Agenda of Ōrākei Local Board

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Ōrākei Local Board held on Thursday, 19 March 2020, be confirmed as true and correct.

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 Ōrākei 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.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ōrākei Local Board

16 April 2020

Variation of Community Lease to St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated, St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers

File No.: CP2020/03487

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a variation of the community lease to St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated for St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated has a community lease with Auckland Council for part of St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers. The lease commenced on 1 December 1997 for an initial term of 15 years to 30 November 2012. The lease contains one 15 year right of renewal which was exercised in 2012. Final expiry of the lease is 30 November 2027.

3. Pursuant to clause 14.7 of the lease agreement, the club applied to the council on 1 August 2019 to vary the hours for the sale and supply of liquor on the premises. It seeks to do this as it relies on the income from the hireage of its bar and facilities to maintain its building and support club activities.

4. Clause 14.8 states the days and times for when alcohol may be sold or supplied on the premises. A variation to the lease is required to record the time changes and include a smoke-free policy clause. The club has agreed to the variations.

5. The matter was workshopped with the local board in September 2019 where members informally indicated their agreement to the variation, by amending the times in clause 14.8 to reflect the proposed changes. The business report could not be progressed at that time due to the election period.

6. This report was re-workshopped on 29 January 2020 with the newly elected Local Board who questioned the need for clauses 14.7 and 14.8 in the lease agreement noting that the District Licensing Committee holds jurisdiction over the granting or variation of alcohol licenses not local boards. They wish to separate licencing matters allowing the sale of liquor from the general provisions in a lease.

7. Clause 14.7 refers to the requirement for the group to obtain the council’s written consent prior to applying for a new liquor license or varying an existing liquor license. This clause should remain in the lease.

8. Clause 14.8 states the days and times for the sale and supply of alcohol from the premises which are criteria that will be set by the District Licencing Committee. Clause 14.8 is therefore not required and can be removed from the lease. Details of days and hours for the sale and supply of liquor from the premises will be in the license to the group.

9. This report recommends approving a variation of community lease to St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated to remove clause 14.8, and to include a smoke-free clause to the lease.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) approve a variation of the community lease to St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated, located on part of St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers (Attachment A), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) the existing clause 14.8 be deleted.

ii) that a new clause recognising that the club will be adhering to the provisions of the council’s Smoke-free Policy 2013 be included.

b) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Deed of Lease dated 1 December 1997 and any subsequent renewals.

Horopaki

Context

10. This report considers variations to the community lease to St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated (the club) which is located on part of St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

St Heliers Bay Reserve

12. St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated occupies part of the land on St Heliers Bay Reserve marked “C” on SO 66921 - 5551 m2 - Part NA128/8 (Part-Cancelled) and held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Reserves Act 1977 as a classified recreation reserve.

13. Located next to the tennis club are the St Heliers Bowling Club and St Heliers Bay Croquet Club. The bowling club holds a liquor licence and their lease provides for liquor sales between the hours of 8:30am and 10:30pm on any day of the week.

St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated

14. St Heliers Tennis Club Incorporated has a community lease with Auckland Council for part of St Heliers Bay Reserve, 3 Goldie Street, St Heliers. The lease commenced on 1 December 1997 for an initial term of 15 years to 30 November 2012. The lease contains one 15 year right of renewal which was exercised in 2012 and final expiry of the lease is 30 November 2027.

15. In accordance with clause 14.7 of the agreement, the club provided written notice to the council on 1 August 2019 of its application to the council’s Alcohol Licensing team to vary its liquor license hours.

16. The club owns the building and occasionally hires out the facility to its members or the public for private functions, hence the request to vary liquor sale and supply times to reflect the need for this service.

17. The club relies on the income from hireage of its bar and facilities to support the upkeep and maintenance of its building, and its activities.

18. Under clause 14.8, the sale and supply of alcohol is permitted during the following days and times: Monday to Thursday 5pm to 10pm, and Friday to Sunday 2pm to 7pm. The club seeks a variation to clause 14.8 to record the extended hours as follows: Monday to Thursday 4pm to 10pm and Friday to Sunday 2pm – 11pm.

19. The club is an incorporated society and is affiliated to Tennis Auckland Incorporated which is associated to Tennis New Zealand, the governing body of the sport of tennis in New Zealand.

20. The club is currently meeting its obligations under the terms of the current lease and has not been in breach of these. It has a history of delivering its services to the local community and is financially viable.

21. Pursuant to clauses 14.7 and 14.8, a variation to the lease is required to record the time changes for the sale of liquor.

22. The club has also agreed to include a new clause in the lease that it will apply the provisions of the council’s smoke-free policy.

Jurisdiction over liquor license matters

23. Orākei Local Board members expressed their informal support for the proposed variation of community lease via correspondence on 20 September 2019, to amend clause 14.8 to record the changed times for the sale and supply of liquor.

24. Orākei Local Board members at the workshop on 29 January 2020 discussed the necessity for clauses 14.7 and 14.8 to remain, noting that the District Licensing Committee holds jurisdiction over the granting or variation of alcohol licenses not local boards. Board Members considered that separate licencing matters, allowing the sale of liquor from the general provisions in a lease, is appropriate.

25. The board expressed its informal support for the variation to remove clause 14.8 from the lease agreement, and for the group to apply directly to the District Licensing Committee for a variation to its liquor license.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. There is no impact on Green House Gas emissions as the variation does not introduce any new source of emissions.

27. Climate change is unlikely to impact the lease as the site does not sit within a flooding zone or near the coast.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Staff have obtained input from other Community Facilities teams and departments including Parks, Sports and Recreation, Sports Parks, and Operational Management and Maintenance. No concerns were raised.

29. The proposed variation of community lease has no identified impact on other parts of the council group.

30. The views of council-controlled organisations are not required for the preparation of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. The Orākei Local Board is the allocated authority to approve the granting of a variation of community lease.

32. The recommendations within this report support the Orākei Local Board 2017 plan outcomes:

- Outcome 1: Our local parks and open space areas are valued and enjoyed

- Outcome 2: Our residents are proud of their community facilities and public spaces

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. There are no changes in use and the change of operational activities is minor, so no consultation is required.

34. The objective of community leases is to ensure community facilities are well maintained and accessible to all members of the community, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There is no direct cost to Auckland Council in granting this variation of community lease.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. Where a group meets the criteria stipulated in the lease agreement, council is obligated to not unreasonably withhold consent to a proposed variation.

37. If the variation of lease is not approved, clauses 14.7 and 14.8 would contradict future endorsed changes by the District Licensing Committee to the group. The lease would also fail to recognise that the club is adhering to the provisions of the council Smoke-Free Policy 2013.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. Subject to the local board approving a variation of community lease, council staff will work with key representatives of the club to finalise the deed of variation of community lease.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A site plan of leased premises	11

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Valerie Vui - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Ōrākei Local Boards

Ōrākei Local Board

16 April 2020

Ōrākei Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/03754

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Ōrākei Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year.

4. This report presents the Ōrākei Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021 for adoption (see Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) adopt the Ōrākei Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt its own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan

· specific local board grant priorities

· which grant types will operate, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing dates

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. Once the local board grants programme 2020/2021 has been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria and eligibility with be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which includes utilising the local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The new Ōrākei Local Board Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2020/2021.

10. The new grant programme includes the additional wording:

· community activities for activation of coastal areas around major events.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups with projects that support community climate change action. Local board grants can contribute to climate action through the support of projects that address food production and food waste; alternative transport methods; community energy efficiency education and behaviour change; build community resilience and support tree planting.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

14. The grants programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of its grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

15. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

17. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy. Therefore, there is minimal risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

18. An implementation plan is underway and the local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels, including the council website, local board facebook page and communication with past recipients of grants.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōrākei Grants Programme 2020/2021	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ann Kuruvilla - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Rhonwen Heath - Head of Rates Valuations & Data Mgmt

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Ōrākei Local Boards

Ōrākei Local Board

16 April 2020

Approval for a new road name at 17 Eaglehurst Road, Ellerslie

File No.: CP2020/02422

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Ōrākei Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot, created by way of a subdivision development at 17 Eaglehurst Road, Ellerslie.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ōrākei Local Board’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. The developer and applicant, Solum Group Limited, have proposed the names presented in the tables below for consideration by the Board.

4. All of the proposed names are technically suitable for use, having been checked for duplication by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and authorised for use in this location. However, though the applicant has not conducted local engagement, which is required by the Ōrākei Local Board’s road naming guidelines, the applicant has requested that the proposed names be presented to the Board at its 16 April 2020 business meeting for consideration.

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 17 Eaglehurst Road, Ellerslie are as follows:

· Kakenga Mews (Applicant Preferred)

· Apidae Mews (Alternative 1)

· Laudhurst Mews (Alternative 2).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) approve the name Kakenga Mews for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 17 Eaglehurst Road Ellerslie in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60318887, SUB60318910).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60318887 (subdivision reference number SUB60318910) was issued June 2018 for the construction of eight residential freehold units and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

7. In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), the COAL requires a road name because it serves more than 5 lots.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

10. The Ōrākei Local Board’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

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

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

Proposed name	Meaning as described by the applicant
Kakenga Mews (Applicant preferred)	Maori word meaning: (noun) ascent, rise, promotion. To reference the aesthetic upgrade of the development.
Apidae Mews (Alternative 1)	The Ellerslie flower show, which used to be held in the local area before it was moved to Christchurch, would attract a lot of bees to the area. The family Apidae is made up of over 25,000 species of bees, including bumble bees and honey bees, which were commonly seen at the Ellerslie flower show.
Laudhurst Mews (Alternative 2)	The site is located between Laud Avenue and Eaglehurst Road The proposed name ‘Laudhurst’ is a mixture of the two neighbouring road names: ‘Laud’ and ‘Hurst’ (‘Hurst’ being the second half of the name Eaglehurst).

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

13. Road type: ‘Mews’ is an acceptable road type for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the road, as per the Ōrākei Road Naming Guidelines.

14. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment.

15. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki responded having no opposition to the applicant’s names, while Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki both deferred to other iwi, who in turn did not respond.

16. 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 in this location for this small private road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

One Maori road name option has been proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan of 17 Eaglehurst Road Ellerslie	25
b ⇩	Location plan of 17 Eaglehurst Road Ellerslie	27

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Ōrākei Local Boards

Ōrākei Local Board

16 April 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/03942

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Ōrākei Local Board delegate authority to the local board chair to submit the local board’s formal views for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils, where this feedback is due before a local board meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central Government (and other councils) seek feedback through public consultation on bills, inquiries and other key matters. The consultation timeframes vary between four and eight weeks.

3. The Governing Body is responsible for making official submissions to Central Government on most matters except for submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to a local board area. Where the Governing Body decides to make an official submission on a Central Government matter, staff work to develop a draft submission for consideration by the Governing Body and will call for local board input so it can be incorporated. The Auckland Council submission needs to be approved within the consultation timeframes set by Central Government.

4. Local board input is required to be approved by the local board. Where local boards are unable to make these decisions at a local board meeting due to the constrained timeframes, another mechanism is required. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for the council.

5. In situations where timeframes don’t allow reporting to formal business meetings, staff recommend that the local board either uses the urgent decision process or delegates authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions. Both options provide an efficient way to ensure that local board formal input is provided when external parties set submission deadlines that don’t allow formal input to be obtained from a local board business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

b) note that the local board can continue to use its urgent decision process to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, if the chair chooses not to exercise the delegation sought in recommendation (a).

c) note that this delegation will only be exercised where the timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

d) note all local input approved and submitted for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission is to be included on the next local board meeting agenda for the public record.

Horopaki

Context

6. Government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils seek feedback on issues using both formal and informal consultation opportunities. Auckland Council has an ongoing opportunity to provide advocacy on public policy matters and this is often done by making a public submission. Submissions can be provided on other council’s plans, on policy and legislative reviews or on an agency’s proposed strategy.

7. Council submissions are the formal responses to the public consultation opportunities that are open to everyone, including all Aucklanders.

8. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the Governing Body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, where a Governing Body decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

9. Under the current allocation of decision-making responsibility, the Governing Body is allocated decision-making responsibility for “submissions to government on legislation including official submissions of Auckland Council incorporating local board views”. Local boards are allocated decision-making for “submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to that local board area only”.

10. Central Government agencies set the deadlines for submissions which are generally between four to eight weeks. These timeframes do not usually allow for formal reporting to local boards to input into the council submission. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards can sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for council.

11. Providing a delegation for Central Government submissions provides local boards with another option to give formal local views within prescribed timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. There are five options available to local boards to approve their formal views and input on submissions to Central Government. Where this input is sought within a time constrained process and is due before a meeting of the local board, only four of these options will be available.

Table 1: Options for mechanisms through which the local boards can approve their formal views on Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils

Options	Pros	Cons
1. Local board input approved at a business meeting	· Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines often don’t align with external agency deadlines.
2. Local board input approved at an extraordinary meeting of the local board	· Provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Extraordinary meeting needs to be called by a resolution (requires anticipation by the local board) or requisition in writing delivered to the Chief Executive. The process usually requires a minimum of three clear working days. · There are additional costs incurred to run an unscheduled meeting. · It may be difficult to schedule a time when enough local board members can attend to achieve a quorum.
3. Local board input approved using urgent decision mechanism (staff recommend this option)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Local board input can be submitted once the Chair, Deputy Chair and Relationship Manager have received the report providing the local board views and input. · The urgent decision needs the sign-off from two local board members (ie the Chair and Deputy Chair), rather than just one.	· The decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · Chair and deputy may not have time to properly consult and ascertain view of the full local board.
4. Local board input approved by the chair who has been delegated authority from the local board (staff recommend this option where local boards choose not to use the urgent decision process)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules and local boards don’t want to use the urgent decision process. · Local board input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · The chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board.
5. Local board input submitted and ratified at a later date	· Local board informal input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Local board input submitted is considered to be the informal views of the local board until they are approved. · Local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage. · Decision to ratify informal views, even if made in a public meeting, is unable to be changed in the council submission (can be perceived as non-transparent decision-making). · Inclusion of informal views in the Auckland Council submission will be at the discretion of the Governing Body. These may be included with caveats noting the views have not been ratified by the local board. · If the local board changes its views, there is a reputational risk for the council.

13. Options one, two and three are already available to local boards and can be utilised as required and appropriate. Option one should always be used where timeframes allow reporting. Option four requires a delegation in order for a local board to utilise this mechanism and should be used only when timeframes don’t allow reporting to a business meeting.

14. Local boards who wish to utilise option four are requested to delegate to the chair as this fits within the leadership role of the chair and they are more likely to be available because the chair is a full-time role. The role of this delegated member will be to attest that the approved and submitted input constitutes the views of the local board. The input should then be published with the agenda of the next formal business meeting of the local board to provide transparency. The delegate may choose not to exercise their delegation if the matter is of a sensitive nature and is something that the full board should consider at a business meeting.

15. Each local board will be in charge of its own process for considering and developing their local board input that will be approved by the delegated member. This can include discussions at workshops, developing ideas in a small working group or allocating it to an individual member to draft.

16. Where local boards do not wish to delegate the views to the chair, the recommended option is to use the urgent decision mechanism (where deadlines don’t align with local board reporting timeframes). The mechanism requires a staff report and the decision to be executed by three people (the Chair, Deputy Chair and the Relationship Manager). Local board input can be submitted within one to two days after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.

17. Option five is not considered best practice and local boards are strongly discouraged from using this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. This report proposes a delegation to ensure that staff can undertake the preparation of submissions in a timely manner, while receiving formal local board input on matters that are of local board importance.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. This report seeks to establish a specific delegation for the local board chair.

21. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. If local boards choose to delegate to provide their formal views on Auckland Council submissions, there is a risk that this mechanism is perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. This can be mitigated by publishing the submitted local board input on the next agenda.

25. There is also a risk that the chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board. This can be mitigated by encouraging the local board to collectively discuss and agree their input before it is submitted by the member who has been delegated authority.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. On those occasions where it is required, the delegation will be used to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Ōrākei Local Boards