I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Howick Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Monday, 16 March 2020

6:00pm

Howick Local Board Meeting Room
Pakuranga Library Complex
7 Aylesbury Street
Pakuranga

 

Howick Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Adele White

 

Deputy Chairperson

John Spiller

 

Members

Katrina Bungard

 

 

Bo Burns

 

 

David Collings

 

 

Bruce Kendall

 

 

Mike Turinsky

 

 

Bob Wichman

 

 

Peter Young, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Vanessa Phillips

Democracy Advisor

 

9 March 2020

 

Contact Telephone: 021 891 378

Email: vanessa.phillips@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Deputation - HPK Swimming Club and Swimming Counties Manukau, Aquatic centre at Barry Curtis Park                                                                                 5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

9.1     Public Forum - Dave Upfold, Against Howick Local Board funding and/or support for athletes participating at 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, Japan           6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Chairperson's Report                                                                                                    7

12        Governing Body Member update                                                                                 9

13        Auckland Transport March 2020 update report to the Howick Local Board        11

14        Request for local board views on Plan Change 34: Special Character Statement for Special Character Areas Overlay - Howick Business                                             19

15        Sport and Recreation Investment Fund Howick Local Board project endorsement.                                                                                                                                       45

16        Diversity in Parks Planning report                                                                             53

17        Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework -  Proposed changes                                                                                                                                       59

18        Local Board feedback to the Independent Council-Controlled Organisations Review                                                                                                                                       75

19        Approval for 12 new road names for Stages 10A and 10B, 12, and 13 at Donegal Glen in Flat Bush.                                                                                                        81

20        Urgent Decision Howick Local Board - to provide feedback on the Auckland Council draft submission to the Justice Committee's inquiry into the 2019 local elections                                                                                                                                       97

21        Governance forward work calendar                                                                        105

22        Workshop records                                                                                                     109  

23        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

The Chair wll open the meeting and welcome everone present.

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Howick Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 17 February 2020, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Howick Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Deputation - HPK Swimming Club and Swimming Counties Manukau, Aquatic centre at Barry Curtis Park

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report guidance

1.         Alastair Bates, Vice President of HPK Swimming Club and Deputy Chair of Swimming Counties Manukau will be in attendance to speak to the board on the new aquatic and leisure centre being built at Barry Curtis Park.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      receive the deputation from Alastair Bates on behalf of HPK Swimming Club and Swimming Counties Manukau and thank him for his presentation.

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

9.1       Public Forum - Dave Upfold, Against Howick Local Board funding and/or support for athletes participating at 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, Japan

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Dave Upfold will be in attendance to request the board not support any potential funding by the council for athletes competing at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, Japan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      thank Dave Upfold for his attendance.

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2020/00136

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This item gives the Chairperson an opportunity to update the local board on any announcements and note the Chairperson’s written report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Providing the Chairperson with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the Chairperson’s verbal update and written report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Governing Body Member update

File No.: CP2020/00175

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Howick Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the local board on regional matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Providing the Howick Ward Councillors with an opportunity to update the local board on regional matters they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal reports from Cr Paul Young and Cr Sharon Stewart.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Auckland Transport March 2020 update report to the Howick Local Board

File No.: CP2020/02613

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update for the Howick Local Board on transport related matters in their area, including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the Community Safety Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A decision is not required this month. This report provides an opportunity to highlight Auckland Transport activities in the Howick Local Board area and contains information about the following:

·   the wider context  involving a summary of the strategic projects delivered in the Howick Local Board area in the last electoral term

·   information about the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) including projects delivered in the last electoral term

·   an update on the Community Safety Fund (CSF)

·   an update about recent matters raised by the Howick Local Board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport March 2020 monthly update report.

 

Horopaki

Context

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

4.       Auckland Transport is currently delivering several key strategic projects in Howick, discussed below.

Airport to Botany - Rapid Transport Network (RTN)

5.       A Rapid Transport Network (RTN) is a public transport route with very frequent services, separate from road traffic, running at least every 15 minutes and more frequently during peak hours. Some examples of RTNs are the rail network and the Northern Busway. 

6.       The Airport to Botany – RTN project is a strategically important project that aims to create a RTN linking the Airport and Botany.


 

Figure one: Artist’s Impression of a potential Te Irirangi Drive Station

7.       The Airport to Botany – RTN is a key project, is supported by the local board, and progressed significantly during the last electoral term. At this stage, engagement regarding the concept plan is finished. Auckland Transport briefed the Howick Local Board on the proposed route, to be used in the business case to get money to fund more detailed design and then later construction.

8.       A project update scheduled for March will be provided to brief the local board including the early work that has started at Puhinui and on State Highway 20B.

9.       The Airport to Botany – RTN project will have a significant positive benefit on public transport in east Auckland. In recent discussions with Auckland Transport the local board stated that the project is likely to be an advocacy objective in their local board plan. 

AMETI - Eastern Busway

10.     The AMETI – Eastern Busway is Auckland Transport’s biggest project. It is worth $1.4 billion and is New Zealand’s first urban busway. The busway provides congestion free ‘bus only’ lanes for commuters from Botany to Panmure. 

11.     In 2018, Auckland Transport’s contractors started working on stage one.

12.     Work continues planning the second, third and fourth stages, that will:

·   complete a flyover for commuter traffic linking Reeves Road to the South Eastern Arterial

·   build a Rapid Transit Network from Pakuranga to Botany

·   build a large transport hub at Botany where the Airport to Botany project will terminate at. 

13.     The project team’s areas of focus are:

·    finishing the new busway bridge over the Tamaki River

·    finishing work on the Williams Avenue/Pakuranga and Kerswill Avenue/Pakuranga Road intersections

·    closing Tamaki Bay Road

·    start upgrading the Ti Rakau Drive/Pakuranga Road intersection.

14.     March is a peak time for traffic in Auckland and the AMETI-Eastern Busway reports that current data shows traffic is flowing well through the worksite and that there is capacity in the network.

15.     The project team will be establishing a traffic management plan designed to make sure that traffic flows freely through the worksite. Traffic being diverted onto the newly built bus lanes maximising through-put. Church Road will be closed for a short-time (while the work is being done) removing turning movements that slow and disrupt flow through the work site.

16.     Finally, the updated delivery strategy for stages two and three of the project should be available in April 2020. It will outline the procurement approach, key timelines plus the design, consent and construction principles for the project.

Community Safety Fund (CSF)

17.     The CSF delivers a total of $20 million over two years distributed across all 21 local boards. It is strictly for road safety initiatives. It is designed to deliver safety projects identified by the local board and ward councillors.

18.     A local board’s share of the fund is based on a formula that assesses the number of deaths and serious injuries in that area. The Howick Local Board’s share of the CSF is $985,896. 

19.     Howick Local Board has two CSF projects and progress is reported below:

·   Botany Downs Secondary College Crossing Point – The project to improve crossing facilities for Botany Downs Secondary College students crossing Chapel Road, is progressing and initial investigation including a first design is finished. This will be consulted on within Auckland Transport so that departments like Road Safety, Walking and Cycling, Maintenance and others can input. Then it will be taken to the school and public for external feedback

·   Flatbush School Road Temporary Pedestrian Bridge – Building a temporary bridge over the Flat Bush Culvert (on Flatbush School Road) is progressing and negotiations are still underway with a number of contractors for a ‘design and build’ contract price. This is an unsual project so this process is taking a little time.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     This section of the report contains information about local projects, issues and initiatives. It provides summaries of the detailed advice and analysis provided to the local board during workshops and briefings. 

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

21.     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 may be considered if they support a transport outcome).

22.     The fund allows local boards to build transport focused local improvements in their areas.

23.     In this electoral term, the local board has approximately $7.8 million of LBTCF to spend.

24.     Auckland Transport encourages all local boards to maximise the use of their allocated funding and has established a timeline for the board to use for identification, investigation and delivery of projects.

25.     The timeline is listed below:

·   On 20 February 2020, Auckland Transport workshopped an initial list of potential projects with the local board providing an opportunity to identify possible projects

·   at the April 2020 Howick Local Board meeting, Auckland Transport will recommend the local board to formally resolve on requesting development of a scope and/or a rough order of cost (ROC) for the projects the local board have identified.

·   during May and June 2020, Auckland Transport will provide costs and feedback on the requested projects. The local board can use this information to prioritise projects and allocate funds backed by quality advice. Workshops will be scheduled to discuss this information and support the local board’s decision-making

·   in June 2020, the local board will able to either:

o approve construction of projects costing less than $300,000; or

o approve detailed design for complex projects costing more than $300,000.

26.     Auckland Transports’ aim is to move through this process and synchronise it with development of the Howick Local Board Plan 2020. This process ensures transport projects support the board’s outcomes. It maximises efficiency and minimises the risk that transport funds are used to fund unplanned or poorly evaluated projects. Further, it helps to ensure projects are completed in this electoral term.

March - Peak traffic

27.     Historically, March is the busiest time of year for traffic. This is because the holiday season is finished and tertiary students return to study. This significantly increases the number of people trying to move around Auckland creating congestion.

28.     The most efficient way to fight congestion is to encourage the use of public transport. Auckland Transport is supporting public transport by planning to have extra capacity on buses and trains in March.

29.     Auckland Transport will make sure that the 15 busiest routes services including Route 70, which runs from Botany to Britomart, have an extra 5000 seats on buses at peak times and extra train carriages to accommodate this demand.

30.     This is possible because the first of Auckland Transport’s new trains have arrived from Spain allowing additional six-car trains during these busy periods. We will have 1200 extra seats in the morning and afternoon peaks meaning that East Auckland commuters will have much more rail capacity to get them from Panmure to the CBD. Auckland Transport also has additional buses in reserve to assist if a problem arises and with the potential to increase additional services if required.

Flat Bush School Road Culvert

31.     Howick Local Board and the community has raised concerns the safety of the Flatbush Culvert Bridge. The area is developing quickly and changing from rural to urban road conditions and two schools have recently opened near it. An increasing number of students are using the bridge to get to school.

32.     Auckland Transport and the local board have taken the following steps to address issues in the area:

·   the road’s speed limit was reduced from 100 km/hr to 50 km/hr using a temporary speed limit that will be confirmed in the new Auckland Speed Bylaw in June 2020

·   the local board voted to use its Community Safety Fund to build a pedestrian bridge over the Flatbush Culvert. Auckland Transport is negotiating with potential contractors and will inform the local board when a contractor is appointed and delivery dates are confirmed.

33.     Recently, Auckland Transport announced a change in operational focus and that it will embrace the ‘Vision Zero’ philosophy. This means Auckland Transport is now prioritising road safety above trafficability. Since this change in strategy, a number of projects were reviewed and this project has been re-prioritised.

34.     Auckland Transport will temporarily close one lane on the bridge, installing traffic lights and warning signs. This will provide a safer environment for children and their parents walking to school until the new pedestrian bridge is built.

Farm Cove and Cockle Bay bus services

35.     Howick Local Board recently asked Auckland Transport to re-instate two bus services:

·   a service running from Cockle Bay directly to Panmure to the CBD. The current 735 service passes through Howick and continues northeast through Melons Bay to Half Moon Bay. This means that people wishing to travel to Panmure to get the train must transfer between services at Howick. See diagram below

·   a more ‘clover-leafed’ route through Farm Cove and changing the routes to remove the requirement to transfer between services i.e. raised concerns the safety of the Flatbush Culvert Bridge.

Figure two: Eastern Bus Network

36.     Auckland Transport has discussed these requests with the Howick Local Board previously and the current routes were chosen after a considerable period of research and consultation that is summarised in a ‘consultation report’ that can be view using  his link – https://at.govt.nz/media/1866208/east-auckland-final-decisions-report.pdft

37.     Auckland Transport is tasked by legislation with running Auckland’s public transport network. Since 2013, it has been building a New Network designed to simplify Auckland’s bus routes.  This involved removal of some meandering routes and replacing them with more direct routes. This simplification creates efficiency because buses are moving on straighter routes at higher frequency rather than winding on long journeys through residential streets at low frequency. The removal of inefficient services frees up buses allowing a higher level of service on the new routes. This process finished in 2018 and has been successful with public transport use steadily increasing across Auckland.

38.     Both areas mentioned above had relatively low patronage so their bus routes were consolidated into new routes that required some transfers to get to the CBD or other locations. The concerns raised appear to mostly relate to transferring between services. Transferring between services is a requirement of efficient public transport and with an AT HOP card is a simple and cost-effective process. AT HOP cards and tickets are charged by zone so a journey from Cockle Bay to Panmure, is exactly the same regardless of the number of transfers.

39.     The Eastern New Network has been successful, between June 2018 and June 2019 customer journeys increased by +11.4%. A journey being one point-to-point expedition including transfers between modes. This translates to thousands of new people using the New Network, which is characterised, by simplified routes and transfers between services and modes.

40.     Auckland Transport acknowledges that a small group of bus users do not have the same level of service that they once had but must make decisions based on evidence rather than advocacy. At this time, it does not believe that these services should be modified or changed. However, Auckland Transport will look at interchange facilities to ensure transfers are as seamless as possible.

41.     If the local board wishes to experiment with different services, it may.  In the last electoral term, Rodney Local Board had a similar situation and they responded by striking a local rate, specifically to provide new bus services within its local board area. Auckland Transport delivers the services and the Rodney Local Board and Auckland Transport can work together to test the business proposition (that is not yet backed by data), without costing other Auckland ratepayers.

Public transport annual fares review

42.     Auckland Transport has completed its annual review early this year and new public transport fares took effect on 9 February 2020. A small increase covers both the cost of inflation and increased operating costs (i.e. fuel costs) and contribute to achieving Auckland Council’s Governing Body direction to provide:

·      free weekend public transport for children aged five to 15 years old

·      integration of fares for ferry trips into the bus and train network making it cheaper for ferry customers to use multi-mode journeys.

43.     Free public transport for children from five to 15 years old over weekends will continue and no changes for those travelling longer distances (five – eight zone trips). Ferry fare integration will start this year.

44.     More than half of all fares have been kept at current levels, with others increasing by between three and ten cents per passenger trip. People travelling on the AT HOP card, particularly children, secondary students (40 per cent discount) and tertiary students (20 per cent discount), receive the largest subsidies.

45.     The fare changes do not cover the full cost of inflation with the balance covered by service efficiencies, Auckland Transport’s own cost reductions and funding increases from Auckland Council and the NZ Transport Agency. The changes have been kept at the lowest possible level so that public transport continues to remain a cheap and accessible option for Aucklanders.

46.     It should be noted that recent customer satisfaction surveys indicate that 81 per cent of public transport customers believe their trip provides value for money, with overall satisfaction with public transport at 91 per cent continuously for the past 24 months.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.     Auckland Transport engages closely with council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.

48.     Auckland Transport’s core role is in providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network.

49.     To this end, Auckland Transport’s Statement of Intent contains three performance measures:

Table one: Climate Impact Measures

Measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

Number of buses in the Auckland bus fleet classified as low emission

5

25

55

Reduction in CO2 (emissions) generated annually by Auckland Transport corporate operations (from 2017/18 baseline)

7%

9%

11%

Percentage of Auckland Transport streetlights that are energy efficient LED

56%

66%

76%

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50.     During this reporting period Auckland Transport has been working with Auckland Council to help identify un-funded Council projects that may be considered for LBTCF funding.  Examples include walking and cycling paths that run through parks. By working together in this manner Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and Howick Local Board can maximise their impact in this community.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Auckland Transport consultations

51.     Over the last reporting period, Auckland Transport did not invite the local board to provide feedback on any local projects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52.     There are no specific impacts on Māori for this reporting period. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori. Our Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to and with 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53.     This report does not have any financial implications that have not already been reported.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54.     The proposed decision to receive the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for all of its projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55.     Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

 

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, Manager Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Request for local board views on Plan Change 34: Special Character Statement for Special Character Areas Overlay - Howick Business

File No.: CP2020/01701

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the opportunity for the Howick Local Board to express its views on Proposed Plan Change 34 – Special character statement for the Special Character Areas Overlay – Howick Business (PC34) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The existing Howick Business special character area (Howick Business SCA) is the only special character area in the AUP that does not have a special character statement. The purpose of PC34 is to fix this ‘gap’ in the AUP by adding a special character statement for the existing Howick Business SCA to the AUP.

3.       PC34 also seeks to extend the existing Howick Business SCA to include four additional sites. PC34 does not apply to residential zoned sites.

4.       The Howick Local Board was involved in the development of the proposed special character statement before PC34 was publicly notified.

5.       PC34 was notified on 24 October 2019 and the submission period closed on 22 November 2019. PC34 was notified for further submissions on 23 January 2020 and the further submission period closed on 7 February 2020. A total of 15 submissions and seven further submissions were received.

6.       Key themes of the submissions received include:

·   support PC34

·   oppose PC34

·   the extent of the Special Character Areas Overlay

·   the identification of character supporting and character defining buildings

·   infrastructure issues

·   the plan change process.

7.       On 18 February 2020 the Regulatory Committee appointed three independent hearing commissioners to hear and make decisions on PC34.

8.       This report is the mechanism for the Howick Local Board to provide views on PC34.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provide its views on Proposed Plan Change 34 - Special Character Statement for Special Character Areas Overlay - Howick Business, if it wishes to provide a local view to decision-makers on the plan change.

b)      appoint a member of the local board to speak to any local board views on Proposed Plan Change 34 - Special Character Statement for Special Character Areas Overlay - Howick Business, at the plan change hearing, if local board views and preferences are expressed in a resolution.

 

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

9.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards must provide their views on the content of these documents via a formal resolution of the local board, as this cannot be delegated to a member or members of the local board.

10.     On 18 February 2020 the Regulatory Committee appointed three independent hearing commissioners to hear and make a decision on PC34. These decision-makers must consider local board views when deciding the content of these policy documents as required by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (ss15-16).

11.     The special character statement and the addition of the four sites to the Howick Business SCA proposed in PC34 will be included in the AUP if PC34 is approved.

12.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner will include those views in the section 42A hearing report for PC34. Local board views will be included in the analysis of the plan change and submissions received.

13.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the local board will be invited to present its views at the hearing to commissioners, who make the decision on the plan change.

14.     This report provides an overview of PC34 and a summary of the submissions’ key themes and provides the opportunity for the local board to express its views through a resolution.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

15.     PC34 seeks to add a special character statement to the AUP for the existing special character area in the Howick town centre. PC34 also seeks to extend the extent of the existing Howick Business SCA to include four additional sites. This is because of the contribution that buildings on those sites make to the special character values of the Howick Business SCA. The existing Howick Business SCA and the proposed four additional sites are shown on the map below.


 

Figure one: Special Character Areas Overlay Residential and Business

16.     The Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business (SCA Overlay) manages development within the overlay so that the identified special character values of each area are maintained and enhanced.

17.     The SCA Overlay contains ‘residential’, ‘business’ and ‘general’ areas. The special character area that applies to Howick is a business special character area. In business special character areas the overlay generally requires resource consent for the total or substantial demolition of a building, alterations or additions to a building or the construction of a new building.

18.     Special character values are identified in the AUP in Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps (Schedule 15). For business special character areas, special character statements also identify ‘character defining’ and/or ‘character supporting’ buildings. ‘Character defining’ are buildings that make a ‘considerable’ contribution to the character of the area. ‘Character supporting’ are buildings that make a ‘moderate’ contribution to the character of the area. Special character statements play an important role in the implementation of the provisions of the SCA Overlay.

19.     The Howick Business SCA is the only special character area in the AUP that does not have a special character statement in the AUP. The purpose of PC34 is to fix this ‘gap’ in the AUP.

20.     The proposed special character statement summarises the collective special character values of the area, based on historical and physical visual qualities. It also identifies architectural values and a description of urban structure. The proposed statement is consistent with the structure, content and level of detail of the other special character statements for business areas.

21.     The proposed special character statement also identifies the following buildings as ‘character defining’ and ‘character supporting’.

‘Character defining’:

·   78 Picton Street – Good Home (Marine Hotel (former)/Prospect of Howick Hotel)

·   127 Picton Street – McInness Building (Macs Corner)

·   9 Selwyn Road - All Saints Church (Selwyn Church) and graveyard.

‘Character supporting’:

·   28 Picton Street – Our Lady Star of the Sea Roman Catholic Church and graveyard

·   65 Picton Street – Bells Butchery and Rices Bakery

·   115 Picton Street – Howick War Memorial Community Centre (information centre)

·   35 Uxbridge Road – Uxbridge Arts & Culture Centre.

22.     PC34 does not propose changes to any of the SCA Overlay objectives, policies, rules, standards or assessment criteria.

23.     PC34 is not affected by Plan Change 26 (clarifying the relationship between the SCA Overlay and the underlying residential zone provisions), because Plan Change 26 does not apply to business special character areas. The SCA Overlay provisions for business areas clearly state that the underlying zone standards apply.

24.     A copy of PC34 is included as Attachment A. Additional information in support PC34 is available on council’s website at the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/Pages/pc-34-special-character-areas-overlay-howick-business.aspx

Previous involvement of Howick Local Board in PC34

25.     On 25 February 2019 staff from the council’s Plans and Places department briefed the Howick Local Board Chair on the process proposed to prepare a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA. Several days later the Senior Howick Local Board Advisor briefed the local board on this process at a direction setting workshop. The local board was also invited to provide names to attend a community workshop planned to discuss a draft special character statement for the existing Howick Business SCA.

26.     On 25 March 2019 a community workshop was held in Howick to discuss a draft special character statement. The Howick Local Board and representatives of some community groups identified by the local board were invited to this workshop. Feedback received from these participants informed subsequent versions of the draft special character statement.

27.     On 28 May 2019 at a workshop the Howick Local Board was updated on the progress of the proposed plan change and was provided with a revised draft special character statement. At that time the Howick Local Board endorsed the planned way forward.

28.     The report to the 6 August 2019 Planning Committee seeking to notify the plan change noted that public notification of the plan change would provide the Howick Local Board the opportunity to formally provide feedback on the plan change.

Themes from submissions received

29.     Fifteen submissions, and seven further submissions were received on PC34. The following key themes have been identified in the submissions received:

·   support PC34

·   oppose PC34

·   the extent of the SCA Overlay

·   the identification of character supporting and character defining buildings

·   infrastructure issues

·   the plan change process.

30.     In relation to the extent of the SCA Overlay the two main amendments sought are to include Stockade Hill and to extend the SCA Overlay to include the surrounding residential areas. Some of these submissions also seek the name of the SCA Overlay in Howick be amended to include residential and business. One submission also seeks the SCA Overlay to be extended to include the band rotunda in the road reserve outside 60 Picton Street.

31.     In relation to the identification of character defining and character supporting buildings submissions seek to; identify the band rotunda and bus stop (outside 115 Picton Street) as character defining, consider if Crawford House (4 Picton Street) should be identified as character supporting, and amend Our Lady Star of the Sea (28 Picton Street) from character supporting to character defining.

32.     The submissions relating to infrastructure seek that PC34 address issues with infrastructure in the wider Howick and Bays residential areas. These submissions express concern that the area is “…at the point of infrastructural collapse”. Some of the submissions specifically refer to stormwater infrastructure, sewerage and flooding.

33.     The submissions relating to the plan change process requested that the letter sent to ‘directly affected parties’ when the plan change was notified be withdrawn because, in the submitters views this would restrict the scope of the plan change.

34.     No submissions appear to have been received from landowners within the Howick Business SCA.

35.     The summary of the decisions requested by submitters was notified on 23 January 2020 and is available on the council’s website at the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/Pages/pc-34-special-character-areas-overlay-howick-business.aspx.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36.     The decision whether to provide local board views:

·   will not have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions

·   will not be impacted by a climate that changes over the lifetime of that decision, being a decision of short duration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37.     Two of the sites proposed to be added to the Howick Business SCA are council owned and zoned Open Space – Community. They contain the Howick War Memorial Community Centre (115 Picton Street) and the Uxbridge Arts and Culture Centre (35 Uxbridge Road).

38.     Before PC34 was notified, council’s Community Facilities department was informed that these two sites would be proposed to be added to the SCA Overlay. Discussion with Community Facilities staff at that time indicated general support for the inclusion of these sites within the SCA Overlay. The addition of these two sites was also discussed with the Howick Local Board before PC34 was notified.

39.     No council-controlled organisation made a submission or further submission on PC34.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40.     The main impact of PC34 is that the special character values of the existing Howick Business SCA would be identified in the AUP if the plan change is approved by the independent hearing commissioners. This will provide clarity about what the special character values are for the Howick Business SCA that the SCA Overlay seeks to manage.

41.     Another impact of PC34 is that four sites not previously included in the Howick Business SCA would become subject to the SCA Overlay provisions. This includes two sites for which the Howick Local Board has a governance role.

42.     Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

·   interests and preferences of people in the local board area

·   well-being of communities within the local board area

·   local board documents, such as the local board plan and local board agreement

·   responsibilities and operation of the local board.

43.     This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views so the decision-makers on PC34 can consider those views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44.     One of the sites proposed to be added to the Howick Business SCA includes Te Whare o Matariki (35 Uxbridge Street) which is a council operated facility. This part of the site is not identified as a character defining or character supporting building.

45.     As required by the Resource Management Act 1991, council provided a copy of the draft plan change to potentially affected iwi authorities. Ngāti Tamaoho responded that they deferred to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki on this matter. No other iwi authorities provided comment at that time.

46.     All iwi authorities in Auckland were also notified of PC34 when it was publicly notified. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei responded that they did not wish to be involved in PC34. No other iwi authority provided a response.

47.     No iwi authorities made a submission on PC34 as part of the public submission process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48.     No resourcing is necessary to enable the local board to provide its views.

49.     The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51.     Any views provided by the Howick Local Board will be included in the section 42A hearing report. The local board will be informed of the hearing date and invited to speak at the hearing in support of its views. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change by memorandum.

52.     The Howick Local Board will have no further involvement in PC34 if the local board chooses to not provide its views.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

PC34 Proposed Plan Change

27

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 



Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Sport and Recreation Investment Fund Howick Local Board project endorsement.

File No.: CP2020/02606

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek endorsement of the Howick Bowling Club’s application to the regionally contested Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund (SRFIF) is a $120 million contestable fund allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, that supports the development of regional and sub-regional community sport and recreation facilities across Auckland.

3.       The fund looks to address gaps in provision and allow the council to proactively respond to changing trends in sport and recreation.

4.       There is $7 million available in the 2019/2020 financial year. However, applicants can apply for funding from future years, as the planning and investment required to deliver regional and sub-regional facilities is significant.

5.       Decision making for this regionally contested fund sits with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee. A workshop with the committee will be held in March 2020, with their meeting to follow in April 2020.

6.       Local boards are being asked to endorse projects/groups who have applied for SRFIF funding to ensure a regionally aligned approach. A decision will be sought at an upcoming business meeting.

7.       The Howick Bowling Club have applied for funding in the 2019/2020 Stage 2 funding round to cover two existing greens. An overview of the project was supplied to the Howick Local Board at a workshop on 20 February 2020.

8.       The project has low alignment against Sport and Recreation Facility Investment guidelines and therefore is unlikely to secure the full $600,000 requested from the fund.

9.       Howick Local Board have an underspend of $157,000 from an ABS opex budget. The allocation of this funding towards the project will improve the project viability as less funding is required from the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      endorse the Howick Bowling Club covered greens project.

b)      allocate $157,000 towards the project, subject to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee allocation of funds from the Sport Recreation Facility Investment Fund (SRIF) in April 2020.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund is a contestable fund that supports the development of regional and sub-regional community sport and recreation facilities across Auckland.

11.     It looks to address gaps in provision and allow the council to proactively respond to changing trends in sport and recreation.

12.     A key objective of the fund is to support the delivery of significant capital development projects, but also to develop a pipeline of projects by investing into the investigation, planning, design stages of projects. The balance between planning and capital investment will depend on the merits of the applications received.

13.     The Long-term Plan 2018-2028 allocated $120 million to this fund over the next ten years, including $7 million in the 2019/2020 financial year, $7 million in the 2020/2021 financial year, $13.4 million in the 2021/2022 financial year and $13.6 million in the 2022/2023 financial year.

14.     Decision making for this regionally contested fund is delegated to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

15.     The fund prioritises investment into core infrastructure (e.g. courts, fields, playing surfaces/structures and lighting) that is central to sport and recreation participation. See the SRFIF Guidelines for more detail about investment priorities

16.     A medium funding priority is investment into ancillary infrastructure (e.g. toilets, changing rooms, equipment storage and carparking) that enables safe and sanitary access for participants and spectators.

17.     A low funding priority is investment into incidental infrastructure (e.g. clubrooms and administration facilities) that is not required for sports participation but exist for social and management purposes.

18.     The deliverability/achievability of projects is another key weighting within the assessment criteria.

19.     The fund prioritises investment into facility development projects over $500,000 and partnerships able to leverage additional investment, allowing more of the facilities Auckland needs to be built quicker and more effectively.

20.     Projects will be assessed in the context of ‘Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039’ (page 20), using the following four investment principles:

·   equity (40% of assessment): ensures equity of outcomes across the population regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status or location

·   outcome-focused (30% of assessment): there is a clear ’line of sight’ between the investment and the outcomes it delivers

·   financial sustainability (20% of assessment): projects need to be financially viable and affordable for the public

·   accountability (10% of assessment): investment should be efficient, effective, transparent and consistent.

21.     The application process for the Fund comprises two gateways:

·   Stage 1 (closed 1 November 2019) – Expression of Interest. A one-page canvas that asked for key information about the problem and opportunity, the proposed intervention, where and who is involved, the funding required and the impact if delivered.

·   Stage 2 (closed 2 February 2020) – Detailed application. A formal application process asking the applicant to expand on their EOI with further detail, including evidence such as needs analyses, feasibility studies, business cases, detailed design or, other supporting information as relevant to their application.

22.     Some 59 expressions of interests were received. Of those, 21 projects aligned strongly with Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund criteria. Of those 21, 17 Stage 2 submissions were received.

23.     An assessment panel comprised of Sport New Zealand and Auckland Council staff will review Stage 2 applications and a workshop will be held with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in March 2020, with their meeting to follow in April 2020.

24.     Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation have withdrawn from the assessment panel for this round as they are making an application on behalf of the multi-code Regional Indoor Court Leadership group, to procure professional services.

25.     To capture local board views the 17 projects will be workshopped with local boards to understand if the projects are supported by the relevant board. A formal resolution is required if the board endorse the project.

Unallocated Opex

26.     During the Long-term Plan (LTP) budget process, all non-Locally Driven Initiatives budgets were rolled out for the entirety of the LTP.

27.     Howick Local Board is allocated $105,000 annually under their work programme line item: sport and recreation initiatives to fund participation and sector development, responding to identified needs in the local board area.

28.     At the end of the triennium, staff reviewed the underspend against this budget and found over the previous three financial years there was a significant underspend of $157,000 remaining.

Howick Bowling Club covered greens project

29.     The total project cost is $1.6 million. Auckland Bowls has committed $600,000 towards the project. Howick Bowling Club have allocated $200,000 from club savings, and they have applied for $200,000 from external funders.

30.     Howick Bowling Club have 220 members making this one of the largest bowling clubs in Auckland.

31.     Howick Bowling Club service Howick local board area. Members come from Howick, Pakuranga, Highland Park, Dannemora, and Botany.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Option one: Do not endorse the Howick Bowling Club application

32.     Option one is to not endorse Howick Bowling Club application for $600,000 to cover two existing greens.

33.     Should the local board support Option one, the PACE committee could still approve investment into this project however this is less likely, and the project will not go ahead.

34.     Howick Local Board will not have any projects funded from the Sport and Recreation Investment Fund this financial year. 

 

Table one: Advantages and disadvantages of Option one

Advantages

Disadvantages

Howick local Board can allocate the remaining $157,000 ABS budget elsewhere.

There will be no ongoing maintenance costs for the club for covered greens.

Sub-regional, regional and national bowling tournaments will need to be hosted elsewhere.

Auckland Bowls will re-allocate the earmarked $600,000, essentially taking money out of the local board area.

The club retains the status quo which will not enhance existing facilities and there will continue to be a restricted membership capacity at the bowling club.

Option two:. Endorse the Howick Bowling Club project but do not allocate any funding

35.     Option 2 is the local board endorse Howick Bowling Club application for $600,000 to deliver two covered greens from SRFIF but do not allocate the $157,000 ABS budget towards the project.

36.     36.The Howick Bowling Club covered greens project has low alignment to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund Guidelines. Without board investment, the proposal for $600,000 from SRFIF would likely be allocated to projects with higher alignment to the guidelines.

 

Table two: Advantages and disadvantages of Option two

Advantages

Disadvantages

Howick local board can allocate the remaining $157,000 ABS budget elsewhere.

There will be no ongoing maintenance costs for the club for covered greens.

The project is unlikely to gain the $600,000 requested from SRFIF. It is unlikely the project will go ahead.

Sub-regional, regional and national bowling tournaments will need to be hosted elsewhere.

Re-allocation of the $600,000 from Auckland Bowls will occur, essentially taking money out of the local board area.

The club retains the status quo which will not enhance existing facilities and there will continue to be a restricted membership capacity at the bowling club.

Option three: Endorse the Howick Bowling Club covered greens project and allocate $157,000 ABS budget line.

37.     Option three is the local board endorse the Howick Bowling Club application for $600,000 to deliver two covered greens from SRFIF and allocate the $157,000 ABS budget towards the project.

38.     The independent assessment panel are in a better position to recommend to PACE committee to allocate funds towards the project. Deliverability of the project becomes more likely.

 

Table three: Advantages and disadvantages of Option three

Advantages

Disadvantages

Howick Local Board are likely to have a project funded by the Sport and Recreation Investment Fund during the financial year 2020.

Howick Local Board are able to secure $600,000 contribution towards the project by Auckland Bowls.

Howick Bowling Club are able to enhance existing facilities and grow membership.

Howick Local Board will have a project with high priority for Auckland Bowls completed by 2021.

Sub-regional, regional and national bowling tournaments will be able to be hosted.

The $157,000 ABS budget will be spent.

39.     The local board endorsement and allocation of $157,000 will most likely enable the Howick Bowling Club covered greens project to be completed.

40.     The projects strengths lie in its deliverability. The Howick Bowling Club covered greens project is a code plan priority and has a relatively short build time and significant funding has already been confirmed.

41.     Howick Bowls has a relatively low level of alignment with the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund criteria. The SRFIF prioritises investment into high participation or growth sports, low activity/high deprivation areas and targeted populations including Māori, Asian, girls.

42.     Securing additional local board funding would further improve its achievability. Whilst there is no guarantee, this in turn could make for a more compelling case to unlock SRFIF funding.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43.     There are no significant climate impacts anticipated in relation to this project.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44.     Stakeholder and Land Advisory are dealing with the landowner approval application.

45.     As this is a club-owned facility there will be no increase in consequential opex for the facility.

46.     There are no other anticipated council group impacts. 

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

Local impacts and local board views

47.     The regional and sub-regional nature of sport and recreation facilities that are the target of this fund mean there will likely be a multi-board impact across all projects.

48.     The input and local board views were received at a workshop held on 20 February 2020. The local board was supportive of Option three.

49.     The board identified Howick Bowling Club is a project with high deliverability, and that the allocation of $157,000 and endorsement of the project would help the project proposal to the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund be accepted.

50.     The board underlined the inclusivity of the club and their work to involve youth in the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51.     The assessment criteria developed for this fund has a stronger weighting for projects that are Māori-led, have high collaboration with Māori organisations, prioritises strategically increased participation by Māori and/or involves activities with the likelihood of high Māori participation.

52.     The 2018 census data shows that Howick Local Board area is made up of 6% Māori with 8,000 identifying as Māori.

53.     Howick Bowling Club have identified a smaller proportion of their membership is made up of Māori. They will be able to expand on this with increased capacity for playing numbers.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54.     The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund is a regional budget allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

55.     $7 million is budgeted in the 2019/2020 financial year, $7 million in the 2020/2021 financial year, $13.4 million in the 2021/2022 financial year and $13.6 million in the 2022/2023 financial year.

56.     An objective of the fund is to invest into significant capital development projects that will be delivered quickly to get Aucklanders active. But also, to develop a pipeline of projects by investing into the investigation, planning and design stages of projects. The balance between planning and capital development investment will depend on the merits of the applications received.

57.     Staff recommend Option three including the allocation of $157,000 ABS budget towards the project.

58.     The allocation of $157,000 is dependent on PACE committee approval of the project. If the SRFIF application is not successful, the board can consider other options for the $157,000.

59.     Ongoing maintenance costs of the covered greens will be met by Howick Bowling Club and has been built into their business plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

60.     The deliverability of projects is a key weighting within the criteria to be used by the assessment panel. This includes:

·   having an achievable funding plan in place

·   having the necessary skills and expertise (in-house or procured) to deliver the project

·   having ticked off any relevant key project milestones such as site tenure, consent, etc.

61.     Not all projects that apply will receive Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Funding. Some organisations have already been redirected to other funding sources as appropriate (e.g. Local Board Grants, Surf 10:20 Fund, RFA), whilst others may apply again in future rounds when their project is further developed.

62.     Some projects will not align strongly with the criteria used for the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund. However, there may be other local drivers as to why local boards and non-council funders invest in those projects. It is incumbent on all parties to set realistic expectations in regard the funding mechanisms available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63.     All the stage 2 projects will be workshopped with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in March 2020.

64.     A report will be tabled at the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee meeting in April 2020.

65.     Should Howick Bowls be allocated funding from SRFIF, a funding agreement will be developed in May/June 2020.

66.     A funding agreement will also be developed for the $157,000 allocation from the local board.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marissa Holland - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Diversity in Parks Planning report

File No.: CP2020/02230

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To adopt the Diversity in Parks Planning report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Howick Local Board seeks to improve its parks network to be inclusive spaces that provide recreational amenity for a wide range of age groups, abilities, ethnicities and genders.

3.       The board provided $25,000 LDI opex funding in 2018/2019 (HW/2018/115) to engage with a broad range of the community to identify their recreational needs and barriers to recreation.

4.       Twenty-one diverse community organisations took part in the research with 278 respondents providing feedback via online surveys, focus groups and interviews.

5.       The report identified five key insights:

·   walking is the primary use for parks for respondents across all focus groups (except youth), as well as English and Chinese language surveys and community stakeholders

·   respondents from the English language surveys and focus groups told us that activities and events are what they would most like to be doing in parks

·   Chinese, Indian and Korean residents are leaving the Howick Local Board area to access parks such as One Tree Hill and the Botanical gardens

·   a lack of safety, shelter, access, amenities, transport and maintenance were significant barriers to using parks

·   Chinese respondents told us nature is what makes parks comfortable, safe and welcoming. English language survey told us that a focus on safety and maintenance is needed.

6.       A number of these outcomes are already being delivered through the Urban Ngahere Strategy, Greenways developments, Howick’s extensive Out and About programme, renewals programming and current board funded projects.

7.       In addition, future park planning in the Howick Local Board area will work to incorporate these outcomes into design elements and provide amenity that reflects local diversity.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Receive the Diversity in Parks Planning report to inform programmes and parks development.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       Howick is one of the largest urban areas in Auckland and home to a diverse population of more than 142,000 people. New sub-division development in Ormiston and Flat Bush has seen the population grow by almost 14,000 people in five years increasing pressure on Howick’s local parks network.

9.       Providing equitable access to parks that meet the recreational needs of diverse communities has several benefits, including improving mental and physical well-being by connecting people with nature and providing space to exercise, play and socialize. Parks and open spaces also play an important part in improving social cohesion and community participation.

10.     To help better understand the recreational needs of Howick’s diverse communities, the Howick local board provided $25,000 LDI opex in the financial year 2018/2019 to engage and consult with a broad range of people. Groups included diverse ethnic peoples, people with disabilities and Rainbow Communities. Consultation with these groups focused on identifying their recreational needs and barriers to recreation.

The findings of the study will help the local board improve the parks network for the betterment of those communities that are currently not adequately provided for.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     The Diversity in Parks Planning research was conducted in five parts:

·   research scan of existing relevant New Zealand and international research

·   Auckland Council staff interviews to understand how current and future work programming may meet the needs of diverse communities

·   a stock-take of diverse community organisations within Howick Local Board area to understand their recreational needs and barriers to activation

·   online surveys to develop themes on value, use, services & barriers to activating parks

·   community workshops and focus groups to gain deeper insights.

12.     Twenty-one diverse community organisations took part in the research with 278 respondents providing feedback via online surveys, focus groups and interviews.

13.     Research findings identified the primary reasons for park visits, which include:

·   walking - primary activity for all respondents except youth

·   connecting with nature - featured highly, particularly for Chinese respondents.

14.     Key insights indicate that provision of the following activities, events and services would increase usage of the park network by diverse communities:

·   exercise & fitness equipment

·   play equipment

·   free wifi 

·   connection with nature

·   improved safety – perceptions of crime present barriers to recreation

·   fenced dog-exercise areas – featured high among youth respondents

·   increased shade provision – high priority for Asian respondents

·   gender neutral toilet facilities – rainbow communities

·   intergenerational gathering spaces – provision of shade, shelter, picnic tables, BBQs, accessible pathways and toilets to facilitate family gatherings in large groups

·   free activities and events - markets, cultural festivals, exercise classes, nature activities, music, movies, arts and dance featured highly for Chinese respondents.

15.     The following local board supported projects, programmes and business as usual activities, including renewals, provide current opportunities to deliver Diversity report findings:

·   Play Service Assessment – The local board funded development of a Play Service Assessment in 2019/2020 to guide renewals programming and identify capex investment opportunities to develop a board-wide, diverse network of playspaces that support visitation for a wide range of age-groups and abilities. The report will also identify opportunities to develop wheeled play and exercise facilities and play for teen girls. Findings of the assessment will be discussed with the board later in the current financial year.

·   shade provision - The Urban Ngahere Strategy identifies opportunities to increase tree canopy coverage across the local board area to provide shade, reduce urban heat, improve biodiversity and ecology and sequester carbon. Playground renewals and park improvement projects present opportunities to deliver Urban Ngahere Strategy outcomes.

·   greenways and pathway renewals – provide improved access to the parks network through delivery of at-grade, all weather walking and cycling networks. Cascades walkway and Rotary Walkway present accessibility improvement opportunities.

·   fenced dog exercise areas – currently under review by Community Facilities

·   Howick’s Out and About Programme - features a calendar of approximately 60 events providing for a range of age-groups, abilities and audiences, events include doggy day out, wild child, circus in the park, fitness classes, girls skate clinics and art in the park. There is opportunity to increase this programme to provide for diverse communities.

16.     In the future, the report findings and feedback will also help shape concept plans plus renewal projects as and when they come online. For example; Barry Curtis Park was one of the sites where research respondents provided detailed feedback. They acknowledged the investment made to provide lighting and pathway connections but indicated that the park fails to provide for their recreational needs. Specifically, the park is too desolate, lacks shade, has negative perceptions of safety and is underutilised by Asian communities.

17.     The future renewal of Barry Curtis Park playground should include an intergenerational social space that provides for increased visitation from the nearby Ormiston Town Centre. Outcomes sought include:

·   play opportunities for a wide range of age-groups and abilities

·   sheltered inter-generational gathering space

·   shade from large specimen trees

·   BBQ’s and picnic areas

·   exercise equipment for a wide age range

·   accessible pathway networks.

18.     It is recommended that a similar approach is taken for the renewal of major assets at other destination parks such as Lloyd Elsmore Park and Macleans Park.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     The recommendations in this report present opportunities to reduce carbon output by making sustainable choices in asset solutions that utilise hard-wearing materials to reduce operational maintenance and increase asset life. Tree planting in-line with the Urban Ngahere Strategy will sequester carbon, reduce rainfall runoff and manage urban heat.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     The report findings have been socialised with other departments including Community Facilities so that future parks planning reflects community need and diversity.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21.     At a June 2019 workshop the findings of the Diversity in Parks Planning report was discussed with the local board who provided feedback on the options presented.

22.     In particular, the board supported the development of an accessible park network in line with the adopted greenways plan. The board also recommended the planning of enhanced recreational provision for Murphy’s Bush Sports Park and Murphy’s Bush Reserve.

23.     In line with this recommendation, Parks, Sports and Recreation has in FY 2019/20 delivered a programme of activation for families at Murphy’s Bush Reserve. Community Facilities have prepared a draft concept plan in the current financial year which when adopted will steer development of Murphy’s Bush Sports Park.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24.     Parks are of fundamental importance to iwi, their culture and traditions. Development of the parks network to provide appropriate recreational provision will benefit mana whenua and the wider community through increased opportunities to exercise, recreate and connect with nature.

25.     Mana whenua engagement will take place at a project level to ensure park development reflects the needs of iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26.     While findings from the Diversity in Parks Planning report will drive future parks planning outcomes, no budget is currently required to fund specific project outcomes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27.     Howick local board seeks to improve its parks network to be inclusive spaces that provide recreational amenity for a wide range of age groups, abilities, ethnicities and genders.

28.     Adoption of the Diversity in Parks Planning report presents a meaningful step towards realising this objective.

29.     Failure to adopt the report and fund identified outcomes will restrict the ability to develop the parks network for the benefit of diverse communities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.     Community Services and Community Facilities will identify future renewals projects that can incorporate diversity outcomes and potentially incorporate increased levels of service in order to improve outcomes for the culturally diverse Howick Community.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Diversity in Parks Planning Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Steve Owens - Parks and Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework -  Proposed changes

File No.: CP2020/02855

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to outline key amendments to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework and to obtain the local board’s views.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee resolved to develop an integrated climate action plan for the Auckland region (ENV/2018/11).

3.       To meet this requirement, Auckland Council led the development of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework, (ACAF) with extensive collaboration and engagement with mana whenua, public, private and voluntary sectors.

4.       In June 2019, the Environment and Community Committee approved a consultation draft of ACAF and associated materials.

5.       In February 2020, a memorandum was circulated to share key findings from the public consultation (Attachments A and B).

6.       To address the feedback from the consultation, this report outlines key structural changes proposed for the framework including:

·   introducing three pillars representing the core drivers to which all actions will align (i.e., a place-based approach; emissions reduction; preparing for climate change)

·   moving from eleven key moves to eight priorities to streamline actions and address feedback.

7.       It is also proposed that the title of the document is changed from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan to reflect feedback and the greater focus on the impact of actions against our climate goals and roles in delivery. In addition, this provides certainty for roles and responsibilities with regards to implementation.

8.       The proposed changes meet the requirements of a climate action plan as defined by C40 Cities.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the changes to the draft Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework including:

·   introducing three pillars representing the core drivers for climate action (i.e., a place-based approach; emissions reduction; preparing for climate change)

·   moving from eleven key moves to eight priorities

·   changing the title from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee resolved to develop an integrated climate action plan for the Auckland region, addressing both emissions reduction (i.e. mitigation) and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate (i.e. adaptation) (ENV/2018/11).

10.     To meet this requirement, Auckland Council led the development of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework, (ACAF) with extensive collaboration and engagement with mana whenua, public, private and voluntary sectors, reaching hundreds of Aucklanders.

11.     Local board engagement and insights were sought throughout development of the framework, including meetings and cluster workshops. A summary of feedback from local boards is available in Attachments C and D.

12.     In June 2019, the Environment and Community Committee approved the consultation draft of ACAF and associated materials.

13.     In February 2020, a memo was circulated to all local boards to share key findings from the public consultation on the draft ACAF (Attachment A and B).

14.     This report provides an overview of key proposed changes to the draft ACAF to address the feedback received through the consultation. Local Board views will be reflected in the final version, which will be reported to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in May 2020.

15.     More detailed changes reported in the consultation summary are not repeated here but will be reflected in text changes in the final version.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     The proposed changes to ACAF have been informed by consultation feedback received on the draft document.  Some key themes that arose include:

·   Urgency and scale of action needs to be better articulated

·   Lack of clarity on how key moves work together and how they address our climate goals. In addition it was felt that there are too many

·   Need to be clearer about roles and responsibilities with a request for more information on who is responsible for actions at each level

·   Need for partnership working across sectors and with central government and mana whenua in particular

·   Greater focus on equity across feedback points

·   Need for a strong Māori voice with widespread support for working with Māori, using mātauranga Māori and Māori practices in designing and implementing climate action

·   Need for a system shift and scale of change required, and to better articulate this with Aucklanders

·   Need for communication and behaviour change and a request for campaigns to raise awareness across the region and enable action at an individual level

·   Need for a significant shift in transport (of all key moves) with the identified actions supported but a need for these to be delivered at pace and scale.

17.     To address this feedback a number of key structural changes are proposed.

18.     The first of these is establish three core drivers for action – our ‘pillars’ (Attachment E).  These provide greater clarity on the goals of the framework and all actions will align to how they deliver against these goals:

·     A Tāmaki response: This pillar reflects the uniqueness of Auckland and our place-based response to climate change.  It is informed by learning from Māori principles and practice, provides a greater focus on equity and a better definition of roles and responsibilities and collective action across governance and sectors.

·   Reducing our emissions: This pillar reflects the need to provide greater clarity on our emissions target and the need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.  It improves alignment with the actions and how we will deliver and prioritise emissions reductions.

·   Preparing for climate change: This pillar enables a greater focus on how we will approach climate change adaptation and take a precautionary approach for the region and also provides greater alignment with the actions.

19.     The second structural change is that the eleven key moves are streamlined into eight priorities (Attachment F). This proposed change is to address feedback on where areas are more foundational and therefore should be embedded throughout all priority areas, or where there is confusion and overlap.

·   it is proposed that Key Move 3: Make development and infrastructure climate compatible and Key Move 4: Transform existing buildings and places are combined into a single built environment priority area

·   it is proposed that Key Move 1: Lay the foundation is embedded into our three pillars in recognition of the cross-cutting nature of the actions

·   similarly, Key Move 9- Rangatahi (Youth & Inter-generational equity) is embedded into pillar 1 to reflect the need to consider actions across the framework.

20.     Actions contained within Key Moves 1 and 9 will still be maintained and reflected in the updated document.

21.     Actions contained within Key Moves 1-11 will be carried through into Priorities 1-8 (Figure 2) and updated to:

·   clarify any ambiguities that were raised in consultation 

·   remove repetition or overlapping actions

·   make additions in response to consultation feedback

·   strengthen alignment to delivery of the three pillars.

22.     Overall, the intent of the actions between the Key Moves 1-11 and Priority areas 1-8, remain the same. Attachment G briefly summarises how the actions have changed from the consultation document to the updated priority areas.

23.     It is also proposed that the title of the document is changed from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan to reflect feedback and the greater focus on the impact of actions against our climate goals and roles in delivery. In addition, this provides certainty for roles and responsibilities with regards to implementation.

24.     The proposed changes meet the requirements of a climate action plan as defined by C40 Cities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     The changes identified in this report have been made to reflect feedback received and updated emissions modelling. As such, they will further deliver and strengthen climate action already identified.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     Regular meetings and workshops took place across the council group for development of the framework.

27.     In addition, a working group was established from the outset to provide expertise from across the council group, central government and district health boards.

28.     This group has continued to provide input post-consultation and has reviewed and provided input into the proposed changes.

29.     In addition, the team has been working closely across the Council group in the development of costed actions for consideration in the Long-term Plan. This process is running concurrently with the finalisation of the plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     The framework will have implications for all local boards.

31.     In June 2018, the Chief Sustainability Office attended workshops of 19 of the 21 local boards and obtained informal email feedback from the other two local boards to identify their main priorities related to climate change. This was followed up in September 2018 at cluster workshops to assess and test a series of ‘must haves’, which were the precursors to the actions included in the draft framework.

32.     Priorities included:

·   coastal erosion and inundation concerns

·   affordable and accessible transport

·   long-term infrastructure development to consider climate impacts

·   better stormwater management

·   climate-related education and awareness

·   building community resilience

·   for Auckland Council to lead by example.

33.     This report seeks Local Board formal views on proposed changes to the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework outlined in this report. These views will be reflected in the final version.

34.     Local boards will be key in taking climate action at a local level. Support will be provided for local board planning and alignment with outcomes.

35.     The Chief Sustainability Office and Quality Advice Unit will implement a programme of work for the whole council family to provide guidance and training on how to embed climate action in Local Board plans and what to expect in climate impact statements.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36.     Climate change impacts and associated policy and action will have significant impacts for Māori communities.

37.     A Tāmaki and climate change subject matter expert rōpū (group) was established in March 2019 which has been supporting and advising mana whenua and council on climate change issues for Māori and providing direct advice and narrative for the draft framework.

38.     A rangatahi Māori and Pasifika rōpū has also been working in partnership with council on this kaupapa to develop rangatahi-focused actions for the framework.

39.     A joint mana whenua and Māori expert task group is finalising a Tāmaki and climate change position paper, Te ora ō Tāmaki, which will be used as the bridging document to weave key anchor points into the climate action framework. 

40.     Anchor points include:

·   weaving the narrative into the framework, specifically the following sections: Climate change and Māori, Impacts on Māori and Developing the Plan with Māori

·   a section developed by rangatahi (the Youth and intergenerational equity key move)

·   a separate key move of Te puawaitanga o te tangata (Resilient Māori communities).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     Actions within the framework will result in budgetary implications for organisations across the region; identifying and unlocking appropriate funding and financing streams in the future will be critical. 

42.     Taking climate action will require a range of finance and/or funding mechanisms. For instance, green bonds have been a useful tool for financing council-owned assets such as electric trains but investment in clean tech may require crowd-sourcing, grants or venture capital.

43.     To support this, a climate finance work package is underway to identify partnerships and broader funding mechanisms across actions such as bonds, grants, equity instruments and public/private partnerships.

44.     The final framework and specific Auckland Council actions being developed will need to inform on-going Long-term Plan discussions to support delivery and avoid costs associated with inaction, such as increased maintenance costs and infrastructure failures through to missed opportunities to Auckland’s economy in delivering the transition. 

45.     Not all actions within council’s remit will require additional budget. Some actions can result in long-term cost avoidance – for example electrifying fleets can reduce fuel and maintenance costs. Some actions could require existing funds to be redirected if priorities change.

46.     Also, not all actions will require funding, for example those related to advocacy to central government or expert input into actions led by other organisations.

47.     The costs associated with different council-specific actions will consider funding sources as described above.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48.     No high or extreme risks have been identified with the proposed approach.

49.     Moderate risks exist, including:

·   preparing for the implications of climate change may not comply with current rules and regulations

·   potential strategic risk with non-alignment with New Zealand Government direction and policy

·   potential governance risk in shared leadership and ownership of the framework across sectors.

50.     A risk mitigation plan has been developed to address the above, including targeted engagement approaches, a legal review of the final framework, on-going partnership with central government and establishment of clear governance structures for the implementation of the framework.. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51.     Workshops will be held in April 2020 with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and Independent Māori Statutory Board to discuss updated framework text, and the final text will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for approval in May 2020.

52.     The draft digital plan layout will be workshopped with the Environment and Climate Change Committee in June 2020 and finalised in July 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation Summary Memo

65

b

Consultation Summary (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Engagement Summary - Local Board workshops June 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Engagement Summary - Local Board Cluster workshops October 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Proposed Three Pillars

69

f

Proposed Eight Priorities

71

g

Proposed Priority Areas and Actions

73

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Anderson - Principal Specialist Sustainability and Climate Resilence

Lauren Simpson - Principal Sustainability & Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor – General Manager, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Local Board feedback to the Independent Council-Controlled Organisations Review

File No.: CP2020/02937

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for local boards to provide formal feedback on the Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Review to the Independent Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Governing Body approved the Terms of Reference for an Independent Panel to undertake a review of substantive CCOs at its meeting on 26 November 2019 [GB/2019/127].

3.       The review covers Auckland Transport, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, Panuku Development Auckland, Regional Facilities Auckland and Watercare.  The overall objectives are to examine:

•    whether CCOs are an effective and efficient model for delivering services to the council and Aucklanders, and

•    whether the CCO decision-making model provides sufficient political oversight, public transparency and accountability.

4.       The review asks the Independent Panel to examine three areas: the CCO model and its accompanying roles and responsibilities; the accountability of CCOs; and CCO culture.

5.       The Independent Panel is seeking the views of local boards on these areas.

6.       Local boards are advised that their views are requested by the Independent Panel by 3 April 2020.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provide formal feedback on the Council-Controlled Organisations Review to the Independent Panel.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The Governing Body approved the CCO review Terms of Reference on 26 November 2019 [GB/2019/127]. The Independent Panel was appointed by the Governing Body on 12 December 2019 and is comprised of Miriam Dean, Doug Martin and Leigh Auton. Miriam Dean has been appointed panel chair [GB/2019/149].

8.       Briefings on the CCO Review were provided to local board chairs in December 2019 by staff and in February 2020 by panel member Leigh Auton. The panel wrote to local board chairs in February asking for advice on what constitutes good engagement between CCOs and local boards.  

9.       Monthly updates on the review are reported to the CCO Oversight Committee and circulated to all local boards.

10.     The Independent Panel is seeking comprehensive engagement to obtain a range of views about the issues forming the subject of the review (Attachment A). Community engagement on the review is occurring alongside the Annual Budget 2020/2021 in February/March 2020. An engagement document has been developed and a summary document has been translated into five languages and a New Zealand Sign Language video. A webpage[1] provides information on the review, including stakeholder updates, relevant documents (including the Terms of Reference) and a contact for further information.

11.     All feedback on the CCO Review will be provided to the Independent Panel. The Panel will report on the key issues and community and stakeholder feedback in May and will provide a final report and recommendations in July 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     To identify the scope of their work, the Independent Panel has distilled the essence of the review terms into a list of issues, that forms the basis of the engagement and eventual report. The list and prompts, at Attachment A, provide a structure for local boards to give feedback.

13.     The three key areas of focus set out in the list of issues are:

Table one: Key areas of focus from the list of issues

Issue

Area of Focus

CCO model, roles and responsibilities

The essential question here is whether the CCO model delivers council services with the maximum of operational efficiency, transparency and accountability, or whether there are better ways to deliver such services

CCO accountability

Here the key question is whether the council’s current approach to holding CCOs to account on behalf of Aucklanders could be improved

CCO culture

The central issue here is whether CCOs need to improve how they consult, engage with and respond to the wider community and council

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14.     Local boards have an opportunity to consider suggestions that might improve climate change outcomes/mitigation in their feedback on the CCO Review.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15.     The Independent Panel is engaging across the council group on the review, including:

·    the chair of the independent panel wrote introducing the panel and the review objectives to all CCO chairs and chief executives, councillors, local board chairs, chief executive of IMSB and the co-chairs of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on 20 December 2019

·    the panel met briefly with the CCO chief executives and chairs on 28 January 2020 to discuss the proposed review process and CCO engagement. Each CCO was asked to provide the panel with key stakeholders/customers

·    individual meetings have taken place with CCO chief executives and board chairs over February and March 2020, and the panel is meeting with CCO stakeholders.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16.     Local board formal feedback on the CCO Review, including issues experienced with CCOs, good practice and options for improvement, is sought by the Independent Panel by 3 April 2020.

17.     Material on the CCO Review was available at Have your Say local board events for the Annual Budget.

18.     Following the conclusion of the Independent Panel’s review, as part of the development of the next 10-year budget, local boards will have the opportunity to provide formal views on any proposals for change to the CCO model.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19.     Staff presented to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on 19 December 2019. The panel met with one of the Forum co-chairs and mana whenua are invited to provide feedback to the panel.  Mana whenua have also been invited to a hui with panel members on 18 March 2020.

20.     The panel has met with the Independent Māori Statutory Board. 

21.     Panel members spoke on Radio Waatea to promote Māori interest and feedback on the CCO review. Material on the CCO review is being provided at mataawaka events for the Annual Budget and mataawaka organisations have been briefed on the review during the public engagement period. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     There are no financial implications from this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     There are no risks associated with the recommendations in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     The Independent Panel is due to report on key issues, community and stakeholder feedback in May and to provide a final report, with recommendations, in July 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Independent Council-Controlled Organisations Review list of issues

79

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Gomas - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Approval for 12 new road names for Stages 10A and 10B, 12, and 13 at Donegal Glen in Flat Bush.

File No.: CP2020/02545

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Howick Local Board to name 12 new roads created by way of a subdivision development for Stages 10A & 10B, 12, and 13 at Donegal Glen in Flat Bush.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       This report is a re-submission of a road naming application that was deferred by the Howick Local Board in February 2020 due to the board’s concerns around pronunciation of the eight proposed names; why the developer did not gain formal approval of the names back in 2017; and for council staff to outline how this will not create a precedent for developers to do this in future. A memo was provided to the local board to address the board’s concerns and the road naming process in general. On 27 February 2020, the board indicated that they would likely approve these 8 road names at their next meeting in March 2020.

4.       Formal approval is also sought for four names within stages 12 and 13. These four names were not included in the original report as the developer could only confirm stages 10A and 10B at the time the report was to be submitted to meet the February local board meeting agenda deadline.

5.       The developer has since confirmed stages 10, 12, and 13, including names that seek retrospective local board to approval. The developer has confirmed the remaining names on the 2017 resolution have not been used in the remaining stages.

6.       Any of the twelve proposed road name options would be acceptable for the local board to approve for use in this location, having been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council’s 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.

7.       The developer and applicant, Hugh Green Group has proposed the names presented in the tables below for consideration by the local board:

Table one: Donegal Glen Stages 10A & 10B Road names

Road Reference

Preferred Names      

Road Type

ROAD 1

Ballyliffin

Drive

ROAD 2

Clonmany

Road

ROAD 3

Bushfield

Drive

ROAD 4

Tannaghmore

Drive

ROAD 5

Drumnaconagher

Drive

COAL 1

Corveen

Crescent

COAL 2

Cumber

Lane

COAL 3

Glann

Lane

Table two: Donegal Glen Stage 12 Road names

Road Reference

Preferred Names

Road Type

ROAD 1

Drumaness

Road

COAL 1

Rossbeg

Lane

COAL 2

Knock

Lane

Table three: Donegal Glen Road name extending through Stages 12 & 13

Road Reference

Preferred Names

Road Type

ROAD 1

Dungloe

Avenue

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      approve 8 names for the following new roads at the Donegal Glen Stage 10A & 10B development site in Flat Bush, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references SUB60304960, and stage variation SUB60304960-A):

i.   ROAD 1: Ballyliffin Drive

ii.  ROAD 2: Clonmany Road

iii.  ROAD 3: Bushfield Drive

iv. ROAD 4: Tannaghmore Drive

v.  ROAD 5: Tannaghmore Drive

vi. COAL 1: Corveen Crescent

vii. COAL 2: Cumber Lane

viii.     COAL 3: Glann Lane

b)      approve 3 names for the following new roads at the Donegal Glen Stage 12 development site in Flat Bush, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60344688 and SUB60344689):

i.   Drumaness Road

ii.  Rossbeg Lane

iii.  Knock Lane

c)      approve the name ‘Dungloe Avenue’ for ‘ROAD 1’ extending through the Donegal Glen Stage 12 & 13 development site in Flat Bush, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60344688 and SUB60344689).

 

Horopaki

Context

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

9.       In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), the commonly owned access lots (COALs) require road names as they each serve more than five lots.

10.     In April 2017, 11 road names were approved by the Howick Local Board for the Donegal Glen development in Flat Bush for stages 9 & 11. As part of the resolution (HW/2017/50), 21 additional names were included that had been presented to the local board for review so that they could be reserved for use in the later stages of the development yet to be completed. The local board had reviewed these additional names and offered no objections to their use. The names met all road naming criteria, but could not be formally approved as the associated development stages were not yet ready.

11.     However, the developer misinterpreted the April 2017 resolution (HW/2017/50) and considered that the list of 21 alternative names, that had only been checked and reserved in principle, had been formally approved. They wanted to use some of these alternative names for Stages 10A & 10B, 12, and 13 of the Donegal Glen development and marketed the properties for sale under the assumed addresses and new road names.

12.     On 17 February 2020 a road naming report was presented to the Howick Local Board for the approval of eight road names for the Donegal Glen development (Stages 10A & 10B). These eight names were from the list of additional names noted in resolution HW/2017/50.

13.     The local board deferred their decision (HW/2020/17) due to concerns around pronunciation of the eight names; why the developer did not gain formal approval of the names back in 2017; and for the council staff to outline how this does not create a precedent for developers to do this in future.

14.     A memo was provided to the local board on 25 February 2020 to address the board’s concerns and the road naming process in general. On 27 February 2020, the board indicated that they would likely approve these eight road names at their next meeting on 16 March 2020. This report is therefore a resubmission for the local board approval of the eight names for stages 10A and 10B.

15.     Also included in this report are four names for Stages 12 and 13 which require formal approval. These four names were also from the list of additional names noted in resolution HW/2017/50 that the developer misinterpreted as ‘pre-approved’.

16.     The February report only included Stages 10A & 10B, as at the time of writing the report, these were the only stages council staff had confirmed that the developer was using from the 2017 resolution. It was noted in the February report that once the developer had confirmed which other names were being used; an additional road naming report would be submitted in the near future for the remaining stages requiring formal approval.

17.     Only Stages 10, 12, and 13 include names seeking retrospective local board approval. The developer has confirmed the remaining names on the 2017 resolution have not been used in the remaining stages.

18.     All 12 names are still acceptable for use, having been re-assessed against the national addressing standards for both duplication and clarity.

19.     Since the road naming criteria has not changed since 2017 when all the alternative names from resolution HW/2017/50 were first submitted to the local board, and the development has had no changes, all the names included in this report are still suitable to the local board to approve.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     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.

21.     Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Maori names being actively encouraged:

·   a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

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

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

22.     Background and reason for proposed names (as described by applicant):

“Greerton Holdings Limited/Hugh Green Limited is 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 1980’s.

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 town lands from Hugh Green’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest.

This is consistent with our recently developed Donegal Glen stage 7 at 40 Hughs Way which was completed in December 2015 and includes the street names Casheltown Way, Banrsmore Road, Ballykerrigan Road, Drumbuoy Drive, Creggan Crescent, Clogfin Place, Drumfad Road and Mullafin Road – all named after places in Donegal. We note the adjacent development has continued this same road name theme.

Donegal Glen Stages 1 - 6 at 89 Flat Bush School Road which was completed in 2014, this development includes the street names Castlederg Drive, Kiltole Drive, Moville Drive and Cranford Drive, Bruckless Drive, Castletown Drive and Dunkineely Drive etc.

Point View Park subdivision at 132 Flat Bush School Road (opposite 89 Flat Bush School Road) which was completed in 2009. This development includes the street names Arranmore Drive, Coolaghy Drive, Clady Drive, Listack Place, Gortnest Place, Greeve Place and Kerrykeel Drive – all named after places in Donegal.

Similarly we have completed developments at the corner of Thomas and Chapel Roads (1998 – 2004). These subdivisions include the street names Donegal Park Drive, Carrick Glen Avenue, Liscooley Drive, Drumbeg Close, Dunaff Place, etc.

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. The land in this instance has been retained and farmed by the Hugh Green Group of companies since 1996.”

23.     The Applicant’s proposed names are set out in the table below:

Table four: Donegal Glen Stages 10A & 10B Proposed Road names

Road Reference

Preferred Names

Meaning

ROAD 1

Ballyliffin Drive

The proposed names come from Hugh Green Limited’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest. The company have developed other sites in the area, with roads which are all also named after towns of County Donegal. The proposed names are in line with this established theme in the local area.

ROAD 2

Clonmany Road

ROAD 3

Bushfield Drive

ROAD 4

Tannaghmore Drive

ROAD 5

Drumnaconagher Drive

COAL 1

Corveen Crescent

COAL 2

Cumber Lane

COAL 3

Glann Lane

Table five: Donegal Glen Stage 12 Proposed Road names

Road Reference

Preferred Names

Meaning

ROAD 1

Drumaness Road

The proposed names come from Hugh Green Limited’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest. The proposed names are in line with this established theme in the local area.

COAL 1

Rossbeg Lane

COAL 2

Knock Lane

Table six: Donegal Glen Road name extending through Stages 12 & 13

Road Reference

Preferred Names

Meaning

ROAD 1

Dungloe Avenue

The proposed names come from Hugh Green Limited’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest. The proposed names are in line with this established theme in the local area.

24.     The names proposed by the applicant have been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council’s 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 suitability of the names within the local context.

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

26.     All the road types are acceptable for the new private and public roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

27.     All the names used in Stages 10A & 10B, 12 and 13 were sent to all the iwi groups for consultation as part of that Stages 11 and 9 road naming application. Te Ahiwaru responded, deferring interest to Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, who in turn did not respond. No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     The review sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

32.     All the names used in Stages 10A & 10B, 12 and 13 were sent to all the iwi groups for consultation as part of that stages 11 and 9 road naming application. Te Ahiwaru responded, deferring interest to Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, who in turn did not respond. No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     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

34.     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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Master site plan of all stages, including stage 10

89

b

Site plan of stages 12 & 13

91

c

Location plan of stages 10A & 10B, 12 & 13

93

d

2017 Resolution HW.201.50

95

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Urgent Decision Howick Local Board - to provide feedback on the Auckland Council draft submission to the Justice Committee's inquiry into the 2019 local elections

File No.: CP2020/02543

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note that an urgent decision was made to provide Howick Local Board feedback on the Auckland Council draft submission to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 9 December 2019 the Howick Local Board resolved (HW/2019/159) the following in relation to urgent decision-making:

     That the Howick Local Board:

a)      adopt the urgent decision-making process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum;

b)      delegate authority to the chair and deputy chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board;

c)      agree that the relationship manager, chair and deputy chair (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the urgent decision-making process by signing off the authorisation memo;

d)      note that all urgent decisions will be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

3.       An urgent decision was required in this instance because the feedback needed to be provided by 5pm Wednesday 19 February 2020, in order to be included in the Auckland Council submission which was to be approved by the Governing Body at its meeting on 27 February 2020, prior to the next scheduled Howick Local Board meeting on Monday 16 March 2020. The memo authorising the use of the urgent decision process is included in this report as Attachment A.

4.       On 19 February 2020 the chair and deputy chair made an urgent decision on behalf of the board to provide Howick Local Board feedback on the Auckland Council draft submission to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections. The urgent decision is included in this report as Attachment B.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the urgent decision made on 19 February 2020 to provide feedback on the Auckland Council draft submission to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections.

b)      note their support of the draft submission and the feedback provided as follows:

i)        that more innovative ways of encouraging voter turn-out be explored, including a safe, secure on-line voting system.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Authorisation Memo

99

b

Urgent Decision of the Howick Local Board

101

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


 


 


 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2020/00179

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Howick Local Board with its updated governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Howick Local Board is in Attachment A.  The calendar is updated monthly, reported to meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·   ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities;

·   clarifying what advice is expected and when; and

·   clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work calendar

107

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

Workshop records

File No.: CP2020/00182

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This item attaches the workshop records taken for the period stated below.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Under Standing Order 12.1 workshop records shall record the names of members attending and a statement summarising the nature of the information received, and nature of matters discussed.  No resolutions are passed, or decisions reached but are solely for the provision of information and discussion.

3.       This report attaches the workshop records for the period stated below.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for workshops held on 13, 20 and 27 February 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Workshop record 13 February 2020

111

b

Workshop record 20 February 2020

113

c

Workshop record 27 February 2020

115

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager for Franklin and Howick Local Boards

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 


Howick Local Board

16 March 2020

 

 

    

    



[1] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/council-controlled-organisations/Pages/review-of-council-controlled-organisations.aspx