altered with Board input.

50. To mitigate this risk, the Board may request that AT should seek to discuss the final detailed design with the chair-elect and/or deputy chair of the new Board at an informal meeting.

51. To delay the project for formal approval of the detailed design, may mean this is not achieved until February 2020, which poses a considerable delay in the project. AT would also prefer to work in with the Safer Communities project and that project is expected to begin construction over the school holiday period.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

AT will provide a further update report after the 2019 local body elections

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lorna Stewart - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Manager Elected Member Relationship Member Unit

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

New Road Name Approval: Two New Public Roads and an Existing Public Road Extension

File No.: CP2019/16917

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board to name two new public roads, created by way of a subdivision development at the Roskill South development (Stage 2).

2. Approval is also sought to retain the existing name for a public road that has been extended within the Roskill South development, from what was originally a cul-de-sac, into an open-ended road.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. 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.

4. The applicant, HLC, has proposed the following names for consideration by the Local Board, noting that the two Te Reo Māori options having been suggested by mana whenua Te Aakitai Waiohua:

· Road 1 (Extension) Proposed to retain existing name: Balfron Avenue

· Road 2: Applicant’s Preferred name: Kōtero Road

· Road 3: Applicant’s Preferred name: Huakaroro Road

· Alternative name options (can be used for either road):

Seismic Road, Thermal Road, Silica Road

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the retention of the existing road name ‘Balfron Avenue’ for public Road 1 to be extended within the Roskill South development (Stage 2), pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) approve the following two names for the new public roads within the Roskill South development (Stage 2), in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60327511 and SUB60327480):

i. Road 2: Kōtero Road

ii. Road 3: Huakaroro Road

Horopaki

Context

5. Resource consent reference BUN60327511 (including subdivision consent reference SUB60327480) was issued in February 2019 to create twelve residential super lots within 5 geographical areas in Mt Roskill, as well as one recreation reserve, two new public roads, two road extension/upgrades and two widened pedestrian accessways.

6. Only two new public roads and one public road extension are included in this report.

7. The Road 1 extension involves an existing public cul-de-sac road, currently named ‘Balfron Avenue’, that will become an extended open-ended roadway. Applicant HLC requests to retain this existing road name to avoid any confusion and avoid the need for changes to addressing for existing owners along the road.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. 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.

10. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Maori 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.

11. Theme: The applicant’s preferred road name options have been suggested by local iwi (Te Aakitai Waiohua) and link to the following background; Before European settlement, potatoes were a staple for crop for Māori (- Māori acknowledge that some potato varieties arrived with early explorers, sealers and whalers during the 18th century). Māori did not make pottery, so their only means of boiling was to place a red-hot stone in a wooden bowl of liquid. They preserved large quantities of food by drying it, fermenting it, or sealing it in fat. The food was stored in pātaka (storehouses) or rua kūmara (underground pits).

12. The alternative name options reference volcanoes, in recognition of the local maunga in the neighbourhood.

13. In accordance with the above themes, the applicant’s proposed names and meanings are set out in the table below:

Table 2: Roskill South Stage 2 Preferred Names and Meaning
Road	Proposed Name		Meaning
Road 2	Kōtero Road (Applicant Preferred)		(noun) fermented potatoes, potatoes steeped in water. Suggested by Te Aakitai Waiohua
Road 3	Huakaroro Road (Applicant Preferred)		(noun) a Māori potato cultivar, Solanum tuberosum - a white-skinned potato suitable for all cooking methods, which looks like a seagull's egg. Suggested by Te Aakitai Waiohua
Alternative options:		Meaning:
Seismic Road		Terminology related to volcanoes, in recognition of the local maunga in the neighbourhood.
Thermal Road
Silica Road

14. 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.

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

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

17. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment. Te Aakitai Waiohua suggested three names: one name was a duplicate and therefore not accepted for use, and the remaining two acceptable name suggestions have been included in the table above for consideration by the Local Board. No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no other iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names in this location.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. 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

19. 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

20. The review sought from the Puketāpapa Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity. Two Maori road name options have been proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. 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

22. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site Plan	21
b ⇩	Attachment B - Location Plan	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Resolution PKTPP/2012/225	29

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

Puketāpapa Local Board Draft Urban (Forest) Report

File No.: CP2019/16726

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Draft Puketāpapa Urban Forest (Ngahere) Analysis Report 2019 (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. The report has established that urban tree coverage in the local board area is approximately 20.4 per cent of the overall land area in 2013. The total tree cover is good when compared to the averages across the region and 5.4 per cent above the minimum target that has been set by Auckland Council in the regional Urban Ngahere Strategy. The strategy sets a regional target to have no local board with a tree canopy coverage less than 15 per cent.

5. To maintain and increase the tree canopy cover, new specimen trees will need to be planted every year.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the draft Puketāpapa Urban Forest (Ngahere) Analysis Report (Attachment A).

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

9. The regional Urban Ngahere Strategy recommends implementation and analysis at the local level. Local boards were offered the opportunity to invest in area specific Urban Ngahere programmes’ of work.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The analysis report highlights good overall tree canopy coverage at 20.4 per cent for the Puketāpapa local board area.

The report provides a number of other statistics:

· 20.4 per cent of the local board area has tree canopy cover

· 38.1 per cent of parks and open space has tree canopy cover

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

· 44.8 per cent of urban tree cover is on private land,

12. Section 9 of the report sets out key focus areas for increasing the tree canopy coverage across the local board area. These are intended to help provide long-term lasting benefits for local communities, noting that it takes several decades for trees planted now to develop to a size where their environmental values start to help these communities.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. The Puketāpapa Local Board has provided direction and support for the project at workshops in July 2018 and to complete the ‘Knowing’ phase. The board provided in-principle support to adopt the analysis report at the August 2019 workshop.

18. The board requested additional maps be included in the final report to clearly show the areas affected by Kauri Die Back in local parks and other public land.

19. The board has also provided funding for the next stage of the Ngahere program in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

23. It is recommended the local board adopts an annual program of new tree planting in parks and along streets to increase the level of tree canopy coverage on public land across the entire local board area. The planting program should take place annually, into the future, to help increase tree canopy cover in local parks and reserves.

24. The growing phase should include funding to help develop a collaborative program with local schools and community groups to develop a locally based program to grow native trees, and shrubs for planting in local area.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. Failure to provide further funding for the ngahere program will result in no longer term planting plan development and no specific new tree planting program taking place in neighbourhood parks and along the road berms on suburban streets. Current renewal planting will be the only mechanism for improving the current tree asset.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. A canopy cover change chapter will be added as and once the data is ready later this year. The updated chapter will be presented to the local board in early 2020.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketapapa LB Draft Ngahere (Forest) Report	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Howell Davies - Senior Advisor - Urban Forest

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/15565

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Staff circulated a draft findings report on the bylaw review to all local boards in May 2019.

4. Eighteen local boards requested individual workshops to ask staff questions and provide informal views on the draft findings. Staff conducted these workshops in June and July 2019.

5. The workshop discussions about the draft findings report included:

· animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally

· issues with some definitions in the bylaw

· requirements to provide identification for owned animals

· Auckland Council’s processes for managing animals

· current and suggested controls on specific animals, e.g. stock, bees, horses, and cats.

6. This report summarises the informal views provided at these workshops. These informal views will guide staff in developing and assessing options for managing animals in Auckland.

7. This report also gives local boards an opportunity to formalise any views before staff present findings and options to the Regulatory Committee in early 2020. Staff will seek direction from the committee at that time if the bylaw needs to be confirmed, amended, or revoked.

8. Local boards will have another opportunity to provide formal views when staff develop a statement of proposal following the Regulatory Committee’s recommendations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

10. The purpose of the bylaw is to provide for the ownership of animals in a way that:

· protects the public from nuisance

· maintains and promotes public health and safety

· minimises the potential for offensive behaviour in public places

· manages animals in public places.

11. To help achieve its purpose the bylaw enables rules to be made on specific animals in separate controls (Figure 1). The bylaw contains controls for:

· beekeeping in urban areas

· keeping stock in urban areas

· horse riding in a public place.

Figure 1 – Animal Management Bylaw 2015 framework

The bylaw does not address dogs

12. Dogs are managed through the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to adopt a dog management policy.

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

The bylaw does not regulate animal welfare

14. The Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956, under which the bylaw was created, provide powers to protect people from nuisance and harm, not animals.

15. Issues with predators eating protected wildlife or animals trampling natural fauna are addressed through other legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 1999, Wildlife Act 1953 and Biosecurity Act 1993.

The bylaw must be reviewed to ensure it is still necessary and appropriate

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

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

18. In May 2019 staff completed a draft findings report for the bylaw review. The draft report identified current issues with animal nuisance and potential areas of improvement for the bylaw.

Staff held local board workshops to obtain informal views on the draft findings report

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

20. At these workshops local boards provided informal views and asked questions on the draft findings report. These informal views will aid staff in producing a range of options to respond to identified animal nuisance and management issues.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. The following sections summarise the informal local board views from the workshops collectively. The sections provide informal views on:

· ongoing animal nuisance issues

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’

· exclusion rules for companion animals

· identifying owned animals

· the council’s processes for managing animals

· views on existing and new controls for specific animals.

22. The PowerPoint presented at the local board workshops is provided in Attachment A. The subsections below reference the relevant slide pages.

23. Questions from local boards at the workshops are provided in Attachment B. These questions will be further explored during the options analysis.

There are ongoing issues with animal nuisance (Slides 9-10)

24. At the workshops staff presented known animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally. Previous engagement captured many types of nuisance, but local boards added and emphasised the nuisances listed below.

Table 2 - Local board informal views on animal nuisances

Bees	· Bees leaving excrement on cars is a minor nuisance. · Some people, especially those with bee allergies, are fearful of bees coming onto their property.
Birds	· Types of nuisance caused by birds is very subjective. · People are abandoning geese and ducks. · Breeding parrots is a nuisance. · Turkeys and peacocks are causing a nuisance in rural areas. · Feeding wild pigeons and seagulls is causing a nuisance.
Cats	· There are large numbers of stray cats across the region. · Cats breed in construction and development spaces. · Cats cause a nuisance by defecating in vegetable gardens. · Abandoned kittens become feral and cause nuisance. · Cats are eating native wildlife.
Pigs	· In urban areas temporarily keeping pigs for fattening causes nuisance.
Rabbits	· Rabbit infestations on council land cause nuisance to neighbouring properties.
Roosters	· Roosters are a nuisance and can be vicious, harmful animals. · In rural areas people are abandoning roosters. · Rural areas have a higher tolerance for roosters.
Stock	· In rural areas there are issues with fences deteriorating and stock escaping. · Loose chickens and wandering stock are a nuisance.
Vermin	· People complain about vermin and water rats in waterways, low tide or the deep bush. · Open composting could create issues with vermin. · Complaints about rats are increasing.

The bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

25. The bylaw focuses on the responsibilities of owners of animals. It is unclear if someone who is providing for the needs of an animal, such as food or shelter, becomes responsible for that animal as their ‘owner’.

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

Table 3 - Local Board informal views on the definition of ‘owner’

· Any animal, whether owned or unowned, should be addressed in the bylaw.

· The current definition is useful as it captures a broad scope of animal owners.

· The definition should elaborate on criteria for the phrase ‘under that person’s care’.

· Owner definition should include accountability for feeding wild animals but should:

o not punish volunteers who care for the animals’ wellbeing

o allow animal control officers to feed animals to trap them.

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

· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 manages cats that are not microchipped or identified by a collar and that are on significant ecological areas.

· The Wildlife Act 1953 provides that a wild animal is the property of the Crown until it has been lawfully taken or killed. At that point it becomes the property of the killer or trapper. This act specifically excludes some animals, such as cats, pigeons and rats, from being vested in the Crown.

· In areas of high conservation value or where there is serious threat, the council will undertake control of certain pest animals. In general, landowners and occupiers are primarily responsible for managing pests.

The bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

28. The bylaw uses the Health Act 1956 definition of ‘nuisance’. This includes a person, animal thing, or circumstance causing unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or convenience of another person.

29. Local boards provided a mix of informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’. Some local boards commented that the definition should have more specific criteria, while others said the bylaw should retain the current broad definition.

Table 4 - Local board informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’

· The definition of nuisance in the Health Act 1956 is outdated.

· Having specific and measurable criteria for nuisance is good.

· The nuisance definition is difficult to enforce without some specific criteria.

· Intensification and tenancy laws allowing for pets will increase nuisance incidents, so the definition needs more specific criteria.

· Reporting animal nuisance can cause tension between neighbours. Specific criteria would be useful, so neighbours are not left to interpret nuisance on their own.

· A broader definition of nuisance fits with common law and covers more occurrences.

· There cannot be one definition of nuisance since there is no one definition of Aucklanders.

· The definition of nuisance in the bylaw should have both general and specific parts.

Incorporating companion animals into the bylaw needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

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

31. Some Aucklanders find it confusing that the bylaw does not specifically address companion animals. There is misunderstanding that stock animals which are kept as pets instead of food, such as pigs and goats, are not subject to the bylaw’s stock controls.

32. Local boards had mixed views about creating a definition for companion animals. Some viewed the rules should apply based on how the animal is kept. Other local boards said the rules should apply regardless if the animal is a pet.

Table 5 - Local board informal views on adding companion animals in the bylaw's definitions

Companion animals should have separate rules

· Some animals should be defined as companion animals in the bylaw.

· The bylaw should make exceptions if any animal is defined as stock but is a pet.

· Companion animals should be excluded from the bylaw rules.

o Goats are popular pets and can be good companions.

o Farm animals as pets can provide the same benefits as traditional pets.

Companion animals should not have separate rules

· Companion animals which are stock animals should still require same licensing process as other stock animals.

· Companion animals should not have their own rules as some neighbours are not familiar or okay with stock animals being kept as pets.

· Having a specific definition increases complexity and introduces subjectivity. It should not matter what a person says about their animal.

· People should not be allowed to have livestock as pets in urban areas.

· An animal is an animal no matter how it is kept. Since the nuisance effects on neighbours are the same, there should be no distinctions.

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

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

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

35. The draft findings report revealed that requiring animal identification would facilitate addressing animal nuisance issues. Most local boards viewed animal identification as helpful but impractical.

Table 6 - Local board informal views on identifying owned animals

· If your animal is going to leave your property, it should be identified.

· Council should offer a form of assistance to identify your animal.

· Every farm animal should be tagged and named.

· Identifying animals would prevent people from feeding unowned animals.

· Identifying animals is useful but impractical.

· The council should collaborate with the National Animal Identification and Tracing database.

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

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

37. The draft findings report identified that some Aucklanders are unclear about the council’s processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. This confusion reduces people’s willingness to report nuisance, as they are unsure who is responsible. Only two per cent of surveyed respondents who experienced animal nuisance reported it to the council.

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

Table 7 - Local board informal views on council processes for managing animals

· The bylaw should be clear on what the council does and does not do regarding animal management.

· The council should clarify the process for reporting unowned animals causing nuisance.

· The bylaw’s animal management processes need to align with the Regional Pest Management Plan.

· The council should offer mediation services for disgruntled neighbours over animal nuisance.

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

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

· To prove a legal claim for damage to private property by an owned animal, the property owner would need to show the owner of the animal had failed to take reasonable care to avoid the damage.

· Culling is managed by central government laws and regulations, rather than the Animal Management Bylaw 2015.

Views on existing controls for specific animals in the bylaw (Slide 22)

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

41. The draft findings report showed council compliance response officers would find limits to urban beehives and more specific requirements for chicken coop locations easier to enforce than the current bylaw controls.

42. Local boards had a mix of views. Some had views on needing more controls, and some had views to keep the controls the same or less.

Table 8 - Local board informal views on the current controls in the bylaw

Animal	Current control	Views on more control	Views on same or less control
Bees	Any properties, urban or rural, can keep any number of bees. Beekeepers must manage the flight path and temperament of their bees. Beekeepers must ensure nuisance from their bees’ excrement is minimised, and the bees have a suitable water source on the premises.	· The council should restrict beekeeping if people have bee-sting allergies. · Limit the number of beehives in an area to prevent colony competition. · Increase awareness and visibility of who keeps bees in an area. · Restrict beekeeping to rural areas. · Restrict the number of beehives a person can have in urban areas. · Restrict beehive ownership by size of property. · There should be minimum training or qualification to own bees. You need experience. · Amateur beekeepers should be treated differently to commercial beekeepers.	· Bees are not causing much nuisance, so there is no need for more regulation. · We should be encouraging beekeeping. Should regulate rather than overregulate. · Do not restrict bees to just urban areas. · Bees should be unregulated. · Would be concerned if licensing costs for beekeeping were introduced. · Should be careful about restricting bees as they are important to the ecosystem.
Horses	Local boards are able to set specific controls for horses for local parks and beaches. Horses are currently not allowed to be kept in urban areas without a licence from the council unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres.	· The same access rules for dogs on beaches should be applied to horses. · Do not prohibit horses on beaches but restrict them to off-peak times. · Should lobby central government to include the same powers that protect native fauna and wildlife from dogs for horses.	· Horse owners should be responsible for removing manure. The bylaw should encourage accountability and consider that picking up manure is not always practical, e.g. on busy roads. · Should be allowed to ride horses on berms. · Horses should not be banned from roads. There are few places to ride.
Animal	Current control	Views on more control	Views on same or less control
Horses cont.	Horses are permitted in public spaces if: · manure is removed · consideration is taken to not intimidate or cause a nuisance for other public space users · beach dune damage is minimised.		· Increase communication and awareness of current controls to horse owners. · Would rather have horses on the roads than scooters.
Stock	Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants and quail are the only stock animals currently permitted by the bylaw in urban areas without a licence from the council. Any other stock animal, including roosters, would require a licence from the council in urban areas unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres. Stock in urban areas must also be restrained within the boundaries of the premises on which they are kept, and chicken coops must not cause a nuisance and must be regularly cleaned. In rural areas the above controls do not apply. Rural residents must ensure their animals do not cause a nuisance to any other person.	· Stock should not be kept in urban areas. This is also humane for the animal. · There should be penalties for poor stock-fencing by roads in rural areas. · The bylaw needs a mechanism to deal with repeat ‘wandering stock’ offenders. · The criteria for keeping goats and other herbivores should be defined by the amount of grassy area on the property. · There should be restrictions on how far a chicken coop should be from the property boundary. · Fewer chickens should be allowed in urban areas. · Roosters should not be allowed in rural lifestyle blocks in urban areas.	· The current stock controls are adequate. · Support allowing pheasants in urban areas. · There are already legal consequences for not fencing your stock. The bylaw does not need to address. · If you have a large property in an urban area, goats should be allowed. · Make sure urban pet days are still allowed. · It does not matter where the chicken coop sits on the property if it is cleaned regularly. · There should not be a complete ban on roosters in urban areas.

Views on new controls for specific animals (Slide 23)

43. A quarter of surveyed Aucklanders (26 per cent) said the bylaw should introduce controls for other animals. Of those wanting controls for other animals, over half (57 per cent) wanted controls introduced for cats.

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

45. Local boards provided mixed views on introducing controls for new animals. The local boards agreed that any regulatory response would need to match the scale of the issue, be cost-effective, and have measurable effects on reducing nuisance.

Table 9 - Local board informal views on controls for cats and other animals

Informal local board views on controls for cats

Informal views on introducing controls for cats

· The bylaw should limit the number of cats a person can own.

o Should make sure extremes are restricted, such as having 30+ cats.

· The bylaw should require the de-sexing of cats.

o The council should work closely with the SPCA in this matter.

o Make it compulsory for cat owners.

· Local boards have varying support for requiring microchipping of cats including:

o full compulsory microchipping across the region

o limited microchipping only to cats living in eco-sensitive areas.

· The bylaw should have the same registration process for cats as the council has for dogs.

· There should be a curfew for cats.

· There should be controls to dissuade people from feeding stray cats, as it reinforces the cats’ behaviour.

· Publish best practices for tourists with cats and other animals visiting Hauraki Gulf Islands.

· The council should restrict cats from wandering.

· The council should restrict certain cat breeds, like Bengals.

Informal views on not introducing controls for cats

· Cat registration is difficult and has failed before. Auckland Council already has difficulty registering and enforcing dogs.

· Rely on the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 guidelines.

· Cats naturally wander. Containing them would be cruel.

· The council should invest in substantial long-term public education regarding cats.

· If the council restricts caring for stray cats, it could create animal welfare issues.

· Controlling cats is too trivial for the council to get involved.

Informal local board views on controls for other animals

· Rules are needed to restrict feeding wild animals in public, especially birds.

· How many animals a person can own should be restricted by section size.

· There should be a higher management expectation on animal owners in urban areas.

· The bylaw should address the health risks that animals can cause their owners.

· There should be a complete ban on snakes and ferrets.

· Rabbits are a major pest, especially in urban areas. The bylaw should restrict breeding.

· There should be controls on keeping birds in small cages.

· Unless there is a significant problem, neighbours should sort out their own problems.

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

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

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

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

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

· The Regional Pest Management Plan lists some tropical animals that can be treated as pests. These include eastern water dragons, Indian ring-necked parakeets, and snake-necked turtles.

· Chickens were not classified as pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to protect the Auckland region’s important biodiversity assets. There are no significant biodiversity benefits to managing feral chickens at a regional level. Feral chickens are primarily a human nuisance issue centred in the urban areas where people feed them.

Other views from local boards

Rights of property owners and protection

47. The bylaw does not explain what options property owners have to handle animal nuisance on their property themselves. It is unclear which animals property owners are allowed to trap and dispose of on their own and which animals are protected.

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

Enforcement

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

50. The Local Government Act 2002 does not give the power to issue an infringement notice under a bylaw. Compliance officers have said this inhibits their ability to address nuisance issues as their next step after trying to elicit voluntary compliance is prosecution. This can be costly to the council.

51. Some local boards provided views that the Local Government Act 2002 should be amended to allow for infringement fines. Some local boards viewed that the bylaw would already be fit for purpose if it could be enforced with infringements.

Education

52. Most local boards said the council needs to increase education and awareness about the current animal management rules. Some local boards viewed that the council should focus more on informing Aucklanders of responsible animal management than increasing regulation.

53. Some local boards also advised that any changes to the bylaw, if required, would need to have a strong communication and awareness plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54. The bylaw affects the operation of council units involved in animal management. These include biosecurity, animal management and compliance response officers. Staff held face-to-face meetings and a workshop with council officers. These views were provided in the draft findings report and workshops.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55. Staff captured informal local board views through cluster workshops in March 2019. The draft findings report was shared with all local boards in May 2019, and staff attended individual local board workshops through June and July 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. Staff sought views from mana whenua at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Forum in April 2019. The members present at the hui sought clarity that the bylaw’s reference of ‘public places’ does not extend to papakāinga (communal Māori land).

57. Members were also concerned with threats to estuaries, beaches, and waterways from unregulated coastal horse trails. These views were provided in the draft findings report and options development will consider these views.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. There is a risk that the public may perceive this report as formal local board views or an attempt to regulate cats without public engagement. This risk can be mitigated by replying to any emerging media or public concerns by saying that no additions or changes will be made to the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 without full public consultation.

60. Local boards will have an opportunity to provide formal resolutions on any changes proposed to the bylaw in early 2020 before a public consultative procedure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. Following any additional formalised views from local boards, staff will generate and assess options to respond to identified animal nuisances. Staff will present these findings and options in a report to the relevant committee in the new council term in early 2020.

62. Staff will seek formal local board views when developing a statement of proposal once the committee gives direction on animal management.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review - Presentation at local board workshop on draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 Review	105
b ⇩	Local Board questions from the workshop	129

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

ATEED six-monthly report to the Puketāpapa Local Board

File No.: CP2019/17208

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. This report provides the Puketāpapa Local Board with highlights of ATEED’s activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area as well as ATEED’s regional activities for the six months 1 January to 30 June 2019.

2. This report should be read in conjunction with ATEED’s Quarter 3 report to Auckland Council (available at www.aucklandnz.com) and the forthcoming Quarter 4 report to the Auckland Council CCO Finance and Performance Committee (available 17 September). Although these reports focus primarily on the breadth of ATEED’s work at a regional level, much of the work highlighted has significant local impact.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. This report provides the Puketāpapa Local Board with relevant information on the following ATEED activities:

· Locally driven initiatives: Puketāpapa business engagement and the Young Enterprise Scheme

· Supporting local business growth

· Filming activity

· Youth employment pathways

· Youth connections

· Offshore talent attraction

· Local and regional destination management and marketing

· Delivered, funded and facilitated events

4. Further detail on these activities is listed under Analysis and Advice.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive ATEED’s update to the Puketāpapa Local Board – September 2019.

Horopaki

Context

5. ATEED has two areas of focus:

Economic Development – including business support, business attraction and investment, local economic development, trade and industry development, skills employment and talent and innovation and entrepreneurship.

Destination - supporting sustainable growth of the visitor economy with a focus on destination marketing and management, major events, business events (meetings and conventions) and international student attraction and retention.

6. These two portfolios also share a common platform relating to the promotion of the city globally to ensure that Auckland competes effectively with other mid-tier high quality of life cities.

7. ATEED works with local boards, Council and CCOs to support decision-making on local economic growth and facilitates or co-ordinates the delivery of local economic development activity. ATEED ensures that the regional activities that ATEED leads or delivers are fully leveraged to support local economic growth and employment.

8. In addition, ATEED’s dedicated Local Economic Development (LED) team works with local boards who allocate locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget to economic development activities. The LED team delivers a range of services^{^[1]} such as the development of proposals, including feasibility studies that enable local boards to directly fund or otherwise advocate for the implementation of local initiatives.

9. ATEED delivers its services at the local level through business hubs based in the north, west and south of the region, as well as its central office at 167B Victoria Street West.

10. Additional information about ATEED’s role and activities can be found at www.aucklandnz.com/ateed

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. As at 30 June^{^[2]}^, 3,303 businesses had been through an ATEED intervention or programme. Of these, 42 businesses were in the Puketāpapa Local Board area – 14 businesses went through Destination-related programmes and 28 businesses went through Economic Development-related programmes.

Economic Development

Locally Driven Initiatives:

12. Puketāpapa business engagement: During Q3, the Local Board agreed to reallocate $7,500 to support a Pop-up Business School event. The Pop-up Business School ran from 29 April to 10 May 2019 in partnership with the Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards and the Ministry of Social Development.

13. Young Enterprise Scheme: The Auckland Chamber of Commerce has delivered the Lion Foundation Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) since January 2018. ATEED maintains a strategic role. During the period, there were 58 schools participating in the Auckland YES programme, representing 1,376 students completing the programme. Marcellin College and Mt Roskill Grammar are the two schools from the Puketāpapa Local Board area participating in the YES programme.

Supporting Local Business Growth

14. This area is serviced by the Business and Enterprise team in the South hub, based in Te Haa o Manukau. The team comprises of Business and Innovation Advisors and administration support. The role of this team is to support the growth of Auckland’s key internationally competitive sectors and to support to provide quality jobs.

15. A key programme in achieving this is central government’s Regional Business Partnership Network (RBPN). This is delivered by ATEED’s nine Business and Innovation Advisors (BIA), whose role is to connect local businesses to resources, experts and services in innovation, R&D, business growth and management.

16. ATEED’s BIAs engage 1:1 with businesses through a discovery meeting to understand their challenges, gather key data, and provide connections / recommendations via an action plan.

17. Where businesses qualify (meet the programme criteria and/or align to ATEED’s purpose as defined in the SOI) the advisors facilitate government support to qualifying businesses, in the form of:

· Callaghan Innovation R&D grants (including Getting Started, project and student grants (https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/grants)

· Callaghan Innovation subsidised innovation programmes

(https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/innovation-skills)

· RBPN business capability vouchers (NZTE), where the business owner may be issued co-funding up to $5,000 per annum for business training via registered service providers. Voucher co-funding is prioritised to businesses accessing this service for the first time, in order to encourage more businesses to engage with experts to assist their management and growth.

· NZTE services such as Export Essentials (https://workshop.exportessentials.nz/register/)

· Referrals to NZ Business Mentors via The Chamber of Commerce.

18. During the reporting period, ATEED Business and Innovation Advisors met with nine businesses in the Puketāpapa Local Board area, one for innovation advice and services and eight for business growth and capability advice and services (one was a returning client). From these engagements:

· Four RBPN vouchers were issued to assist with business capability training

· Seven connections were made to Callaghan Innovation services and programmes

· Six referrals were made to Business Mentors New Zealand

· Seven connections were made to ATEED staff and programmes

· More than 40 connections were made to other businesses or programmes.

Other support for new businesses

19. During the period, ATEED also ran workshops and events aimed at establishing or growing a new business and building capability. Eleven people from the Puketāpapa Local Board area attended an event below:

· Starting off Right workshop - 2

· Business clinic – 8

· Innovation clinic - 1.

Filming activity within the Puketāpapa Local Board area

20. ATEED’s Screen Auckland team provides film facilitation services as part of ATEED’s support for the screen and digital sector of Auckland’s economy. Screen Auckland facilitates, processes and issues film permits for filming activity in public open space. This activity supports local businesses and employment, as well as providing a revenue stream to local boards for the use of local parks.

21. Between 1 January and 30 June 2019, 305 film permits were issued in the Auckland region across 379 locations and 404 days of filming. Of these, eight permits were issued in the Puketāpapa Local Board area. Feature film, The Legend of Baron To’a was filmed in the Local Board area. The Puketāpapa Local Board area’s share of film permit revenue was $1,704.35 for the period (total for all boards combined was $51,191.30).

22. On average, 37 crew work on each shoot day. This does not reflect filming that also takes place in studios, private property or low impact activity that wouldn’t have required a permit. During the period, 81 permits were issued for TV commercials (TVC), making up 27 per cent of permits issued. A quarter of the TVC permits were destined for an international market.

23. Auckland is becoming a popular destination for international television networks to pilot an episode of a new TV series to allow them to gauge if a series will be successful. Permits were issued for locations across the Auckland region earlier this year for two new US pilots.

Youth employment pathways

24. The Go with Tourism campaign was successfully launched on 5 April, attracting 170 employers and more than 700 youth by year-end. The campaign is designed to shift perceptions many young people have about careers in tourism and address the skills gap in the industry.

25. ATEED delivered the Future Ready Summit on 26 June at the Vodafone Events Centre in Manukau. Approximately 250 employers, 40 young people and 20 speakers (eight under the age of 24). The Youth Employer Pledge partners were the primary audience. The Future Ready Auckland: Driving economic development through technology and transformation insights paper was also released, attracting strong media attention - including a lead story on Radio NZ Nine to Noon. The research aims to better understand Auckland’s future skill needs, including future growth sectors. ATEED is currently working with pledge partners to harness the network, with a focus on south and west Auckland now that Youth Connections has transferred to The Southern Initiative.

Local Jobs and Skills Hubs

26. ATEED is the regional partner for the network of Auckland Jobs and Skills Hubs. These multi-agency hubs support employers at developments where there is a high and sustained demand for local labour and skills development. The Auckland network includes Ara (Auckland Airport development), City Centre and Tāmaki hubs. As at 30 June, 377 people had been placed into employment via the ATEED-facilitated CBD hub, 1,914 training outcomes were delivered, and 11 apprenticeships were facilitated. About 36 per cent of those employed are Māori, against a target of 40 per cent. ATEED has developed a school engagement pilot programme with interested employers and schools aimed at engaging students with career opportunities in the construction and infrastructure sector. ATEED also provided funding to a Progressive Employment Programme for at-risk youth, supporting cadet training and developing youth-ready capability within businesses working on the City Rail Link. The City Centre hub is a training partner for this programme.

Offshore talent attraction

27. The Auckland. We’re Hiring campaign ran from January to March 2019. The campaign is designed to attract high-skilled offshore construction and technology talent to Auckland. The campaign resulted in 2,295 job applications.

Destination

Regional destination management and marketing activity

28. The Elemental AKL winter festival website went live on 29 April. The festival ran from 1-31 July and is developed to promote sustainable tourism growth by encouraging visitation more evenly throughout the year, and dispersing visitors across the region. The programme included more than 60 free and ticketed events across the themes of light, food, entertainment, and culture. Elemental Feast went live on 4 June, with 120 restaurants participating in plating up unique festival dishes using ingredients sourced from the Auckland region and inspired by the elements.

29. The Short Break campaign, aimed at leisure travellers on Australia’s eastern seaboard, ran during Q3 and Q4. There were three bursts of the campaign, focused on themes of nature, food and wine, and ultimate things to do in Auckland featuring different parts of the region. As part of the campaign, ATEED hosted news.com.au and lifestyle.com.au in Auckland, showcasing the city’s unique offering that is promoted in the campaign. News.com.au has a reach of six million and will produce a dedicated feature on Auckland as well as share one article on Facebook with their 1.1m followers. Lifestyle.com.au has a reach of 1.2m unique viewers and will produce two dedicated online features.

Delivered, funded and facilitated events

30. During the period, ATEED delivered the 2019 Auckland Lantern Festival at the Auckland Domain. Customer satisfaction was 89 per cent, an increase of nine per cent compared to the previous year. Some key findings from the customer survey found that respondents were very positive about what the event meant for the city, with 96 per cent of respondents agreeing that Auckland Council should continue to support events like the Lantern Festival and 94 per cent saying that the event brought people from different ethnic and cultural groups together (compared to 95 per cent and 91 per cent respectively in the previous year). The Auckland Lantern Festival’s sustainability objectives through the Cultural Festivals Strategy resulted in 62 per cent of waste being diverted from landfill. This has nearly doubled in two years, with the diversion being 34 per cent in 2017.

31. Given the need to prioritise police resourcing following the events in Christchurch on 15 March, the 2019 Pasifika festival, which was due to run on 23 and 24 March, was cancelled. Although the festival would have been an opportunity to bring Auckland’s communities together at a time of national mourning, given the unprecedented nature of what happened and after discussions with the New Zealand Police, it was agreed that Police must prioritise resourcing to ensure the safety of communities across the city.

32. During the period, residents of the Puketāpapa Local Board area were also able to enjoy events funded or facilitated by ATEED across the Auckland region, including the ASB Classic, Splore Music and Arts Festival, Sculpture on the Gulf, the New Zealand Comedy Festival, the Auckland Writers Festival, the Auckland Art Fair, Warhorse, and Auckland Wine Week.

33. A full schedule of major events is available on ATEED’s website, aucklandnz.com

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. ATEED assesses and manages our initiatives on a case-by-case basis and engages with the Council group where required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. Local Board views are not sought for the purposes of this report. Local Board views were sought for some of the initiatives described in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no impact on Māori. ATEED assesses and responds to any impact that our initiatives may have on Māori on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no risk. ATEED assesses and manages any risk associated with our initiatives on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. ATEED will provide the next six-monthly report to the Local Board in February 2020 and will cover the period 1 July to 31 December 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Samantha-Jane Miranda, Operational Strategy Advisor (ATEED)

Authorisers

Quanita Khan - Manager Operational Strategy and Planning (ATEED)

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/16106

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for temporary arrangements during the election period for:

· urgent decisions

· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Between the last local board business meeting of the current electoral term, and the first business meeting of the new term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

3. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results. The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting.

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

5. All local boards have made a general delegation to the Chief Executive, subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board, which require, amongst other matters, staff to consult with local board portfolio holders on certain matters. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the chair. After the election, there will be no local board portfolio holders or chairs to consult until new arrangements are made in the new term.

6. As a temporary measure, approval is sought from the local board to allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting, without consulting with the nominated portfolio holder or local board chair. Staff will consult with the local board chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.

7. Appointments made by the local board to external bodies will cease on the date of the election. New appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term.

Do not delete this line

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

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

c) approve that staff, as a temporary measure, can make business as usual decisions under their existing delegated authority without requiring compliance with the requirement in the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder (or chair where there is no portfolio holder in place), from 22 October 2019, noting that staff will consult with the chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the new term

d) note that existing appointments by the local board to external bodies will cease at the election and new appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term.

Horopaki

Context

8. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results (Sections 115 and 116, Local Electoral Act 2001). The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019.

9. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting (Clause 14, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).

10. Following the last local board meeting of the current electoral term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

11. As with each of the previous electoral terms, temporary arrangements need to be made for:

· urgent decisions

· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Urgent decisions

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

13. The urgent decision-making process enables the board to make decisions where it is not practical to call the full board together. The Local Government Act 2002 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees, members of the local board or Auckland Council staff, any of its responsibilities, duties and powers, with some specific exceptions. This legislation enables the urgent decision-making process.

14. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a memo stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required.

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

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

Decisions made by staff under delegated authority

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

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

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

20. Prior to the election, staff can continue to consult with portfolio holders as required by the delegation protocols (or chair where there is no portfolio holder). However, after the election, there will be no portfolio holders or chairs in place to consult with until new arrangements are made in the new term.

21. During this time, staff will need to continue to process routine business as usual matters, including routine requests from third parties for landowner approval such as commercial operator permits, temporary access requests and affected party approvals.

22. As a temporary measure, it is recommended that the local board allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting. This is irrespective of the requirements of the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder on landowner consents. Staff will consult with the local board 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, so local board members will not be able to attend meetings of their organisations as an Auckland Council representative from 22 October 2019, until new appointments are made in the new term. Staff will advise the affected external bodies accordingly.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The arrangements proposed in this report enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. They apply only to local boards. The reduced political decision-making will be communicated to the wider council group.

25. The governing body has made its own arrangements to cover the election period, including delegating the power to make urgent decisions between the last governing body meeting of the term and the day the current term ends, to any two of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole. From the commencement of the term of office of the new members until the governing body’s inaugural meeting, the Chief Executive will carry out decision-making under his current delegations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. This is a report to all local boards that proposes arrangements to enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. This will enable the council to meet timeframes and provide good customer service.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have specific implications for Māori, and the arrangements proposed in this report do not affect the Māori community differently to the rest of the community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The decisions sought in this report are procedural and there are no significant financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There is a risk that unforeseen decisions will arise during this period, such as a decision that is politically significant or a decision that exceeds the Chief Executive’s financial delegations.

30. This risk has been mitigated by scheduling meetings as late possible in the current term, and communicating to reporting staff that significant decisions should not be made during October 2019.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. The decision of the local board will be communicated to senior staff so that they are aware of the arrangements for the month of October 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 September 2019

Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2019/16506

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the resolution of the Governing Body and consider giving feedback to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 22 August 2019, the Governing Body resolved as follows:

Resolution number GB/2019/82

MOVED by Mayor P Goff, seconded by Cr L Cooper:

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommendations

b) defer any decision on a Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw pending advice from officers on the content of a new Statement of Proposal for a bylaw, and further information on a possible review of the Freedom Camping Act 2011

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

from:

“a) confirm the following legacy bylaws, or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked …”

to:

“a) confirm the legacy bylaws in i., or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, until a new bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 comes into force at which time these bylaws or residual parts will be automatically revoked; and confirm the legacy bylaws in subparagraphs ii. to v. or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked…”

d) direct officers to provide the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and Governing Body with advice on the following potential elements of a future Statement of Proposal:

i) proposed prohibitions in the following areas:

A) all areas the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommended should be prohibited

B) the 61 sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as prohibited areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

C) all Reserves in residential areas that are Reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977

ii) restricted freedom camping in the seven sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as restricted freedom camping areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

iii) restricted or prohibited freedom camping in two sites proposed in public submissions, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

iv) a General Rule that regulates freedom camping outside restricted and prohibited areas not listed in the proposed bylaw, which includes provision for:

A) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside residential homes (unless the resident has granted permission for the vehicle to be parked outside their home)

B) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside commercial premises, educational facilities, healthcare facilities, playgrounds, and swimming pools

C) a maximum number of nights stay at any specific site

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

v) any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal that is communicated to the Chief Executive by a councillor or Local Board before 30 September 2019

e) note that following decisions on the advice on the matters in recommendation d) above, council officers will be directed to develop a new Statement of Proposal for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for consideration by the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and the Governing Body, following consultation with Local Boards”.

3. The Governing Body considered the following at its meeting on 22 August 2019:

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

b) Item 10 – Chair’s Report on Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

4. The attachments to this report show sites that are already in scope for the next phase of work. Attachment A provides a list of areas included in the previous statement of proposal and Attachment B provides a list of the 70 additional areas raised by submitters during the previous consultation.

5. This is an opportunity to provide further input on proposed sites which have not already been included within the scope of the next phase and which meet statutory requirements for inclusion in the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) note the resolution of the Governing Body with regards to the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

b) forward any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Freedom Camping in Vehicles – Managing freedom camping in Auckland (Statement of Proposal) (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Areas proposed by submitters during public consultation and not included within the statement of proposal (Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report)	149

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Sinclair – Policy Manager, Community and Social Policy

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

[1] This activity is subject to local boards prioritising local economic development, and subsequently allocating funding to local economic development through their local board agreements.

Chairperson	Harry Doig
Deputy Chairperson	Julie Fairey
Members	Anne-Marie Coury
	David Holm
	Shail Kaushal
	Ella Kumar, JP

29.1	Local board feedback on biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand
	A copy will be placed on the official minutes and made available on the Auckland Council website as a minutes attachment.
	Resolution number PKTPP/2019/1 MOVED by Deputy Chairperson J Fairey, seconded by Member S Kaushal: That the Puketāpapa Local Board: a) delegate authority to the Chair and member D Holm to provide input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Government’s discussion document on a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand CARRIED
	Attachments a 20190815 Item 29 Consideration of Extraordinary Item Opportunity for local boards to contribute to an Auckland Council submission on the Government's discussion document on a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Anne-Marie Coury's Report, 01 August - 31 August 2019	201
b ⇩	Anne-Marie Coury's Local Government New Zealand Report	205
c ⇩	Julie Fairey's Report, 02 August - 05 September 2019	209
d ⇩	David Holm's Report, 01 August - 20 September 2019	213
e ⇩	Ella Kumar's Report, 01 August - 05 September 2019	215

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 08 August 2019	223
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 22 August 2019	225
c ⇩	Puketapapa Local Board Workshop Record, 29 August 2019	227
d ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 05 September 2019	231

Author	Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Author	Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Author	Ben Moimoi - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager