Agenda of Papakura Local Board

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Auckland Transport update to the Papakura Local Board - September 2019

File No.: CP2019/16486

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Papakura Local Board about transport related matters in its area including Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This month’s report is the final report of this electoral term and as well as responding to resolutions made by the board it includes information about the following:

· The report has updates about projects currently in progress in the local board area, including the Papakura station park and ride and bus expansion, the proposed new bus layover area and Papakura station electronic gating.

· Progress on the board’s LBTCF projects is included in the report. The board has allocated most of its fund for this term, with a current balance of $346,606 unallocated.

· Relevant consultations and decisions of Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee are noted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport September 2019 report.

Horopaki

Context

3. This report addresses transport related matters in the board’s area and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the fund’s projects.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Response to Resolutions

5. The most recent resolutions of the Papakura Local Board are recorded below in bold font, with Auckland Transport contained below each resolution.

Resolution number PPK/2019/137

b) Papakura Local Board request that Auckland Transport adhere to the advice given by the Executive General Manager, Stakeholder, Communities and Communication, that the installation of the Papakura train station electronic gates will begin in October 2019, as the gates will contribute favourably to the management of safety concerns at the train station.

This resolution has been noted. However, the current plan is to install the gates in 2020. Although installation is not within the original timeframe, when the gates are delivered, they will make a significant impact on Papakura station’s operations.

c) Papakura Local Board request the Papakura Local Board Chairperson write to the Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Chief Executive Officers requesting the resource consent and remediation works for Parerekau Road be urgently progressed as this matter has been ongoing and has caused significant frustration and impact to the community.

Auckland Transport has noted this resolution.

d) Papakura Local Board express serious concern about the poor standard of road surfaces in Papakura, and request an urgent workshop with Auckland Transport to understand the current forward work schedule for road surface works in Papakura and to receive local board feedback on the key priority roads for urgent maintenance.

Auckland Transport’s senior road maintenance manager met Councillor Newman, the Papakura Local Board Chair and the local MP’s representative on 14 September 2019. The meeting allowed local elected members an opportunity to discuss their concerns about Papakura directly with Auckland Transport’s senior manager responsible for maintenance across Auckland.

e) Papakura Local Board express disappointment that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Safer Communities Programme has been de-funded by NZTA (noting this fund is different from the Community Safety Fund), and request Auckland Transport to inform the local submitters that the project has been defunded by NZTA.

When the programme team first discussed the proposed project with the Papakura Local Board, in 2017 the primary objective was improving pedestrian facilities. With the 2018 change of government this objective no longer aligned with current government priorities, now focussed on safety. The project team is unable to secure central government funding for Papakura Safer Communities at this stage.

Auckland Transport wishes to complete this project and is continuing to work with the local board, and together Auckland Transport and the board can explore alternative funding options for elements of the proposed project, in the same way as with the Community Safety Fund projects.

The plan is that Auckland Transport’s Road Safety Team will report and workshop with the Papakura Local Board and then will inform the wider community of the programme’s status. The report back is likely to be in late September or October 2019 so it will be the next local board responding to this work.

f) Papakura Local Board request Auckland Transport confirm the timeframe for the bus layover feasibility study and physical works at the corner of Settlement Road and Great South Road location, as a matter of urgency due to buses continuing to park on Opaheke Road.

The bus team are meeting with the Chief Executive and Executive General Manager of AT Metro in mid-September 2019 to discuss the bus layover issue. After this meeting, Auckland Transport will be able to provide a more detailed response regarding timeframes and options.

g) Papakura Local Board request Auckland Transport urgently review the status of all Papakura roundabouts and report back to the board with a maintenance repair plan.

This request has been passed to the Southern Road Corridor Maintenance team. The team are able to review the roundabouts and will provide the Papakura Local Board with a condition report by the end of 2019. This review will provide the basis for working together to plan either maintenance or upgrades.

Regional projects and activities

Community Safety Fund (CSF)

6. The 2018 Regional Land Transport Plan allocated $20 million for local initiatives in road safety: $5 million in FY19/20 and $15 million in FY20/21.

7. It is apportioned to local board areas by formula focused on numbers of Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI). All CSF funding must be spent, with no carryover possible.

8. Papakura Local Board’s CSF is $746,404. Projects may be supplemented with the board’s current LBTCF balance of $346,606.

9. In July 2019 the board authorised the use of the CSF and LBTCF to deliver the following list of projects:

Table 1: Community Safety Fund Projects

10. Auckland Transport’s schedule for delivering these projects will be based on construction efficiency and may not follow the periods outlined above exactly. However, this decision still represents a significant set of safety improvements in the Papakura area.

Board area projects and activities

Papakura Park & Ride and bus expansion

11. A park and ride at Papakura Station is a key long-term objective of the Papakura Local Board. The project is included in the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028 (RLTP) as a funded project, with approximately $12 million allocated for the Park and Ride development in years 2018-2020.

12. Auckland Transport has discussed with the board the idea of expanding the project to include a bus interchange. A further $4.6 million is required for the bus station interchange, but this is currently unfunded

13. Auckland Transport started planning and completed the Single Stage Business Case (SSBC) for Papakura Rail Station Access (including park and ride, bus, walking, cycling and on-demand services). Preliminary findings from the business case were presented to the local board at a workshop on the 21 November 2018, with a follow-up workshop on 13 February 2019 and the draft SSBC was sent to the local board in late February 2019.

14. The SSBC states that soil conditions make a multi-storey park and ride facility in this location challenging to build increasing the funding required. The SSBC concludes that building a multi-storey car park in this location has a low benefit / cost ratio. Instead, it recommends that 117 new car parks be developed near the station at ground level. The new parks include 91 at-grade carparks on KiwiRail land to the north-east of the station and a further 26 on KiwiRail land to the south-west of the station.

15. On 26 March 2019, board members attended an Auckland Transport Board meeting to present the local board’s case for the multi-storey carpark and the project has now been referred back to AT senior management for review, to be headed by the Executive General Manager of Stakeholder, Communities and Communications.

16. The Chair of Auckland Transport also responded to the local board’s presentation proposing that Auckland Transport’s management team work with the board on a series of actions, rather than the one, single solution of delivering a multi-story park and ride on day one.

17. Auckland Transport and the local board met again on 22 May 2019 to a review of the SSBC to identify any further options to develop the multi-storey carpark, including a staged approach. The project manager met with the local board on 3 July 2019 to discuss the contractor’s proposal and answer any questions. Based on this discussion the plan was modified and the contractor has started work on the revised proposal.

18. The final report reviewing the SSBC is expected to be available for the local board in late September or October 2019.

Residential Speed Management - Rosehill, Papakura

19. Auckland Transport is delivering road safety improvements on local streets to create safer environments, including for pedestrians and people on bikes. Rosehill was an area prioritised for road safety improvements because of safety concerns raised by local residents, crash data, vehicle speeds in the area, and the location of community facilities including primarily schools. The Rosehill area is bounded by Chichester Drive, Park Estate Road, Rosehill Drive.

20. Auckland Transport delivered a range of improvements through April to July 2019 including speed-calming measures such as speed humps, raised tables (some with zebra crossings), and raised intersections.

21. The local board has expressed concern about some aspects of the programme and met with the project team on 14 August 2019. A post-construction safety audit has been completed. The safety audit findings are being reviewed, and based on this, decisions can be made about any potential changes. When this process is finished Auckland Transport will report to the local board.

Safer Communities Programme

22. Papakura is one of three trial locations for the Safer Communities Programme, funded by New Zealand Transport Agency. Initial local board and community consultation happened from October to December 2018 based on project objectives focused on improving road safety in local communities and promoting active modes of transport by improving pedestrian infrastructure.

23. This feedback was presented in a report dated December 2018 and was used to develop a draft a priority list of projects to improve ‘walkability’ in and around Papakura, including the town centre. Work continued in 2019 on prioritisation, with a short hiatus when a new project manager was appointed to review the projects and their current prioritisation.

24. The project no longer meets the funding objectives of New Zealand Transport Agency, which is now focused on safety. The change in central government policy means that Auckland Transport has to re-evaluate the project and how to deliver the individual elements of it.

25. Auckland Transport’s team continues to work reviewing the project, with the aim of drafting a set of prioritised projects to discuss with the local board in the near future. The prioritised projects provide a basis for working together to deliver either elements or the entire project.

Bus Lane/T2-3 Lane Great South Road, Takanini

26. Auckland Transport is planning and delivering improved multi-modal lanes throughout Auckland, and in the board’s area, on Great South Road, Takanini.

27. The Papakura Local Board was briefed about the project in October 2017 and since then the project has been revised, in part, due to local board feedback.

28. In August 2018, the board stated, by resolution their preference for a T2-3 lane Great South Road, Takanini, for the cycle lane to be removed from the road carriageway and for parking restrictions to be during peak hours only.

29. Development of these lanes will be included in consultation about the wider Connected Communities Programme which is expected to take place early in 2020. This will give the board another opportunity to provide detailed feedback on proposals.

Bus layovers on Opaheke Road and Chapel Street

30. In mid-2018, bus layovers on Railway Street West and O’Shannessey Street were relocated to Chapel Street and Opaheke Road, to address concerns raised by local businesses and residents about safety and visual amenity within the Papakura town centre.

31. The relocation of the bus layovers displaced a number of time-restricted car parks serving local shops and community service located on the corner of Opaheke Road and Chapel Street.

32. The local board requested that Auckland Transport resolve the parking issues. Based on this request Auckland Transport worked with the community services operating out of Central Park and Auckland Council’s Community Facilities staff to try to resolve the parking issues.

33. Auckland Transport surveyed the public and received limited feedback. Two local community service providers have asked for mobility parking and additional time restricted car parking spaces for their clients.

34. The local board has indicated its strong preference for another area to be used (the former bus depot near the cemetery).

35. At its May and August 2019 business meetings the local board made resolutions expressing its concerns about the use of Opāheke Road for bus layovers and requesting that Auckland Transport do a feasibility study for constructing a bus layover area in the current cemetery parking area (former bus depot area), between Great South and

36. AT Metro’s infrastructure team responded to the May resolution and started work assessing the feasibility of using the area near the cemetery.

37. This work is ongoing and involves looking at not only the capital cost of building a new facility but the effect on operational cost of moving the layover area. In mid-September, the team will meet the Chief Executive of Auckland Transport and the Executive General Manager of AT Metro on-site to brief them and to discuss plans for the area.

38. After this meeting, the team will be in a position to brief the local board on the feasibility of various options.

Papakura town centre parking study

39. The board provided guidance to Auckland Transport to draft a scope and methodology for a parking study of the town centre.

40. In February 2019, the draft scope was circulated to board members and the Papakura Business Association for feedback. The study began on 28 February 2019 and initial study results were presented to the Papakura Commercial Projects Group on 8 May 2019.

41. The study is now finished and a draft was presented to the local board on 4 September 2019.

Electronic gating at Papakura Train Station

42. Installing gates to control access to platforms at Auckland’s most popular stations is a long-term plan for Auckland Transport. Papakura is on the list and gates were to be installed early this year.

43. Unfortunately, installation work was halted on 8 July 2019 as part of a budget review by Auckland Transport on the current gating programme. The results of that review have been reviewed at the current plan is to install gates during 2020.

Pararekau Rd roading works

44. From summer 2016-17 until April 2018, roading works took place on Pararekau Road, as part of the development of the Summerset Karaka Retirement Village. Following these roading works, Auckland Transport built a new footpath outside the Village during summer-autumn 2018-19.

45. Auckland Transport is planning work to improve the condition of the road. Design work is almost finished and when this is complete the next step is applying for a resource consent and to begin construction in late 2019.

Takanini Residents Actions Group (TRAG) concerns

46. At the board meeting on 26 March 2019, the board requested that Auckland Transport urgently provide a solution on the traffic safety issues raised by the Takanini Residents Action Group in the Takanini area.

47. Along with the Chair and Deputy Chair, the Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager and a traffic engineering departmental manager met with TRAG members on 5 April 2019 to explore the Manuroa Rd environs and understand TRAG’s concerns first hand.

48. These have been set out in a detailed internal memo for discussion with Auckland Transport traffic engineering, road safety and community transport departments.

49. Another meeting to discuss safety concerns was held at Takanini School on 17 May 2019, attended by the local board Chair, Cr Newman, the school principal, TRAG and Auckland Transport staff from the road safety and community transport departments.

50. Auckland Transport is planning to raise both the existing zebra crossing on Takanini School Rd and the kea crossing on Manuroa Road during the school summer holiday period in 2019-2020.

51. An investigation into the upgrade of the Takanini School and Manuroa Road intersection is also under way and Auckland Transport us aiming to provide elected members with an update in late September 2019.

52. A ‘Journey to School’ project team with representatives from across Auckland Transport and coordinated by the local Community Transport Coordinator mapped where all pupils live in order to track the journeys to school that they make and then plan approaches to making that travel to and from school safer.

53. The Community Transport Coordinator reports that since the last report, Auckland Transport started a programme of work with the school including identification of leaders within the school, development of travel plans, a small grant to use for promotion and all of the other elements of developing a Travelwise School programme.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54. The impact of information in this report are confined to Auckland Transport and do not impact on other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

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

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

56. Through Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2018-2028, LBTCF funding has been increased to a total of $20.8 million per annum across all 21 local boards.

57. The allocation for the board has therefore increased, with the updated figures for the remainder of this electoral term reflected in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Papakura Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary

Total Funds Available in the current political term	$2,082,843
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,735,237
Remaining budget (including additional funding)	$ 346,606

58. Table 2 below shows the status of projects to which the LBTCF has been committed and which projects are still awaiting allocation of funds.

Table 2: Status update on current Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects

Project	Description	Funds allocated	Current status
Total TCF funding:		$2,082,843
Covered Walkway	Covered walkways on Railway St West	$156,237	Completed
Priority Projects 12 & 13; Papakura Greenways Plan - Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace.	Develop a pedestrian and cycling link from the town centre and existing boardwalk to the new Pescara Way footbridge over SH1	$1,280,000	Project costs have increased so the project team is taking the following action: · Splitting the Elliot St to Freelance (‘Section 12’) into two pieces to determine the costs for each. · Making changes based on recommendations of the new coastal, ecological, and visual impact assessments. · The designer issued updated alignments and costs on 12 August. · There is still discussion to be held on handrails as, while these add considerable cost, they would encourage cycling as people feel safer overall. · The project manager updated the board on the changes and options at a workshop on 21August 2019. · The next steps are discussing these options and confirming priorities.
Central Park walkway & lighting	Install pathway and lights for commuters from King Edward Ave to Railway Street West through Central Park	$300,000	· Community Facilities has provided a Rough Order of Cost (ROC) of $300,000. · Concept drawings have been finalised and the team is about to send these for resource consent, particularly as several ‘significant’ trees are affected. · An electrical consultant has scoped the lighting requirements. · The current plan is to build over the coming summer. · Community Facilities will update the board in September either at a workshop or by memo. · There has been a change in project manager, who is now Phil Goulter.
Total committed to date:		$1,735,237
Current surplus:		$346,606
Postponed project:
Footpath links for McLennan Park	Construct two shared paths in McLennan Park linking the new roads to the north of the park to Artillery Drive.	This project is on hold due to a delay in the granting of the resource consent. Healthy Waters is currently re-modelling the retention pond and assessing its performance to determine the project’s potential impact on the environment (flooding etc). The pathways may be redesigned because of the study. Depending on the outcome from Healthy Waters, a decision will be made on whether to grant a resource consent. Next steps depend entirely on the advice from Healthy Waters: if the project is given the green light, the footpath design, timeline and firm estimate of costs can be progressed and finalised.

Auckland Transport consultations

59. Auckland Transport provides the board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the board’s area.The board’s views on any proposed schemes are taken into account during consultation on those proposals. Consultation documents were forwarded to the board in August 2019.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) resolutions

60. August 2019 TCC reports have now been received and these were the decisions affecting the Papakura Local Board area:

Streets/Suburb	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Committee Decision
Clark Road, Great South Road, Manse Road, South Street, Papakura	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Lane Arrow markings, Stop control, Flush Median, Pedestrian Crossing, Traffic Island	Carried
Manuroa Road, Beaumaris Way, Great South Road, Takanini	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Lane Arrow markings, Stop control, Flush Median, Pedestrian Crossing, Traffic Island	Carried
Kuaka Drive, Katipo Road, Whareatua Avenue, Papakura	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Road Hump, Footpath, Lane Markings	Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the Papakura Local Board in November 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Papakura Local and Multi-Board Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant allocations

File No.: CP2019/15437

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for Papakura Local and Multi-Board Grants Round One 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received for the Papakura Local and Multi-Board Grants Round One 2019/2020.

3. The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 27 March 2019 as provided in Attachment A to this report. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $137,000 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

5. A total of 25 applications were received for the Papakura Local Grant Round One and 12 applications for the Multi-Board Grant Round One 2019/2020, requesting a total of $165,418.26 as outlined in Attachments B and C to this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round listed in Table One below:

Table One: 2019/2020 Papakura Local Board Grants Round One Applications:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2014-101	Maree Holgate	Events	Towards the "Fun Run for Mitochondrial Disease," including the traffic management plan and traffic controller costs.	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-102	Papakura Sea Scout's	Community	Towards a contribution for fees to attend the "Sea Scouts Jamboree camp 2019”.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-105	Auckland Seniors Support and Caring Group Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire costs for the "We play and We help" programme.	$2,600.00	Eligible
LG2014-107	Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust - Experiencing Marine Reserves	Community	Towards the Cosgrove School kaitiaki programme, including travel, marine theory programming, pool sessions, administration and facilitation and marine equipment hire.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-109	Papakura Art Group Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the Papakura Art Group costs, including venue hire and exhibition costs.	$3,502.00	Eligible
LG2014-111	Counties Manukau Gymnastics Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards Counties Manukau Gymnastics, including annual prizegiving costs, venue hire, printing of the year book, medals, trophy engraving and coaches gifts.	$4,813.95	Eligible
LG2014-112	Southside Drama	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire costs for the Southside Drama workshops and production.	$3,750.00	Eligible
LG2014-114	Babystart Charitable Trust	Community	Toward costs for baby start boxes, including baby clothing, nappies, mattress, blankets, toys and food.	$3,606.60	Eligible
LG2014-116	Counties Manukau Sports Foundation	Sport and recreation	Towards costs for the "Hauora Hakinakina - Wellbeing through Sport" programme, including venue hire, bin and toilet hire, trophies, prizes, refreshments, photography, coaches, Maori Wardens donations and St Johns ambulance fees	$27,565.00	Eligible
LG2014-118	Papakura Toy Library Incorporated	Community	Towards Papakura "Toy Library" toy purchase.	$2,500.00	Eligible
LG2014-119	Papakura Business Association	Community	Towards Papakura Business Association costs for Christmas lights, installation and pack down.	$4,764.84	Eligible
LG2014-120	Panacea Arts Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the "South Art Transition" programme costs, including art therapist and tutor fees, venue hire, administration and art materials.	$4,200.00	Eligible
LG2014-122	Kids Safe with Dogs	Community	Towards costs of the "Kids Safe with Dogs" programme in schools, including printing, instructor fees and administration.	$4,975.00	Eligible
LG2014-123	Mercy Missions Trust	Community	Towards costs to build a glass house for the community garden.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-124	Auckland Basketball Services Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards costs for the "Papakura Junior coaching programme" for basketball players from 1 October 2019 to 31 May 2020.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-126	Maja Ranzinger	Community	Towards costs for tertiary study in 2020.	$5,000.00	Ineligible
LG2014-129	Papakura Museum	Arts and culture	Towards costs for the Papakura Museum Military Gallery rostrum build.	$3,995.00	Eligible
LG2014-131	Touch New Zealand	Sport and recreation	Towards costs of the Bruce Pullman Park "TouchED," including venue hire, fees, food, prizes, sports equipment and professional development.	$4,970.00	Eligible
LG2014-133	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards training, triage support, supervision and telecommunication costs for “Youthline”.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-134	Great Potentials Foundation	Community	Towards "Great Potentials Foundation" costs, including a washing machine, dryer, whiteboard, projection screen, projector and laptops.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-135	Gateway Community Trust	Events	Towards Christmas concert costs, including administration, advertising, volunteer expenses and venue hire.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-136	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Community	Towards a contribution to costs for the life education programme in schools, including educational resources, insurance, salary and professional development.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2014-137	Papakura Marae Maori Wardens	Community	Towards costs of the child restraint technician programme, including Global Positioning System (GPS) installation and connection, tablets, child restraints and volunteer donations.	$5,942.00	Eligible
LG2014-138	Rosehill College	Sport and recreation	Towards a contribution for the Rosehill College football uniform costs.	$4,358.50	Eligible
LG2014-139	Business Camp Proprietary Limited	Community	Towards a business camp holiday programme, costs including, marketing, venue hire, equipment, workbooks, contractors, project management and materials.	$5,000.00	Eligible
Total				$121,542.89

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Papakura Multi-Board Local Grants Round One 2019/2020

Table Two: Papakura Multi-Board Local Grants Round One 2019/2020 grant applications:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB1920-115	Manukau Orchestral Society Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the wages of mentors and soloist to rehearse and deliver a concert.	$1,156.00	Eligible
MB1920-118	CNSST Foundation, formerly known as Chinese New Settlers Services Trust	Community	Towards the "A Brighter Future for You" project including venue hire, tablets and teaching costs.	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-123	Connect the Dots	Arts and culture	Towards costs for the "Make Moments" art workshops, including tutor fees, printing of the postcards and art materials.	$2,887.55	Eligible
MB1920-133	Auckland Kids Achievement Trust	Community	Towards wages for the Kiwi Can leaders in schools from 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2020.	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-141	Royal New Zealand Foundation of The Blind Incorporated	Community	Towards the purchase of digital talking books for the Blind Foundation library.	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-153	The Operating Theatre Trust	Arts and culture	Towards 2,000 show tickets and transport for school children to attend the theatre production "Greedy Cat" by Joy Cowley.	$3,103.55	Eligible
MB1920-155	YMCA North	Sport and recreation	Towards a contribution for costs of the “Counties Manukau Intermediate Sports Camps” including catering, accommodation, salaries, volunteer donations, St Johns ambulance fees, medals, trophies and sports equipment.	$10,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-162	Children's Autism Foundation	Community	Towards delivering "In It Together" workshops, specifically the costs of workshop facilitators, travel and mileage, project co-ordination and administration surcharge.	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-164	Counties Manukau Sports Foundation	Sport and recreation	Towards the catering, venue hire and event coordinator fees, decor and printing costs to host the 2019 "Counties Manukau Sporting Excellence Awards."	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-170	Environmental Education for Resource Sustainability Trust	Environment	Towards costs of the “Paper for Trees” programme in schools, including native plants, classroom bins, administration and office expenses.	$4,032.27	Eligible
MB1920-172	Totara Park Mountain Bike Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards “Totara Park Mountain Bike Trail” maintenance costs including a digger machine and operator hire, contractors, equipment hire, materials for bridge building and power tools.	$4,896.00	Ineligible for a grant as the project is a council asset. It can be paid as a service agreement.
MB1920-173	Body Positive - New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards the salary of the peer navigator for “Body Positive New Zealand”.	$2,800.00	Eligible
Total				$43,875.37

Horopaki

Context

6. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Papakura Local Board adopted its grants programme for 2019/2020 on 27 March 2019 (PPK/2019/108) and will operate three quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

11. For the 2019/2020 financial year, the Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $137,000.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

14. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Papakura Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications in accordance with its priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

16. Staff will provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.

17. A summary of each application received through Papakura Local Board Round Two 2019/2020 is provided in Attachments B and C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

19. Eighteen applicants applying to Papakura Local Grants Round One and nine multi-board applicants indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

21. The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $137,000 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

22. A total of 25 applications were received for the Papakura Local Grant Round One 2019/2020, and 12 applications for the multi-board round requesting a total of $165,418.26 (Attachment B and C to this report).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Following the Papakura Local Board allocating funding for the local grants round one, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Local Grants Programme 2019/2020	31
b ⇨	Papakura Local Grant Round One 2019/2020, grant applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Papakura Multi-Board Grants Round One 2019/2020, grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Helen Taimarangai - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Shane King - Head of Service Support

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Papakura Local Board Sports Needs Assessment - allocation of funding for projects in 2019 / 2020.

File No.: CP2019/16231

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To allocate funding to priority projects identified in the Papakura Local Board Sports Needs Assessment.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Board Sports Needs Assessment in June 2018 to provide strategic guidance for sport park facilities investment. The board has $88,000 remaining in its 2019/2020 work programme to fund projects to implement the needs assessment.

3. At a workshop in May 2019, the board indicated the development of club rooms at Opāheke Sport Park as a potential project for investment.

4. There is $1,670,000 of capital funding available in the Opāheke Sports Park encumbrance fund. The funds can only be spent to develop Opāheke Sports Park.

5. There are two main options for allocation of the $88,000 in 2019/2020:

· Option 1 is to confirm demand for the size of the facility, timing, concept design, indicative cost and the operational model, and to prepare a business case for clubrooms at Opāheke Sports Park.

· Option 2 is to fund two of the six projects recommended in the Papakura Local Board Sports Needs Assessment that are eligible for operational funding. These are the installation of a port-a-loo at Te Koiwi Park and granting funds to United Cricket club Incorporated to construct cricket nets at Opāheke Sports Park.

6. Staff recommend Option 1 as there is the opportunity to plan for clubrooms that could benefit a number of sports participants.

7. At present, council is constructing a toilet/changing room facility at Opāheke Sports Park. The building is designed to allow for clubrooms on the second level.

8. The risk of Option 1 is that council will need to be the sole owner of the clubrooms on the second level. This is because council won’t invest in facility partnerships that have split or joint ownership. Partnership funding for clubrooms on the second level is unlikely to be secured. This will restrict the building size to council’s available budget.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve up to $88,000 from line item 1136 of the 2019/2020 local board work programme, to confirm demand for the size of the facility, timing, concept design, indicative cost, operational model and to prepare a business case for a community facility development at Opāheke Sports Park.

Horopaki

Context

9. Outcome 2 in the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 is “People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives”. For sport and recreation, the objective and associated key initiative is:

Objective: Papakura’s parks and recreation facilities are well used.

Key Initiative: Progressively upgrade and improve the overall standard of existing parks, sports and recreation facilities to meet the needs of all age groups.

10. The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Board Sports Needs Assessment in June 2018. It provides a strategic approach to achieving sport and recreation outcomes through the development of sports facilities in the local board area.

11. The needs assessment includes projects that require both capital investment and operational funding. Six of the 54 projects require operational funding. The majority of the remaining recommendations will require capital funding.

12. In May 2019, the Papakura Local Board requested further information on the proposed Opāheke Sports Park needs assessment, feasibility study and business case including what information staff need to progress facility development on the park (PPK/2019/67).

Further information on Opāheke Sports Park clubrooms project

13. There is $1,670,000 in the Opāheke Sports Park encumbrance fund, which can only be spent at the Opāheke Sports Park.

14. A toilet and changing rooms facility is currently being built at the park and has been designed to allow for a second level, to be added at a later date.

15. Council won’t invest in facility partnerships whereby ownership is to be split or a facility is to be jointly owned. This is in accordance with the Facility Partnership Policy 2018 and ensures clear legal responsibility for assets throughout the life of the asset.

16. At this time, it is assumed that any clubroom facility at Opāheke Sports Park will be built on top of the toilets and changing rooms, which have been designed for such a purpose. The building will be council-owned and council-funded, in line with the Facility Partnerships Policy.

17. The following key questions need to be answered to enable this project to move forward:

· which clubs/groups will reside at the park and require clubrooms?

· what are the service requirements of all committed clubs/groups? These could include storage, event management and social space needs, and timing requirements

· whether the encumbrance fund is sufficient to meet community needs, noting partnership funding is limited with a council ownership model

· how the operational model will work? This could include a community lease to one organisation, a partnership that requires groups to be willing/able to work together, or a community space for hire.

Work Programme item No. 1136 - Sport and Recreation Fund

18. Papakura Local Board has $88,000 remaining of the $100,000 allocated in its 2019/2020 Locally Driven Initiatives budget to implement the priority actions from the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment (line 1136 of the 2019/2020 work programme).

19. The purpose of the budget is to support a strategic approach to achieving sport and recreation outcomes through the development of sport facilities.

Increase Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019 - 2039

20. Clubrooms are not an investment priority in council’s sport investment plan. They do however enable participation and bring social connection to strengthen community ties. These social connections provide a sense of belonging and create networks that are important in local communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Options for consideration in 2019/2020 are as follows:

· Option 1 - planning for clubrooms at Opāheke Sports Park. This involves community consultation, concept design work, confirming the governance and operational model, and preparing a business case.

· Option 2 – consideration of recommendations in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment that require operational funding. These include line marking at two parks, installation of a port-a-loo to increase use of a park during summer, and maintaining the BMX track at Keri Downs Park as a community track.

22. Further details on the above options are in Attachment A of this report.

Option 1 - Opāheke Sports Park Clubrooms

27. The following staged approach will be used, with regular check-in and stop/go points at the end of each stage. This will ensure project funding is allocated only as required.

Stage 1: community consultation including views of mana whenua.

· Sports groups identified in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment will be contacted about their future use of the park. They include cricket, rugby, Australian Football League, touch, kabaddi, kilikiti and football.

· The Sport and Recreation Lead will attend a mana whenua forum.

Stage 2: concept design and costing.

· The 2017 concept design for clubrooms on the second level of the building will be reviewed to confirm if it will be fit-for-purpose. If required, the concept plan will be up-dated and indicative building costs will be confirmed. The Sport and Recreation Lead will report back to the local board with on the indicative building cost.

Stage 3: governance, operational modelling and business case.

· The preferred governance and operational model will be confirmed and a business case will be prepared for the preferred design of the building.

Analysis

28. Opāheke Sports Park is located near the draft Drury Opāheke Structure Plan area. The population within the structure plan area is forecast to increase by 60,000 in the next 30 years. This will put more pressure on the park.

29. A park concept plan was prepared in 2012 and updated in 2016. It has not been formally adopted by the local board. Park development to date has been consistent with the concept plan. The next stage for development is construction of toilets and changing rooms and this is underway. The facility has been designed to accommodate clubrooms above the toilets and changing rooms. Council will own the clubrooms as ownership of a building cannot be split.

Recommendation

30. This project is recommended for funding at this time for the following reasons:

· population residing around the park will increase significantly over the next 30 years

· the project can be started in 2019

· capex funding is available to allocate at Opāheke Sports Park and can only be spent on that park

· the longer the funds are unallocated, the less value the funds will have

· sport and recreation staff are aware of at least one club/group who is keen to move to the park. This is pending the building of clubrooms to complement the built fields, as well as the toilets and changing rooms currently under construction.

Option 2 - Invest in other projects recommended in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment.

31. There are six projects recommended in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment, in addition to Option 1, that require operational funding. All other projects in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment require capital funding.

32. Projects that require operational funding are as follows:

i) Mansell Field: There is potential to have two winter fields marked out. At present, there is no demand to warrant this.

ii) Te Koiwi Park: Provide line markings on the informal sports fields. At present, there is no demand to warrant this.

iii) Te Koiwi Park: Install either a port-a-loo with operational funds or a permanent toilet. This will increase activity at the park.

iv) Keri Downs Park: Maintain the BMX track as a community pump track. Prior to maintaining the track, investigation is required by Community Facilities as to what is required to upgrade it.

v) Prince Edward Park: Remove the Counties Manukau Softball Club building. A concept plan for Prince Edward Park is being prepared in 2019/2020. Once approved by the local board, Counties Manukau Softball Association can begin planning new clubrooms. The project will include removal of the existing building.

vi) Opāheke Sports Park: Install cricket nets at Opāheke Sports Park. An option to achieve this is to provide grant funding to United Cricket Club Incorporated, for the club to install the nets. Alternatively, council can construct the nets meaning Community Facilities will receive consequential operational funding to maintain the nets.

Analysis

33. Two of the above projects could proceed in 2019/2020. These are the installation of a port-a-loo at Te Koiwi Park and the allocation of grant funding to United Cricket Club Incorporated, towards cricket nets at Opāheke Sports Park.

34. Cricket nets on parks across Auckland are usually built, owned and maintained by council as they are not leased areas.

35. If council granted funds to the cricket club to build cricket nets, the nets would be club owned. Council will not have consequential operational funding for the nets. This means the nets may not be maintained or replaced over time.

Recommendation

36. This option is not recommended for the following reasons:

· four projects in this option are either not required at present or not ready to proceed at this time

· projects within Option 2 are considered to be a lower priority than Option 1

· there are cricket nets at Drury Sports Complex so cricket nets are viewed as a lower priority than Option 1

· the cricket nets could be an option for consideration for funding via the encumbrance fund in the future. This would mean they will be council owned and maintained

· Option 1 has the potential to have a more significant long-term community benefit.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. The Community Facilities team started construction of the toilets and changing rooms in August 2019, and the planning for facilities in Opaheke will take into account the current and anticipated work of other departments.

38. Staff within Community Facilities do not foresee any impacts on the construction of toilets and changing rooms, from progressing with the recommended option.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. In May 2019, the local board conveyed its support for the completion of the project at Opāheke Sports Park in 2019/2020.

40. The board requested details as to what information is required in addition to that collected during preparation of the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment and development of the landscape design. The additional information required is presented earlier in this report and in Attachment A of this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41. The Papakura Sports Needs Assessment guides decision making to increase community participation in sport and recreation, including an increase in participation for Māori.

42. Within the Papakura Local Board area, 28% of the population is Māori.

43. The Sport and Recreation Lead will attend a mana whenua forum during the initial stage of the project. The purpose is to inform mana whenua about the clubrooms project and to seek input prior to preparation of options for clubrooms.

44. Mana whenua has previously provided feedback during the design stage for the toilets and changing rooms.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. Papakura Local Board has $88,000 remaining in line item 1136 within its 2019/2020 work programme. This line item is within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational budget that can be used for planning at Opāheke Park.

Staged approach

46. Staff request the board allocate up to $88,000 for the project. Planning costs for stages 1 – 3 of the clubrooms project are not yet known. A staged approach to funding allocation, with clear check-in points, will help to ensure the best possible financial outcomes for this project.

Business case in stage 3

47. Should there be insufficient funds to complete the business case in stage 3, staff will seek additional operational funding to complete it. The timing for this won’t be known until the first two stages of the project are complete.

Ownership of clubrooms

48. The local board’s position on council ownership of clubrooms is unknown. Although the ownership of toilets and changing rooms on a sports park is core business for council, ownership of clubrooms is not.

49. As council will own clubrooms constructed on top of the toilets and changing rooms, operational expenses including depreciation and insurance of the clubrooms will be council’s responsibility.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. To date, one group has confirmed its intention to be permanently based at Opāheke Sports Park. Following the initial stage of enquiry, if no groups wish to be permanently based at the proposed clubrooms, the project won’t continue.

51. If multiple groups wish to be permanently based at the clubrooms, there is a risk that the space available on top of the toilets and changing rooms will be too small. Should this occur, it may be necessary to prioritise the groups.

52. By pre-determining the location of the clubrooms on top of the toilet and changing rooms, there is a risk that the business case will show clubrooms won’t be financially sustainable. This would require consideration of options that would enable a more sustainable operation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. Should the local board resolve to allocate funding to the recommended project, staff will engage a consultant to carry out the work in accordance with council’s procurement process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Stages for Opaheke Sports Park clubrooms project (Option1) and projects in the Papakura Sports Needs Assessment that require operational funding (Option 2).	41

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rose Ward - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Reallocation of budget to the Event Partnership Fund

File No.: CP2019/17496

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To reallocate funds from the Papakura Local Grants Fund to the Event Partnership Fund to meet the increase in operational cost required to deliver the Papakura Santa Parade 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Papakura Local Board has approved the Event Partnership Fund 2019/2020, of which the Papakura Santa Parade is allocated $15,000.

3. The Papakura Rotary Club have advised that further funding is required to deliver the Papakura Santa Parade 2019 due to an increase in operational costs and a reduction in alternative funding sources.

4. Staff recommend that $2,500 is reallocated from the community grants budget to the Papakura Rotary Club within the Event Partnership Fund work programme line.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the reallocation of $2,500 from 2019/2020 work programme line 346 Community Grants, to line 286 Event Partnership Fund.

Horopaki

Context

5. The 2019/2020 work programme line 286 Event Partnership Fund includes a budget of $15,000 allocated to the Papakura Santa Parade, which is organised by the Papakura Rotary Club.

6. The Papakura Rotary Club have advised that further funding is required to deliver the Papakura Santa Parade 2019.

7. The 2019/2020 work programme line 346 Community grants has an allocated budget of $137,777.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The Papakura Rotary Club are experiencing an increase to the following operational costs associated with delivering the Papakura Santa Parade from previous years:

· traffic management plan

· safety requirements

· street banner advertising

· streetscape cleaning.

9. As a result, the current level of local board funding is not sufficient to cover the costs for the event in 2019.

10. Staff recommend that $2,500 is reallocated from the community grants budget to the Santa Parade within the Event Partnership Fund work programme line.

11. The additional funding is also required because the Papakura Rotary Club annual fundraising event has been cancelled this year, which in previous years has raised funds that contribute to the delivery of the Santa Parade.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. The recommendations contained in this report has no added impact on other areas of the council group.

13. Collaboration, management and approval is required for events with stakeholders across the council group, including Waste Solutions and Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

14. The event initiatives in the 2019/2020 work programme have a particular focus on the following outcomes of the Local Board Plan 2017:

· A vibrant and prosperous metropolitan centre.

· Papakura is well-connected and easy to move around.

15. In particular, the work programme lines described above contribute to the following key initiatives:

· Activities that contribute to a vibrant and prosperous metropolitan centre.

· Activities that contribute to Papakura being well-connected and easy to move around.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16. In the 2013 Census, Papakura was ranked as having the third highest population identifying as Māori in Auckland, with 2 per cent of New Zealand’s Māori population residing in the local board area.

17. Māori Wardens play a key role in crowd control during the event.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. Staff recommend reallocating $2,500 from the 2019/2020 Community grants funds to the Event Partnership Fund 286 line item in the work programme. Table 1 outlines the financial implications associated with this budget reallocation.

Table 1 – 2019/2020 work programme budget reallocation

Work programme line item	Current allocation	Reallocation	Total after reallocation
286 Event Partnership Fund	$15,000	Additional $2,500	$17,500
346 Community grants	$137,777	Less $2,500	$135,277

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. Following events in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, safety requirements regarding traffic management for procession events have since been improved to mitigate related safety risks during the event. This has resulted in an increase to most traffic management plans implemented for events across Auckland. Additional funding is required to enable the Santa Parade event to have sufficient security measures to sufficiently mitigate any perceived safety risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Staff will update the local board 2019/2010 work programme to reflect the approved budget reallocations and progress the funding agreement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Uaita Sialii – Team Leader Event Facilitation South, Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Variation of purpose for Papakura Local Board grants made to Papakura Lions Club Inc and Rotary Club of Papakura Inc

File No.: CP2019/16289

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a variation of purpose to two grants of $15,000 each to the Rotary Club of Papakura Inc and to the Papakura Lions Club Inc, for the design and construction of a memorial wall and path in Central Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Papakura Local Board approved a grant for $15,000 to the Rotary Club of Papakura Inc and $15,000 to the Papakura Lions Club Inc in May 2015 (resolution PPK/2015/79) for the design and construction of a memorial wall in Central Park to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War I.

3. The commemorative wall project cannot be progressed as planned and the local board is required to determine its preferred use of the funding.

4. The board has previously indicated a preference for using the funding for seating and rubbish bins in the Karaka Lakes/Karaka Harbourside area. Staff advised the board at its workshop on the 18September 2019 that there was adequate seating in Karaka Harbourside, and that Karaka Lakes would benefit from more seating.

5. Rotary Club of Papakura Inc and Papakura Lions Club Inc have also suggested using the funding to contribute towards a shared pedestrian/cycle way around Pulman Park with seating and fitness equipment in partnership with Pulman Trust. Rotary Club of Papakura Inc would prefer to use the whole $15,000 towards the pathway, while the Papakura Lions Club Inc have suggested contributing $5,000 towards seating at Karaka and the remaining $10,000 to the pathway at Pulman Park.

6. A rough order of cost suggests that $5,000 will fund a picnic table, seating and a rubbish bin in either Pulman Park or Karaka.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the variation to the purpose of the $15,000 grant made to the Rotary Club of Papakura Inc at the 20 May 2015 business meeting (resolution PPK/2015/79) as follows:

· to collaborate with the Papakura Lions Club Inc to contribute the funds to support the Pulman Trust to deliver a shared pedestrian/cycle way around Pulman Park with seating and fitness equipment, and to work with the Lions Club Papakura Inc and Pulman Trust on the design, location and delivery of the project.

b) approve the variation to the purpose of the $15,000 grant made to the Papakura Lions Club Inc at the 20 May 2015 business meeting (resolution PPK/2015/79) as follows:

i) to work with Community Facilities staff to install seating or any related assets up to the value of $5,000 in the Karaka Lakes area, noting the assets will be gifted back to council

ii) to contribute the remaining $10,000 to support the Pulman Trust to deliver a shared pedestrian/cycle way around Pulman Park with seating and fitness equipment, and to work with the Rotary Club of Papakura Inc and Pulman Trust on the design, location and delivery of the project.

c) request Community Facilities staff:

i) work with the Papakura Lions Club Inc to ensure the design and quality of the assets delivered pursuant to b) i) above meet council standards, and ensure the gifted assets are included in the council’s maintenance schedule for ongoing maintenance and renewals.

Horopaki

Context

7. At the 20 May 2015 Papakura Local Board meeting the board resolved as follows (PPK/2015/79):

MOVED by Member KJ Winn, seconded by Member DG Purdy:

That the Papakura Local Board:

d) approve a grant of $15,000 from budget PO2310914 to the Rotary Club of Papakura Inc to work with Papakura Lions Club Inc towards initial project costs for the design and construction of a memorial wall and path in Central Park, Papakura to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War I.

e) approve a grant of $15,000 from budget PO2310914 to Papakura Lions Club Inc to work with the Rotary towards initial project costs for the design and construction of a memorial wall and path in Central Park, Papakura to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War 1.

CARRIED

8. In early 2019, the Papakura Lions Club Inc president advised the local board chairperson that the memorial wall and path in Central Park project had become too difficult to accomplish with the funding given. The president sought guidance on what to do with the grant money.

9. In March 2019 the board chairperson wrote to the Papakura Lions Club Inc requesting they discuss with the Papakura Rotary Club Inc some alternative projects for the grant.

10. On 9 June 2019 the Papakura Lions Club Inc advised the board chairperson that both the Papakura Lions and Rotary Clubs have not been able to agree on a joint project. The Papakura Lions Club Inc suggested the provision of more seating around Papakura Cemetery, but the project was not pursued further at that time.

11. At the workshop held on 17 July 2019 the board indicated that there may be a need for park benches, bins and picnic tables in the Karaka Lakes and requested staff investigate whether the grants given to Papakura Lions and Rotary could be used. This would add further capacity to the $6,000 the board has allocated in its 2019/2020 work programme to install a new park bench at Karaka lake (line 2967).

12. At the 31 July 2019 workshop the board gave the following direction to staff to investigate the area to include Karaka Harbourside:

The board agreed the addition of bins, picnic tables and seats be scoped for both the Karaka Lakes and Karaka Harbourside areas with a view to having Rotary and Lions deliver the installation of these using the unused grant money. It was agreed that fitness equipment and BBQ’s would be outside the scope of this current project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Papakura Rotary Club Inc has stated a preference to collaborate with Pulman Trust for a shared pedestrian / cycle way around Pulman Park with seating and fitness equipment, instead of providing public amenities at Karaka Lakes / Karaka Harbourside.

14. The Papakura Lions Club Inc have advised that their preference is:

a. to work with council to install seating up to the value of $5,000 in the Karaka Lakes or Karaka Harbourside area

b. contribute the remaining $10,000 to the project with Rotary and Pulman Trust to develop a shared pedestrian/cycle way with seating and fitness equipment.

15. Staff provided an outcomes/benefits assessment for seating, rubbish bins and picnic tables in the Karaka Lakes and Karaka Harbourside area at its 18 September 2019 workshop.

16. Information received from the Community Facilities department suggests that $5,000 - $6,000 will fund one picnic table or one seat and rubbish bin that would meet council’s standards and designed for public use.

17. Options for consideration

Description

Pros

Con

1. Request Rotary and Lions to return the $15,000 grant each to the local board locally driven initiative (LDI) operational expenditure grants budget.

· Consistent with council financial rules around unused grant monies to be returned.

· Increases the 2019/2020 local board grants budget.

· The local board has the ability to choose another operational purpose the funds could be allocated to.

· Is inconsistent with the board’s preference of community led delivery of assets at Karaka Lakes.

· Does not support Rotary’s and Lions’ stated preferences to use the funds to deliver a project at Pulman Park.

2. Approve:

a) Rotary to contribute $15,000 and Lions to contribute $10,000 to support the provision of a shared pedestrian / cycle way around Pulman Park with seating and fitness equipment; and

b) Lions to contribute $5,000 and work with council’s Community Facilities department to design and deliver seating at Karaka Lakes.

· Supports community led development of public assets and the preference of community partners.

· The project fits with the Pulman Park Master Plan and supports the growth in both park users and the surrounding residential community.

· The board has not been part of discussions with the Pulman Trust for the need, design and cost of the shared pedestrian/cycle way, seating and fitness equipment project at Pulman Park to weigh up its relative priority to the Karaka Lakes project.

3. The local board chooses any other combination of options 1 and 2 above, or an alternate project for the Lions and Rotary to deliver.

· Continues to support community led delivery of projects

· Inconsistent with the current preference of Rotary and the Lions.

· Inconsistent with the local board’s preference to use the funding for amenities at Karaka Lakes/Harbourside.

· Further negotiation with the Lions and Rotary required, and further feasibility investigation needed by staff if a new project delivers assets on council land for public use.

18. Taking into account the board’s previous direction supporting of the funding remaining with Papakura Rotary Club Inc and Papakura Lions Club Inc to deliver a project, the groups’ preference to support the project at Pulman Park and the opportunity to support the users of Pulman Park and the surrounding community, staff recommend option 2. Option 2 also allows some investment in Karaka Lakes consistent with the board’s preference.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Parks, Sport and Recreation undertook an outcome/benefits assessment for bins, picnic tables and seats in both the Karaka Lakes and Karaka Harbourside area and reported to the 18 September 2019 local board workshop.

20. Advice received was that the Karaka Harbourside area already had an adequate number of seats. However, there was a need in the Karaka Lakes area for additional seating.

21. Advice from the Finance, Community Facilities and Parks, Sport and recreation departments contributed to the contents of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The board had provided guidance that its preference was for Papakura Rotary and Lions Clubs to retain the funding and deliver a community led project in Papakura.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. The variation to the purpose of the grants will allow the service organisations to create public assets that will benefit both Māori and the general public.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The original grants were a reallocation of an underspend in the 2014/2015 operational expenditure budget. Two $15,000 grants were approved each for the Papakura Lions Club Inc and the Papakura Rotary Club Inc to work together to undertake a capital project, ie: the design and construction of a memorial wall and path in Central Park, Papakura to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War I.

25. If the grants were returned to council, they would remain as operational budget and cannot be used by council to deliver capital assets.

26. This would increase the amount of LDI Opex for the local board. The local board would then have an option to use it as grants or to support another operational programme in its 2019/2020 work programme.

27. If a project proceeds to install assets on council owned land, Papakura Lions and Rotary Clubs have indicated that any assets created would be gifted back to council as Auckland Council assets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. The risk of not changing the purpose of the grants will mean that the grant money cannot be used and must be returned. The Papakura Lions Inc and Papakura Rotary Club Inc will not be able to create any community assets.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. The Papakura Lions Club Inc and Papakura Rotary Club Inc will be informed of the board’s decision once available

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Lee Manaia - Local Board Advisor - Papakura
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Papakura Museum Financial Analysis and Business Plan

File No.: CP2019/17565

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the Papakura Museum Financial Analysis and Business Plan as provided in Attachments A and B to this report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In November 2018, the Papakura Local Board resolved to reallocate $20,000 from its 2018/2019 work programme to fund the development of a business plan for the Papakura Museum (PPK/2018/201).

3. The business plan was developed by an external contractor and the process was monitored by a project team, made up of museum staff, members of the historical society, council staff and a local board member.

4. The business plan sets out a clear strategic direction for the Papakura Museum for the next five years, outlining its core service, additional services and future ambitions.

5. The business plan includes a financial analysis, which identified that the museum’s financial sustainability is at risk from over-reliance on a single source of funding, which they currently receive from the local board.

6. The business plan recommends that the local board continues to support the museum with top up funding for four years, reducing the amount each year. Over this period, the business plan recommends that the museum works to secure alternative funding streams.

7. The local board has already allocated $11,000 to the museum in the 2019/2020 work programme. The business plan recommends that of this allocation, $4,167 is for top up funding, and staff recommend that the remaining $6,833 is used to engage an external provider to support the implementation of the business plan.

8. The business plan can be used by the local board to inform their level of support for the museum in future years and will be used by the museum to direct their operations and funding model over the next five years.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) endorse the Papakura Museum Financial Analysis and Business Plan provided in Attachments A and B to this report.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Papakura Museum is owned and operated by the Papakura and District Historical Society (PDHS) and is funded by the local board with an annual grant of $118,020, which is administered through a funding agreement.

10. In 2017/2018, the local board requested a strategic review of the museum to assess the extent to which the museum was aligned to local board outcomes, and to determine whether the current level of funding was sufficient to run the facility.

11. The strategic review was completed by Insight Unlocked Limited, and the key findings were presented to the local board at a workshop in August 2018. It identified the need for increased strategic focus through the development of an updated business plan that would support the museum to become financially sustainable.

12. In November 2018, the local board resolved to reallocate $20,000 from its 2018/2019 work programme to fund the development of a business plan for the Papakura Museum (PPK/2018/201).

13. The business plan was developed by an external contractor and the process was monitored by a project team, made up of museum staff, members of the historical society, council staff and a local board member.

14. The final draft business plan was presented to the local board at a workshop in July 2019 and was subsequently handed over to the museum and the historical society for implementation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The business plan sets out a clear strategic direction for the Papakura Museum for the next five years, outlining its core service, additional services and future ambitions.

16. The business plan includes a financial analysis, which identified that the museum’s financial sustainability is at risk from over-reliance on a single source of funding, which it currently receive from the local board.

17. Since 2015, the museum has been running at a deficit and the analysis recommends that the museum would benefit from diversifying its revenue streams to receive funding from a variety of sources.

18. The business plan recommends that the local board continues to support the museum with top up funding for four years, including the current year, reducing the amount each year. Over this period, the business plan recommends that the museum works to secure alternative funding streams.

19. The business plan recommends that by the fifth year of implementation, the local board will not be required to provide any top up funding.

20. The local board has allocated $11,000 to the museum in the 2019/2020 work programme. The business plan recommends that of this allocation, $4,167 is for top up funding, and staff recommend that the remaining $6,833 is used to engage an external provider to support the implementation of the business plan.

21. The business plan recommends that the local board allocate $3,125 top up funding in 2020/2021. During development of the 2020/2021 work programme, staff will review the museum’s level of additional funding sources to inform the recommended local board top up amount.

22. The local board annual operational grant that the museum also receives will not be impacted by implementing the business plan.

23. Staff recommend that the local board endorse the directions set out in the business plan as it reinforces the local board’s support for the museum to become financially sustainable.

24. The business plan can be used by the local board to inform its level of support for the museum in future years and will be used by the museum to direct its operations and funding model over the next five years.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. There are no identified council group impacts associated with endorsing the business plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The local board has invested a significant amount in supporting the museum over the past five years including an annual operational grant, top up grants, instigating a strategic plan and funding a business plan.

27. The business plan was designed to align to the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 and to deliver on the following local board plan outcomes:

· A vibrant and prosperous metropolitan centre.

28. One local board member represented the local board on the project team.

29. The final draft business plan was presented to the local board at a workshop in July 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. There are no identified impacts on Māori associated with endorsing the business plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. The business plan recommends that the local board continues to support the museum with top up funding for four years, reducing the amount each year.

32. The local board has already allocated $11,000 to the museum in the 2019/2020 work programme. The business plan recommends that of this allocation, $4,167 is for top up funding, and staff recommend that the remaining $6,833 is used to support the implementation of the business plan.

33. The business plan recommends that the local board allocate $3,125 top up funding in 2020/2021.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. Since 2015, the museum has been running at a financial deficit and has regularly relied on local board top up funding to operate. The business plan aims to enable the museum to become financial sustainable, which reduces the risk of requiring funding top ups form the local board in the future.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Staff will administer a funding agreement for the museum to engage an external provider to support the implementation of the business plan.

36. Progress on the museum’s implementation of the business plan will be reported to the local board on a quarterly basis.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Papakura Museum Business Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Papakura Museum Financial Analysis (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Edwards – Arts and Culture Advisor, Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Hingaia Park Concept Design

File No.: CP2019/16736

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board for Hingaia Park Concept Design and to approve the Stage 1A development of the park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A concept plan for the development of a new park at Hingaia has been completed and provided as Attachment A to this report. Due to the size and cost of the full development, staff advice is to proceed with a staged approach.

3. The initial proposed Stage 1A, as provided in Attachment B of this report, will establish the park with vehicle access and parking, pedestrian access and circulation, stormwater management, basic play facility and general landscaping.

4. Budget of $2,000,000 has been approved as part of the Local and Sportsfield Development Programme FY2018/2019 - 2021/22, to enable the delivery of Stage 1A of Hingaia Park concept plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the Hingaia Park Concept Design as provided in Attachment A to this report.

b) approve the development of Stage 1A of Hingaia Park as provided in Attachment B to this report.

Horopaki

Context

5. Hingaia Park (formerly Clotworthy Park) is located on Hingaia Road in Papakura.

6. This land has been acquired for development of open space and play facilities on the Hingaia peninsular in the Papakura Local Board area. The land area is over 4000m2 and will provide a suburb scale park in an area of rapid growth with very limited current provision of public open space.

7. The park is adjacent to Hingaia School, is surrounded by rapidly developing residential subdivisions and will provide recreational opportunities for a wide catchment of new residents in the Hingaia area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The Papakura Local Board funded the development of a concept plan for Hingaia Park in FY2016/2017 from their Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

9. A draft concept was presented to the board in early 2017 for initial feedback before undergoing further development and establishment of rough order costs.

10. The developed concept and cost estimates were presented to the board in June 2018.

11. Due to the size of the development and the relative costs, staff advised that the project should be split into two to allow for a staged development approach.

12. Stage 1 was to provide initial park establishment including vehicle access and parking, pedestrian access and circulation, stormwater management, public toilet, play facilties and general landscaping.

13. Stage 2 would then see the development of further pedestrian circulation, a secondary car park and add active sports facilities including playing courts and a cycle pump track.

14. Agreement in principle was reached and design of Stage 1 was further developed and proceeded to resource consent.

Consultation

15. Mana whenua were invited to engage on this project and discussions with interested parties resulted in agreement in principle with the park development and especially with regards to the stormwater treatment proposals for the site. Mana whenua are keen to remain involved as the project develops and see opportunities with interpretive signage as well as with establishment of entrance markers/pou whenua once that stage of detail is reached.

16. The principal of Hingaia School was advised of the future development of the neighbouring park. His feedback was positive and staff discussed a potential opportunity for the school to be linked into future activities such as planting of the stormwater wetland.

17. AGC Strathallan students and Gardens 4 Health are engaged in the development of a small orchard planting as the first stage of proposed community gardens to be established on this site.

18. Community consultation has been limited to the key stakeholders mentioned above as the site is currently largely surrounded by undeveloped land. It is anticipated that by the time the playground development is ready to proceed the surrounding land will have been developed meaning targeted consultation with direct neighbours can be meaningfully held.

Developed design and consenting

19. Developed design and resource consenting has proceeded on Stage 1 and a final consent decision is imminent.

20. This process has resulted in a number of changes and additional requirements being imposed on the project to meet stormwater management and Auckland Transport safety requirements.

Stormwater management

21. The construction of the stormwater wetland has been sized and detailed to ensure sufficient capacity for the long-term reserve development. Additionally, swales have been included to convey overland flows from the access road and car park area to the wetland. This means all stormwater runoff from the site will be captured, treated and managed onsite.

Public Toilet

22. The existing public sewer network is not yet developed along Hingaia Road as far as the park. If a public toilet was to be developed in Hingaia Park and connected into the public sewer network in the short term, the project would be required to pay for the extension to the public network.

23. In time, the public sewer network will be extended beyond the park in order to service the future residential areas. Once the network is in place, a public toilet in the park could be connected, with the costs of doing so being reduced, and determined through an infrastructure growth charge.

24. Consideration was given to using a septic tank or field to manage sewerage onsite. However, due to the very shallow water table and proximity to the heritage zone this option was not proceeded with.

25. Staff recommend that the public toilet be removed from the proposed scope of works for this initial development stage of the park due to the prohibitive costs to extend the public sewer and provide the facility. It is entirely feasible to provide this facility at a more reasonable cost sometime in the future once the public network has caught up with the reserve development.

Auckland Transport

26. Auckland Transport are in the process of upgrading Hingaia Road to four lanes with a flush median. This work is partially complete with timing of the work stage in front of Hingaia Park still uncertain. This may result in the completion and opening of the park prior to the road upgrade, requiring a number of temporary measures to be completed by the Hingaia Park development project such as:

· Should the reserve development occur prior to the completion of the road upgrade, Council will be required to construct shoulder widening on Hingaia Road to ensure that vehicles travelling west, and turning across oncoming traffic into the reserve, do not obstruct general through traffic. The cost to implement the shoulder widening will be around $50,000. If the Auckland Transport road widening project is complete this work will not be required.

· Auckland Transport require the installation of a signalised pedestrian crossing on Hingaia Road prior to the opening of the park to ensure pedestrian safety. This may need to be a temporary crossing or it may be tied into the road widening project. Either way the cost of approximately $100,000 will fall onto the park development project.

· Hingaia Road is an arterial road and Auckland Transport do not allow vehicle access directly onto arterial roads. However, at this point, Hingaia Park does not have an alternative street access so Auckland Transport have accepted the existing Hingaia Road access to be used temporarily. A new road is planned to run along the rear boundary of the park and once built, council will be required to close the Hingaia Road access and construct a new vehicle access from this rear road.

Proposed further staging of development

27. As a result of both the additional development costs described above and more detailed cost estimates following the developed design process, staff have determined that the current budget available is insufficient to enable delivery of the proposed Stage 1 works in full.

28. A further staged approach is now proposed, being Stage 1A, which will see the development of key park infrastructure including:

· Hingaia Road widening and pedestrian crossing

· vehicle access and parking

· pedestrian access and circulation

· stormwater management including planted wetland and swales

· general landscaping including lawn establishment, specimen tree and amenity planting

· furniture and signage

· limited play offer including swings for all ages and toddler play area.

29. The main development items that had been anticipated within the Stage 1 scope, but which are recommended not to progress at this time include:

· public toilet

· full extent of proposed play provision, including junior play, nature play, waterplay, netplay and dual slide

· feature bridge.

30. It is anticipated that these items can be installed at a later date, subject to further budget being allocated to the project, and in the case of the toilet, when the local infrastructure network catches up to the park development.

31. The delivery of the proposed Stage 1A scope will allow for the establishment of this much needed public open space, albeit without the aspirational play facility, public toilet and bridge access.

32. A second stage of development at a later date would allow for full public consultation prior to the delivery of the main play facility along with other items removed from the scope subject to available funding.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

Auckland Transport Road Upgrade

33. As discussed in detail above Auckland Transport are aware of the park development proposals and require a number of interventions including;

· shoulder widening of Hingaia Road (unless road widening project is complete)

· installation of signalised pedestrian crossing

· closure of Hingaia Road vehicle access and construction of new vehicle access once new road to rear of the park is constructed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. This proposed development reflects Papakura Local Board outcomes:

· Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives

We have great parks, places to play and do the things that we enjoy

· Outcome 5: Treasured for its environment and heritage

We value our natural environment and heritage, protecting and nourishing it for future generations

35. As discussed above only limited stakeholder consultation has taken place to date. Further public consultation is intended prior to the main playground development by which time neighbouring residential developments are likely to be complete.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Parks and heritage is of fundamental importance to mana whenua and their culture and traditions. The development discussed in this report will benefit Maori and the wider community through increased access to recreational opportunities.

37. Mana whenua were invited to engage on this project with Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Tamaoho expressing interest. Following site visits where project objectives were explained in more detail both iwi offered general support for the proposed concept design.

38. In particular, the establishment of a stormwater wetland capable of managing and treating all stormwater runoff from the site as well as improving local habitat and biodiversity was well supported. Ngati Te Ata provided a preferred planting list which has been used to develop planting plans for the park.

39. Engagement is ongoing to allow for the incorporation of a cultural layer into the design detail through the establishment of cultural markers and interpretive signage addressing environmental outcomes and local history.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The following budget has been approved for this project:

Budget source	FY19/20	FY20/21	FY21/22	FY22/23	Total ($)
Community Facilities (local park growth)	152,000	350,000	915,000	625,000	1,717,000
					2,042,000

41. Cost estimates for the concept design indicate that Stage 1A can be delivered within the available budget.

42. Provision of further budget for subsequent stages of development will be subject to future decision making of both the Governing Body, in relation to allocation from the Local Park and Sports Field Development budget and/or the Papakura Local Board, in relation to allocation from the board’s Locally Driven Initiative budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Risks identified	Mitigation
Health & Safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during construction phase	Health and safety methodology during construction will reduce risk
Hingaia Park is accessed from an arterial road posing significant risk to children from speeding traffic	Mounded landforms as well as fencing along the road frontage have been included in the design to provide a barrier between the park and the road
Budget
Delays to construction timetable will affect costs due to escalation	Maintain pressure on consultants and on adherence to programme to ensure timely delivery
Construction
Poor weather during construction may hold up delivery	Construction methodology and programme to allow for wet weather

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Following local board approval of the Stage 1A scope of works the project will proceed immediately into detailed design and construction phase.

45. It is anticipated that physical works will be able to commence in the current financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hingaia Park Concept Design	65
b ⇩	Hingaia Park Stage 1A Scope	67

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tim Keat - Senior Growth Development Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Papakura Open Space Network Plan

File No.: CP2019/14035

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Papakura Open Space Network Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The plan sets out actions to deliver a sustainable, quality open space network that can accommodate and respond to anticipated population growth. The goal is to provide a sustainable and high-quality parks and open space network.

3. Implementation will provide the community with access to a range of recreational, social, cultural and environmental experiences.

4. The open space network plan includes:

· the current state of the network and its challenges

· four key moves that provide the framework to deliver a sustainable quality open space network

· prioritised actions that will deliver the key outcomes.

5. There is no additional funding to carry out projects in the open space network plan beyond the renewal of existing assets and planned capital expenditure. The lack of new funding could create a reputational risk. The local board can use the plan to advocate for increased funding as part of Annual and Long-term Plan processes or to help prioritise its locally driven initiative budget.

6. Adoption of the open space network plan will assist local board decision-making and provide a framework for the development of open space over the next 10 years.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) adopt the Papakura Open Space Network Plan provided as Attachment A to this report.

b) delegate the approval of any minor amendments to the document to the Chairperson of the Papakura Local Board.

Horopaki

Context

7. An open space network plan has been prepared for the Papakura Local Board area.

8. This plan outlines the local board’s aspirations and priorities for the future development of local parks and open spaces in Papakura.

9. The plan responds to growth and increasing diversity anticipated in the Papakura area, including changes in demographics and patterns of park use.

10. Auckland Council’s Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013 sets out how parks and open space contribute to the outcomes of the Auckland Plan. It identifies local board open space network plans as one of the key tools to achieve this.

11. The plan is strategically aligned to three Auckland Plan focus areas:

Belonging and Participation - Focus area 1

Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life.

Belonging and Participation - Focus area 7 Recognise the value of arts, culture, sport and recreation to quality of life.

Homes and Places - Focus area 5 Create urban places for the future.

12. The final document is presented in three key areas:

13. Staff developed the plan in consultation with the local board, mana whenua partners and key stakeholders (parks sports and recreation, stakeholder and land advisory, plans and places, finance, service and asset planning). It is informed by Papakura parks research.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The plan analyses the current state of the Papakura open space network and sets out four key moves. These moves provide the framework for actions covering the future development and management of the network over the next 10 years.

Key moves respond to strengths and opportunities across the open space network

15. The main strengths of the existing open space network include:

· Bruce Pullman Park which is a destination park

· a surplus of sports turf provision

· Papakura has greater participation levels than Auckland as a whole, for those sports played on sports turf

· Hunua Ranges Regional Park is only 10 minutes’ drive from Papakura and has the largest area of native forest in Auckland

· users of local parks say they are valuable or very valuable to the community

· multiple culture and heritage features located on open spaces.

16. The main challenges include:

· detrimental effects from climate change, coastal inundation and storm surges

· increased demand for walking and cycling through developing open space connections

· improving the standard of provision of neighbourhood parks and amenities

· getting more people active

· connecting inland communities to the coast and stream network

· catching up on asset renewals on parks.

17. Four key moves respond to these issues and opportunities. They are:

· celebrate our natural areas and cultural history

· improve the quality of our local neighbourhood parks

· connect our community to open space

· enhance walking and cycling and green corridors to connect our communities.

19. These moves are aligned with the focus areas in the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan - Treasure, Enjoy, Connect and Utilise.

The plan prioritises actions to improve the open space network

20. The following principles were used to prioritise actions to improve the open space network over the next 10 years:

· acknowledge population growth and urban intensification

· acknowledge funding constraints (renewals and capex)

· enhance relationships with mana whenua

· protect and serve the environment

· improve water quality

· increase walking and cycling

· increase recreation opportunities

· investigate alternative options for similar benefits

· provide more event locations

· leveraging planning and funding cycles.

21. The following actions are recommended based on the current state analysis, input from mana whenua and the key moves.

Key Move 1 - celebrate our natural areas and cultural history

Key Move 2 - improve the quality of our local neighbourhood parks

Key Move 3 - connect our community to open space

Key Move 4 - enhance walking, cycling and green corridors to connect our communities

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The plan has been developed in consultation with relevant council departments. Their views are reflected in this plan.

23. Parks Sports and Recreation, Customer and Community Services, Auckland Transport, and Infrastructure and Environmental Services will implement the network plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. Local communities will benefit from the actions in this plan. These include increased sport and recreation opportunities, leading to improved health and wellbeing.

25. Staff engaged the local board through a series of workshops on:

· 10 September 2018	· 3 April 2019
· 10 October 2018	· 4 September 2019.
· 5 December 2018

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Māori identity and well-being is an important outcome in the Auckland Plan. Implementation of this network plan will respond to and supports the following focus areas:

Māori identity and well-being - Focus Area 1

Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whanau.

Māori identity and well-being - Focus area 7

Reflect mana whenua mātauranga and Māori design principles throughout Auckland.

27. Quality parks and open spaces help to facilitate Māori participation in sport and recreation.

28. Staff engaged with mana whenua on 30 October 2018, 26 June 2019 and 30 July 2019 to seek their views in relation to the open space network in Papakura.

29. The key issues raised by mana whenua iwi have informed the development of the key moves and actions outlined in the plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. No funding has been allocated for public consultation, as the open space network plan informs local board decision-making.

31. No additional budget is provided for the implementation of the open space network plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. The lack of funding to implement the plan could create a low reputational risk. However, the local board can use the network plan to advocate for increased funding as part of the annual plan and long-term plan processes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. The plan will be implemented over the next 10 years as budgets allow.

34. It is anticipated that the delivery of specific projects will draw on a wide range of potential partners who can contribute advice, assistance, funding and support.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Final Draft PLB OSNP Sept 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sam Noon - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Ruth Woodward - Manager Parks & Recreation Policy

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Maori naming of parks and places in the Papakura Local Board area

File No.: CP2019/17097

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree the initial scope, priorities and work programme for Te Kete Rukuruku, a Māori naming and storytelling programme for the Papakura Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme involving the collection and telling of the unique stories of Tāmaki Makaurau. A subset of this programme is the Māori naming of parks and places which involves the reclamation or identification of new Māori names and narratives across Tāmaki Makaurau.

3. Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme that responds to feedback from mana whenua about the current naming practices across council which are inconsistent and appear to place low priority and visibility on Māori naming and narratives.

4. The programme also responds to the Auckland Council Māori Language Policy adopted in 2016 as provided in Attachment A to this report.

5. Te Kete Rukuruku is a partnership between the Auckland Council and 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau. Mana whenua have been actively working on the programme since 2017 and have agreed on a new Māori naming process.

6. All local boards were invited to join this programme in 2017. The Papakura Local Board elected to join the programme in FY2019/20.

7. The first phase of the programme is focussed on libraries and local parks. This report is specifically seeking direction on the number of local parks to be included within this first phase.

8. Papakura Local Board have held four workshops (August 2018, February 2019, March 2019 and August 2019) where the scope of the programme has been discussed and the research showing known history of existing park names has been considered. Attachment B to this report shows the list of parks that the Papakura Local Board have identified through this series of workshops.

9. It is expected that a follow up report, to approve the gifted names and narratives will be delivered to the local board, in partnership with mana whenua, in 2020. Prior to adoption of any of the gifted names, a focussed communications approach will be developed to inform the local community of the project and raise awareness and understanding of the Māori history and values in the local board area.

10. If the local board considers more community engagement is required for specific parks, then this engagement will be developed with the local board and undertaken prior to the proposed Māori names being adopted for specific parks

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the list of parks to be investigated for naming, to support Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learnt, as detailed in Attachment B to this report.

b) invite mana whenua to provide a Māori name and provide the narrative for the list of parks detailed in Attachment B to this report.

c) note the Auckland Council Māori Language Policy 2016 as provided in Attachment A to this report.

d) note that the gifted names and narratives are intended to be approved by the local board for use as dual names or monolingual Māori names to enrich the stories of parks and support Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learnt.

Horopaki

Context

Strategic context

11. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations to Māori. Council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within an Auckland local government context.

12. The Māori Responsiveness Framework called Whiria Te Muka Tangata has been developed in response to council's commitments and obligations to Māori in a way that will improve outcomes for all. Its purpose is to enhance and guide Auckland Council’s responsiveness to Māori. The framework articulates that council will work to ensure its policies and its actions consider:

· the recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau

· how to address and contribute to the needs and aspirations of Māori.

13. Auckland Council’s Māori Language Policy was adopted by the Governing Body in 2016 (resolution number REG/2016/89). The policy recognises council’s commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and recognises that the Māori language is a cultural treasure and an official language of Aotearoa. It notes that the Māori language and culture forms a critical part of a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world. Reclaiming or identifying new Māori names for local parks within the Papakura Local Board area provides a significant opportunity to fulfil the policy intent.

14. Key outcome areas of the Māori language policy are:

· Te reo te kitea - Māori language that is visible

· Te reo te rongohia - Māori language that is heard

· Te reo te kōrerohia - Māori language that is spoken

· Te reo te ākona - Māori language that is learnt.

15. The Māori language policy acknowledges that te reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa and should receive equal status to English and NZ Sign Language.

16. Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme involving the collection and telling of the unique stories of Tāmaki Makaurau. A subset of this programme is the Māori naming of parks and places which involves the reclamation or identification of new Māori names for parks and facilities across Tāmaki Makaurau.

17. The programme represents a partnership between Auckland Council and 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau.

18. The programme directly responds to the Auckland Council Māori Language Policy adopted in 2016.

19. Local boards are delegated decision-making authority for naming most local parks and facilities.

20. All local boards were consulted on the Māori Language Policy. The Papakura Local Boards’ participation in Te Kete Rukuruku, Māori naming of parks and places programme provides the opportunity for the Papakura Local Board to give effect to the Māori Language Policy in a meaningful way within the local board area.

Project scope

21. The scope of Te Kete Rukuruku programme, and particularly the Māori naming of parks and places, is defined as the naming, renaming or dual naming of parks and places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau.

22. The programme recognises there was a rich layer of Māori names that existed across Tāmaki Makaurau. The programme provides an opportunity for Aucklanders to learn te reo, Māori history and Māori values relevant to places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau.

23. In line with the Māori Language Policy, reclaiming or identifying new Māori names for parks and places will have the following benefits:

· accelerate the public visibility of the Māori language as a cultural treasure which is at the heart of Māori identity

· contribute to the Māori language being visible, heard, spoken and learnt

· celebrate and create connections with the rich Māori heritage of Tāmaki Makaurau

· enable or support storytelling and interpretation of place and communities

· provide a practical means for council to fulfil its commitments and obligations to Māori.

24. It is expected that, in most cases, Māori naming will be dual naming. Dual naming means that a Māori name is added to the existing name thereby enriching the stories about that place or facility and not taking away from a story. For the public this means signs will present both names, and in line with the Māori language policy and signage guidelines, the te reo Māori name will be presented first.

25. Dual naming also means that a Māori name, which is appropriate to the place, sits alongside another name that is not related in its meaning. In other words, the two names are not translations of each other but independent and unique.

Year one of the programme

26. This report focuses on the proposed approach for local parks.

27. The project demonstrates a best practice approach for naming in partnership with mana whenua. This practice enables a commitment to a consistent process and a strong relationship between mana whenua and the local boards as decision makers of local parks and facilities.

28. The following aspects are not included in the scope of the Te Kete Rukuruku programme although some of these may be progressed as separate projects parallel or following on from the programme:

· the naming of features or assets within a park or facility e.g. bridges and walkways

· English translations of messages within parks and facilities

· capital development

· gazetting of the name via the Geographic Board

· any change to council brand.

29. The scale of the programme is significant. It is estimated there are 4130 parks and facilities across Tāmaki Makaurau and there are 22 council governance entities and 19 mana whenua governance entities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

30. Within the Papakura Local Board area there are a total of 163 parks, of which nine have an existing Māori name. Five parks are unnamed and 94 are named after a street while 55 parks carry a European name.

31. The current approach to Māori naming (in most cases) is to look for opportunities to identify a Māori name as part of capital development works or when acquiring new parks or facilities. The status quo approach is likely to result in no or very little change in the percentage of parks with Māori names noting that across the region there is growth of new parks, many of which may not be given a Māori name.

32. The current approach to Māori naming is considered ad hoc and presents the following challenges:

· it is often too late i.e. the naming occurs at the end of a project thereby losing the opportunity to familiarise and connect to the park name

· the opportunity is also lost for the name to inform the design and development of a place

· the process is often not clear and mana whenua may select a name only for it to compete with another name suggested from elsewhere in the community. It is difficult and inappropriate to create a process where names that are gifted by mana whenua are in competition with other naming options.

33. This programme is about moving away from the status quo and supporting local boards to make a transformational shift in the number of Māori names and the associated visibility of te reo Māori and the unique Māori narratives.

34. As this process shows the number of parks and facilities where mana whenua is invited to gift a name and narrative is at the discretion of the local board.

35. It is not yet clear how far the funding that the local board has already committed to the project is likely to go as this will vary based on the significance to mana whenua of the sites chosen and their history.

36. The funding the local board has already committed to the project is likely to support between 20-40 names and narratives being identified.

37. It is recommended that the first list of parks or places (tranche one) are local parks where the parks are named after a street, not named or are new parks. It is also likely that in adopting new Māori names these will be applied as dual names rather than replacing an existing name although this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis.

38. The Papakura Local Board has had the opportunity to review the research that is available for all local parks in their rohe (area). Based on this review, the local parks in Papakura that are considered appropriate for inviting mana whenua to identify Māori names for are provided in Attachment B.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. Te reo Māori being seen, heard, spoken & learnt across Tāmaki Makaurau through signage and storytelling will support council’s commitment to the Maori language policy.

40. Te Kete Rukuruku offers an opportunity to strengthen the board’s working relationships with mana whenua.

41. Through the Te Kete Rukuruku programme, strong partnerships are being created across various council departments that are working in parks and reserves. This is creating greater opportunities for collective advance planning around naming and signage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. Four workshops have been held with the Papakura Local Board to date.

43. Workshop one, on 16 August 2019, focussed on introducing the project and seeking feedback as part of the draft work programme process.

44. The board approved this activity as outcomes contribute to the delivery of the Papakura Local Board Maori Responsiveness Plan and have requested that staff collaborate to ensure initiatives are complimentary.

45. The naming project was approved by the local board as an activity in its Papakura Local Board Community Services 2019/2020 Work Programme on 25 June 2019 (PPK/2019/108).

46. Workshop two, on 20February 2019, focussed on discussing research findings, communications approach, parks list approach and principles for a draft tranche 1 parks list.

47. Workshop three, on 6 March 2019, Local Board update, focussed on refining draft tranche 1 and the confirmation of a parks list. Local Board requested mana whenua recommendations be sought to help refine the parks list.

48. Workshop four, on 21 August 2019, Local Board update, mana whenua recommended the tranche 1 list be refined to start with parks that have no names and parks named after streets. A refined parks list was presented with mana whenua recommendations considered. The board approved a tranche 1 park list. To be confirmed in the next available business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. As discussed in tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu (the analysis and advice section of the report) the Māori naming of parks and places programme is a response to feedback from mana whenua.

50. The proposed programme seeks to develop a good practice approach to Māori naming, through an agreed process in partnership between mana whenua and local boards. Through this partnership it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and local boards will be strengthened.

51. The role of providing Māori names in Tāmaki Makaurau rests with mana whenua. This is Māori who have mana and for which Tāmaki Makaurau is their tūrangawaewae (standing place) and they have whakapapa (a genealogical link) to the place.

52. This programme is expected to provide significant benefits to mātāwaka Māori and mātāwaka Māori organisations will be engaged and potentially become partners in the communication plan for the programme. The increase in Māori language and stories will enable mataawaka Māori to see and hear their culture and language being used in their community. This is expected to increase their sense of belonging and connection. It is also recognised that many Māori are in the process of learning the language phase of revitalisation and many Māori are not yet able to speak their own language. The programme will support this outcome.

53. Mana whenua have been meeting monthly since 2017 where the issues, opportunities and the scope of the programme have been discussed. Through this regular engagement, up to 17 of 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau have been engaged.

54. The project team also provide regular programme updates to the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat on progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. The total budget is for FY2019/20 is $23,000. The exact cost to be spent this year can only be confirmed once the names are confirmed and the level of significance of the sites and the number of mana whenua with an interest in the site is known.

56. The programme involves the gifting of names and narratives for nominated parks. It does not include any capital expenditure. Any new signage or capital works would occur over multiple years as signage renewals occur or if the local board sets aside budget to fast track upgrades to signage.

57. The project team are working closely with the signage renewals team to align the signage renewals work programme with the adoption of Māori names to enable the names to be seen, heard, learnt and spoken as soon as practicable.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. A number of risks have been discussed during the scoping of this programme and most of these have been mitigated through project design. These risks and mitigations are outlined below:

· Māori translation of functional names for parks or facilities for example domain or esplanade adds a lot of complexity and could make Māori names quite long. As noted above a principle of the project is that the Māori name will not be a translation of the existing name. There is therefore no need to apply the functional name and in general it is not expected that this will occur for park names. However, this has occurred with libraries and may be considered for other facilities. This will be discussed in future reports as part of the next phase of the programme.

· Where there are multiple iwi interests there may be no agreement. There are overlapping iwi interests throughout much of Tāmaki Makaurau. In recognition of this, a principle of the project, as agreed by mana whenua, is that mana whenua will work together to provide a single name except where there is more than one traditional name for a site. However, it is noted that many of the Tūpuna Maunga (volcanic cones) have several traditional names (for example Puketāpapa and Pukewiwi are both gazetted names that sit alongside the English name Mt Roskill. Auckland Council and the community now has a history of supporting multiple Māori names.

· Digital naming only won’t gain traction and names will be lost. It may take some time for the names to be ‘seen’ through signage renewals. As an interim measure a Geographic Information System (GIS) database and web page is in development that can be easily searched that will provide information on the origin of the existing name and the Māori name and narrative. The communications strategy will promote the website and database so that the community can have access to it. It will also look to celebrate new names through publications, events and other means. It is noted that many of the Tūpuna Maunga have Māori names that are not yet all on signs, yet through the work of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, media and events the Māori names have been widely used.

· Navigation confusion / way finding – this is a potential or perceived risk but given the significant growth in Auckland and the number of new names confirmed on a regular basis the placement of names in GIS and other digital forums as well as an effective communication plan is expected to mitigate any actual or perceived risk.

· Some local boards have had negative experiences with changing the names of parks within their local area. In response to this concern the programme includes a research phase to ensure the origins of the existing names are well understood. Where current names have a significant history, they are not included in the first phase. In addition, the predominant outcome is going to be the addition of names and associated rich narratives and will not involve the removal of names. Where it is considered appropriate to replace a name the board will also need to carefully consider who the affected parties are and determine if community engagement is appropriate. In all other cases we are proposing that a strong public communications approach to enable the community to understand the process and enjoy the benefits of the additional name and narrative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. The list of parks that is approved by the Papakura Local Board will be provided to mana whenua inviting them to gift names and narratives.

60. Mana whenua with an interest in these parks will undertake research and, where necessary, will work together to agree a single name and narrative to be gifted to the local board.

61. In parallel with the mana whenua naming process, the project team will work closely with local board communications team to develop a tailored communications plan for the local board area.

62. The project team will also continue to work closely with the signage renewals delivery team to seek opportunities for new Māori names to be part of signage renewals.

63. Dual naming is expected to make up the largest number of new Māori names and, in general, it is expected that an effective communications programme to inform the community of the new names and narratives will be the appropriate approach.

64. A report for the local board to approve the gifted names and narratives is anticipated during 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Māori Language Policy	83
b ⇩	Papakura Tranche 1 Park List	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Anahera Higgins - Te Kete Rukuruku Programme Manager

Laina Cheung - Te Kete Rukuruku Naming Lead

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Road Name Approval: Two New Public Roads created by way of Subdivision at 144-252 Park Estate Road, Hingaia

File No.: CP2019/17238

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to name two new public roads created by way of a subdivision development at 144-252 Park Estate Road, Hingaia, by Hugh Green Limited.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. On behalf of the developer Hugh Green Limited, agent Civil Plan Consultants has proposed the following names for consideration by the Local Board:

· Road 1: Park Green Avenue

· Road 2: Port Way

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

- Newtown Street

- Three Trees Street

- Sixty Acres Drive

- Woodpark Drive

- Rockhill Road

- Slatehill Street

- Woodhill Drive

- Woodtown Drive

- Winterhill Drive.

4. The proposed names come from Hugh Green Limited’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest. The company has developed numerous other sites in the area, with existing approved street names such as Buncrana Place, Cooladerry Place, Drumkeen Place and Kilmacrennan Drive, which are all also named after towns of County Donegal. The proposed names are in line with this established theme in the local area.

5. Mana whenua were consulted and initially commented that they would prefer the use of Māori names as part of the development. However, following a meeting between the developer and Ngati Tamaoho, it was agreed for the developer to retain control over the names of the roads, but to provide for iwi to name physical features and walking tracks proposed as part of the development.

6. A large pool of alternative names has been provided by the developer, as there will be many more roads to name as part of the wider development at this address in later stages. These will be dealt with by separate road naming applications at a later stage, but the developer requests that the local board review the names and comment now if any are undesirable, so that they can be removed from future applications.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the following names for the two new public roads created by way of subdivision at 144-252 Park Estate Road, Hingaia, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference SUB60337643 and condition variation SUB60337643-A):

Road 1: [local board to insert chosen name]

Road 2: [local board to insert chosen name].

b) consider whether any of the remaining nine ‘alternative name options’ are undesirable, so that they can be removed from future road naming applications for this development.

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent reference SUB60337643 was issued on 23^rd May 2019 for a subdivision to be undertaken in five stages for the purpose of vesting roads in council associated with the upgrade of Park Estate Road to urban standards, along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Hingaia School development site.

8. A variation to consent conditions, reference SUB60337643-A, was also approved on 30 August 2019 to enable additional Sections 3 and 4 Survey Office Plan 527695, to also be vested in Council as public road.

9. As a result there are two new sections of public road that require road names for this stage of the development, which are referred to as Road 1 and Road 2 on the attached site plan in Attachment A.

10. Park Estate Road, which is also shown on Attachment A, will retain its existing name.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. 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.

12. 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 local area.

13. The applicant’s proposed names are all taken from places in County Donegal in Ireland. The applicant has provided the following description of how these names link to the local area:

14. Background and Reason for Proposed Names (as described by applicant):

“Hugh Green Limited (the applicant), Derryveagh Developments Limited (the owner of 180 and 200 Park Estate Road) and Gateway Auckland Limited (the owner of 252 Park Estate Road) are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Hugh Green Group.

Hugh Green left Ireland in 1949 and created the Green & McCahill Construction Company in Auckland in 1953. The company was responsible for many major New Zealand construction projects from this time through to the 1980s. In recent times the company has become more investment focused whilst maintaining its link with the construction industry through development of its land holdings throughout the Auckland region.

A common theme of the company’s land developments is the naming of new roads after places and townlands from Hugh Green’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest.

This is consistent with Hugh Green Limited’s previous development on the opposite side of the motorway from the subject site (along Parkhaven Drive), which includes the street names Buncrana Place, Cooladerry Place, Drumkeen Place and Kilmacrennan Drive which are all named after towns of County Donegal.

Similarly, Hugh Green Limited has developed Donegal Glen in Flat Bush over multiple stages which have included a vast number of road names based on townlands and other locations in County Donegal. These include Carrickdawson Drive, Castlederg Drive, Drumbuoy Drive, Drumfad Road, Greenan Drive, Drumconnell Drive and Tir Conaill Avenue.

As a professional developer, Hugh Green Group wishes to retain an identity with the land long after it has been constructed and communities have been established. The only opportunity to leave an erstwhile mark on the development is by our selection of the street names. Land at Park Estate Road, Hingaia, has been retained and farmed by the Hugh Green Group of companies since 1989.”

15. 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.

16. On 16 July 2019, an email was sent out to representatives of the three local iwi groups who have interests in the wider development at Park Estate Road, Hingaia, being Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Each of the iwi groups preferred the use of Māori names as part of the development. However, following a meeting between the developer and iwi, it was agreed for the developer to retain control over the names of roads, and to provide for iwi to name physical features and walking tracks proposed as part of the development. Ngāti Tamaoho commented on this agreement as follows: “[we] would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with for best outcomes for this project”.

17. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable and not duplicated elsewhere in the region. The following additional comments are of note regarding potential similarities:

· Park Green Avenue: provides enough differentiation from existing ‘Park Estate Road’, the address of the main road connecting to new Road 1 in this development.

· Port Way: There is an existing ‘Port Lane’ in Parnell, but this is approximately 29 km from the subject site and therefore permitted according to LINZ’s Guidelines for Addressing Infill Developments - Section 2 (h).

18. Any of the proposed road types would be acceptable for the new private roads, suiting their form and layout, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. 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

20. The report seeks the local board’s decision. The decision will not have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The review sought from the Papakura Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A thriving Māori identity is Auckland’s point of difference in the world – it advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to support Auckland’s Māori identity.

22. Whilst no Māori road names are proposed, the developer and iwi have agreed that iwi will instead name physical features and walking tracks proposed as part of the subject development.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. 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

25. Approved road names are notified to LINZ, and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database that includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site and Location Plans	105

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Road Name Approval: New Private Road created by way of Subdivision at 2 Nelson Street, Papakura

File No.: CP2019/17346

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 2 Nelson Street, Papakura, by DDL Homes South Limited.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. On behalf of the developer DDL Homes South Limited, agent Civil Plan Consultants has proposed the following names for consideration by the Local Board:

· Pasla Close (applicant Preferred)

· Jalandhar Close (Alternative 1)

· Dudley Wood Lane (Alternative 2).

4. Mana whenua were consulted through email. Te Ahiwaru–Waiohua commented that they would support any names provided by Ngaati Paoa, who in turn did not provide a response. Due to the lack of response, the developer has opted to proceed with their own chosen road names.

5. The proposed names have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met, and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region. However, there are already many instances of ‘Dudley’ and ‘Wood’ in existing street names around the region, (e.g. ‘Hadley Wood Drive’, ‘Dudley Road’), so this name is not as unique as the other options.

6. The road naming guidelines do not prohibit the use of names from other regions or cultures. Road naming is at the discretion of the local board, to decide upon the thematic suitability of the proposed names within the local context. The developer would like the Indian names proposed to be interpreted as “adding weight to the positive character of the diverse culture in the area and acknowledging the local Indian community”.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the name [local board to insert chosen name] for the new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of subdivision at 2 Nelson Street, Papakura, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60331848).

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent reference BUN60331848 was issued on 4th April 2019 for 16 new dwellings and associated subdivision, as well as a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), to service the dwellings.

8. Site and location plans of the development are provided in Attachment A.

9. As seen from the site plan in Attachment A, some of the new dwellings have access from the front of the property, directly onto existing Nelson and East Streets. However, a road name is required to provide clarity of addressing for the dwellings to the rear, in the internal part of the development.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. 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.

11. 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 local area.

12. The developer wishes for the Indian names proposed to contribute to the positive character of the diverse culture in the area, acknowledging the local Indian community. Specifically, the names are locations important to the developer’s brother, Hardesh Dheil, who passed away in February this year after a long fight with cancer. The proposed development at 2 Nelson Street commenced as a partnership between the developer and his brother prior to his passing, and the developer would like the naming of the COAL to serve as a remembrance of this.

13. The meanings of the proposed names are as follows:

· Pasla: the name of Hardesh Dheil‘s ancestral village in Punjab, India.

· Jalandhar: the name of the city that Pasla forms part of.

· Dudley Wood: a suburb of Birmingham, UK, that the developer and his brother spent their childhood in.

14. The names proposed 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. However, there are already many instances of ‘Dudley’ and ‘Wood’ in existing street names around the region, (e.g. ‘Hadley Wood Drive’, ‘Dudley Road’), so this name is not as unique as the other options.

15. The road naming guidelines do not prohibit the use of names from other regions or cultures. Road naming is at the discretion of the local board, to decide upon the thematic suitability of the proposed names within the local context. The developer has stated that they wish the Indian names to “contribute to the positive character of the diverse culture in the area, acknowledging the local Indian community”, as well as out of respect for their late brother in a discreet manner, as no personal names or identifiers are included.

16. Mana whenua were consulted through email. Te Ahiwaru–Waiohua commented that they would support any names provided by Ngaati Paoa, who in turn did not provide a response. Due to the non-response, the developer has opted to proceed with their own chosen road names.

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

18. ‘Close’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the road, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The report seeks the decision of the local board. The decision is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. 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

23. 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

24. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database that includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site and Location Plan	113

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2019/16478

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 Papakura 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)	119

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/16481

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

· urgent decisions

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

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

File No.: CP2019/15875

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. In May 2019, staff circulated a draft findings report on the bylaw review to all local boards. Eighteen local boards requested individual workshops to ask staff questions and provide informal views on the draft findings. Staff conducted these workshops in June and July 2019.

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

· animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally

· issues with some definitions in the bylaw

· requirements to provide identification for owned animals

· Auckland Council’s processes for managing animals

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

· protects the public from nuisance

· maintains and promotes public health and safety

· minimises the potential for offensive behaviour in public places

· manages animals in public places.

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

· beekeeping in urban areas

· keeping stock in urban areas

· horse riding in a public place.

Figure 1 – Animal Management Bylaw 2015 framework

The bylaw does not address dogs

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

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

The bylaw does not regulate animal welfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

· ongoing animal nuisance issues

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’

· exclusion rules for companion animals

· identifying owned animals

· the council’s processes for managing animals

· views on existing and new controls for specific animals.

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

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

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

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

Table 1 - Local board informal views on animal nuisances

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

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

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

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

Table 2 - Local Board informal views on the definition of ‘owner’

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

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

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

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

o not punish volunteers who care for the animals’ wellbeing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3 - Local board informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’

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

· Having specific and measurable criteria for nuisance is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4 - Local board informal views on adding companion animals in the bylaw's definitions

Companion animals should have separate rules

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

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

· Companion animals should be excluded from the bylaw rules.

o Goats are popular pets and can be good companions.

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

Companion animals should not have separate rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5 - Local board informal views on identifying owned animals

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

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

· Every farm animal should be tagged and named.

· Identifying animals would prevent people from feeding unowned animals.

· Identifying animals is useful but impractical.

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

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

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

36. The draft findings report identified that some Aucklanders are unclear about the council’s processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. This confusion reduces people’s willingness to report nuisance as they are unsure who is responsible. Only 2 per cent of surveyed respondents who experienced animal nuisance reported it to the council.

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

Table 6 - Local board informal views on council processes for managing animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 7 - Local board informal views on the current controls in the bylaw

Animal

Current control

Views on more control

Views on same or less control

Bees

· Any properties, urban or rural, can keep any number of bees.

· Beekeepers must manage the flight path and temperament of their bees.

· Beekeepers must ensure nuisance from their bees’ excrement is minimised, and the bees have a suitable water source on the premises.

· The council should restrict beekeeping if people have bee-sting allergies.

· Limit the number of beehives in an area to prevent colony competition.

· Increase awareness and visibility of who keeps bees in an area.

· Restrict beekeeping to rural areas.

· Restrict the number of beehives a person can have in urban areas.

· Restrict beehive ownership by size of property.

· There should be minimum training or qualification to own bees. You need experience.

· Amateur beekeepers should be treated differently to commercial beekeepers.

· Bees are not causing much nuisance, so there is no need for more regulation.

· We should be encouraging beekeeping. Should regulate rather than overregulate.

· Do not restrict bees to just urban areas.

· Bees should be unregulated.

· Would be concerned if licensing costs for beekeeping were introduced.

· Should be careful about restricting bees as they are important to the ecosystem.

Horses

· Local boards are able to set specific controls for horses for local parks and beaches.

· Horses are currently not allowed to be kept in urban areas without a licence from the council unless the premises is larger than 4000 square metres.

Horses are permitted in public spaces if:

· manure is removed

· consideration is taken to not intimidate or cause a nuisance for other public space users

· beach dune damage is minimised.

· The same access rules for dogs on beaches should be applied to horses.

· Do not prohibit horses on beaches but restrict them to off-peak times.

· Should lobby central government to include the same powers that protect native fauna and wildlife from dogs for horses.

· Horse owners should be responsible for removing manure. The bylaw should encourage accountability and consider that picking up manure is not always practical, e.g. on busy roads.

· Should be allowed to ride horses on berms.

· Horses should not be banned from roads. There are few places to ride.

· Increase communication and awareness of current controls to horse owners.

· Would rather have horses on the roads than scooters.

Stock

· Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants and quail are the only stock animals currently permitted by the bylaw in urban areas without a licence from the council. Any other stock animal, including roosters, would require a licence from the council in urban areas unless the premises is larger than 4000 square metres.

· Stock in urban areas must also be restrained within the boundaries of the premises on which they are kept, and chicken coops must not cause a nuisance and must be regularly cleaned.

· In rural areas the above controls do not apply. Rural residents must ensure their animals do not cause a nuisance to any other person.

· Stock should not be kept in urban areas. This is also humane for the animal.

· There should be penalties for poor stock fencing by roads in rural areas.

· The bylaw needs a mechanism to deal with repeat ‘wandering stock’ offenders.

· The criteria for keeping goats and other herbivores should be defined by the amount of grassy area on the property.

· There should be restrictions on how far a chicken coop should be from the property boundary.

· Fewer chickens should be allowed in urban areas.

· Roosters should not be allowed in rural lifestyle blocks in urban areas.

· The current stock controls are adequate.

· Support allowing pheasants in urban areas.

· There are already legal consequences for not fencing your stock. The bylaw does not need to address.

· If you have a large property in an urban area, goats should be allowed.

· Make sure urban pet days are still allowed.

· It does not matter where the chicken coop sits on the property if it is cleaned regularly.

· There should not be a complete ban on roosters in urban areas.

Views on new controls for specific animals (Slide 23)

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

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

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

Table 8 - Local board informal views on controls for cats and other animals

Informal local board views on controls for cats

Informal views on introducing controls for cats

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

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

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

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

o Make it compulsory for cat owners.

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

o full compulsory microchipping across the region

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

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

· There should be a curfew for cats.

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

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

· The council should restrict cats from wandering.

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

Informal views on not introducing controls for cats

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

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

· Cats naturally wander. Containing them would be cruel.

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

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

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

Informal local board views on controls for other animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 lists some tropical animals that can be treated as pests. These include eastern water dragons, Indian ring-necked parakeets, and snake-necked turtles.

· Chickens were not classified as pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029. The purpose of the plan is to protect the Auckland region’s important biodiversity assets. There are no significant biodiversity benefits to managing feral chickens at a regional level. Feral chickens are primarily a human nuisance issue centred in the urban areas where people feed them.

Other views from local boards

Rights of property owners and protection

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

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

Enforcement

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

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

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

Education

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Presentation at local board workshops on draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review	139
b ⇩	Local board questions from the workshops	163

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

25 September 2019

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - September 2019

File No.: CP2019/15880

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present to the Papakura Local Board the three months Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governance Forward Work Calendar is a schedule of items that will come before the local board at business meetings and workshops over the next three months. The Governance Forward Work Calendar for the Papakura Local Board is included in Attachment A of this report.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

i) ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month, be included on the agenda for business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 19 September 2019.

Horopaki

Context

5. The council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for Governing Body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. There are no new projects in the Governance Forward Work Calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities that have been previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes Governing Body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the board’s governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

i) Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan.

ii) Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

iii) Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled below:

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction / priorities / budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives / specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant council staff.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. This report is an information report providing the governance forward work programme for the next six months.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11. The council is required to provide Governance Forward Work Calendar to the Manurewa Local Board for their consideration.

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

Local impacts and local board views

12. All local boards are being presented with a Governance Forward Work Calendar for their consideration.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13. The projects and processes referred to in the Governance Forward Work Calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

14. There are no financial implications relating to this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

15. This report is a point in time of the Governance Forward Work Calendar. It is a living document and updated month to month. It minimises the risk of the board being unaware of planned topics for their consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments