Agenda of Papakura Local Board

Papakura Local Board

22 April 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 - Kuraconnect 5

8.2 Deputation - The Rising Foundation Trust 6

8.3 Deputation - Mana Whenua Engagement Paoa Whanake Strategic Partnership 6

8.4 Deputation - Papakura Business Association 6

8.5 Deputation - Papakura Museum - Kay Thomas 7

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Governing Body Member's Update 9

12 Chairperson's Update 11

13 Attendance at local board meetings during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period 13

14 Auckland Transport April 2020 report to the Papakura Local Board 21

15 Approval for a new road name at 42 Beach Road, Papakura 39

16 New road name in the subdivision at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka by Parkland Properties Limited 47

17 Addition to the Papakura Local Board meeting schedule 59

18 Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions 63

19 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board input on the Water Services Regulatory Bill (Taumata Arowai) 69

20 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on central government's Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill 77

21 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on the Council Controlled Organisations Review 83

22 Urgent Decision - Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency's Accessible Streets Regulatory Package 93

23 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework 109

24 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board for Transfer of Ownership for basketball facilities at Smiths Reserve in Papakura 121

25 Urgent Decision - Parerekau Boardwalks Asset Acceptance report placed on the March 2020 meeting agenda 129

26 Urgent Decision - Community Safety Fund 143

27 Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board’s decision on the Papakura Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021 report 157

28 For Information: Reports referred to the Papakura Local Board 169

29 Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2019-2022 Political Term 171

30 Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2020 177

31 Papakura Local Board Workshop Records 185

32 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

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 Papakura Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Wednesday 26 February 2020, 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 Papakura 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 - Kuraconnect

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Melissa Tipene, from the Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club, will provide an update on the Kuraconnect activities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Melissa Tipene from the Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club for her Kuraconnect presentation.

Attachments

a Papakura Local Board 22 April 2020 - Deputation - Kuraconnect .............. 221

8.2 Deputation - The Rising Foundation Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Alex Tarrant, General Manager of the Rising Foundation Trust, will introduce what the charity does within the Papakura community and the benefits and outcomes the programme has on the youth and wider whanau members.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Alex Tarrant from the Rising Foundation Trust for their presentation.

Attachments

a Papakura Local Board April 2020 - Deputation - The Rising Foundation... 247

8.3 Deputation - Mana Whenua Engagement Paoa Whanake Strategic Partnership

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Genesis Moana, from Manawhenua Ngati Paoa Social Development, will speak to the activities of Manawhenua Ngati Paoa Social Development.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Genesis Moana, from Manawhenua Ngati Paoa Social Development for her presentation.

8.4 Deputation - Papakura Business Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tracy Shackleton from the Papakura Business Association, will introduce the new Town Centre Safety Coordinator Vanessa Newman.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Tracy Shackleton from the Papakura Business Association, for her presentation.

8.5 Deputation - Papakura Museum - Kay Thomas

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Kay Thomas from the Papakura Museum, will speak to funding for an exhibition.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Kay Thomas from the Papakura Museum, for speaking to exhibition funding.

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.”

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Attendance at local board meetings during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period

File No.: CP2020/04563

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend an amendment to the local board’s standing orders in order to provide for attendance of non-members at local board meetings via audio or audio-visual link.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report updates the local board on the temporary arrangements for local board meetings enabled by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 and provides options for implementing similar arrangements for non-members.

3. The COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 temporarily amends the existing legislative restrictions for local government on remote attendance for elected members and minimum quorum at local board meetings. This now enables meetings to proceed by audio-visual link, changes how meetings can be open to the public and how members of the public receive the agenda and minutes.

4. The current local board standing orders do not provide for non-members, specifically members of the public and Māori, to give input via audio or audio-visual link.

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that a person other than a member of the local board may participate by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met. (Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7, LGA). Local board standing orders do not currently allow for this.

6. Auckland Council will be using Skype for Business for local board meetings. Attendance by members and non-members (if approved) will be facilitated by phone (audio only) or Skype video (audio-visual) via Skype for Business app.

7. An amendment to Standing Orders to enable electronic attendance can either be reversed at a future date or maintained to support that attendance in the future, where it is available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the temporary amendments pursuant to the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 which allows members to attend meetings by audio-visual link, as of right and despite anything to the contrary in standing orders and to be counted for the purposes of quorum.

b) amend its standing orders by including a new Standing Order 3.3.10 that reads as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link

A person other than a member of the local board may participate in a meeting of the local board by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the person is otherwise approved to participate in accordance with Standing Orders Sections 6 and 7.

c) amend its Standing Order 7.8.5 to provide discretion to the chair of the meeting to decline Public Forum requests via audio or audio-visual link.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020

8. In late March 2020, central government enacted an omnibus bill that amended various acts of parliament including the LGA and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

9. The amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA enable local authorities to have meetings by audio-visual link (given the restrictions regarding physical distancing and Alert Level 4) and support the effective operation of those meetings by removing conditions associated with the right to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual link.

10. These amendments only apply while the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 is in force and will be repealed when that notice expires or is revoked.

Amendments to LGA

11. The amendments to the LGA modify Clause 25A, Schedule 7 so that a member of a local authority has the right to attend any meeting by audio or audio-visual link, regardless of what is provided for in the local authority’s standing orders. It also modifies clause 25A so that a member attending by audio link or audio-visual link is counted for the purposes of quorum.

Amendments to LGOIMA

12. The amendments to LGOIMA include modifying s 47 so that the requirement for meetings of local authorities to be ‘open to the public’ may be met during Alert Level 4 and other restrictions on physical distancing. The amendment redefines ‘open to the public’ to mean that the local authority:

a) if it is reasonably practicable, enables access to the meeting by broadcasting live the audio or video of the meeting (for example, by broadcasting it on an Internet site); and

b) does 1 or both of the following as soon as practicable after the meeting ends:

i. makes an audio or a video recording of the meeting available on its Internet site

ii. makes a written summary of the business of the meeting available on its Internet site.

13. This amendment does not anticipate public involvement as part of the meeting itself but ensures the public can access or view meeting proceedings online (either live or after the meeting) or through reviewing the summary.

14. Other amendments to LGOIMA include:

· Modifying s 46A so that agendas and reports for the meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· Modifying s 51 so that minutes of meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· The changes made by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 now supersede some of the provisions in the local board standing orders and the restrictions on physical distancing and from Alert Level 4 now limit the opportunity for public input.

Local Board Standing Orders

15. The LGA requires local authorities to adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (Clause 27, Sch 7). Each local board has adopted its standing orders which have been developed from a template.

16. As a result of the statutory amendments listed in this report, the follow standing orders have been temporarily superseded:

· 3.3.2 Member’s status – quorum and vote

· 3.3.3 Conditions for attending by electronic link

· 3.3.4 Request to attend by electronic link

· 7.3.1 Information to be available to the public

· 7.3.2 Availability of agendas and reports

· 8.2.1 Inspection of minute books

17. There are additional provisions in standing orders that may require further consideration if the local board wishes to enable these to continue during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. These relate to input and participation by Māori and the public.

18. Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7 of the LGA requires that a person other than a member of the local authority may participate by audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met.

19. The current standing orders do not currently provide for non-members, if required and approved to do so, to give input by means of audio link or audio-visual link.

20. Other participants at local board meetings include Governing Body members and staff. The LGA and the recent amendment provide the right for any member of a local authority or committee to attend any meeting of a local authority by audio-visual link (unless lawfully excluded). This can be interpreted broadly to extend to meetings where the elected member may not be a decision-maker or be participating in the decision at all. As such, Governing Body members participation may be by audio or audio-visual link and the process for providing them with speaking rights remains under standing orders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. In performing their role, local boards are required to act in accordance with the principles contained in s 14(1) of the LGA including the requirement for the council to conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner and make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all of its communities.

22. While the LGA does not specifically require public input to be provided for at local board meetings, the standing orders approved by the local board reflects the principles in s 14 LGA by providing for public attendance and enabling public input at meetings.

23. In order to continue to provide this opportunity as well as facilitate input by Māori and the public, the standing orders require amending.

Standing Orders Section 6 Māori Input

24. Speaking rights for Māori organisations or their nominees are granted under standing orders for the purpose of enabling Māori input, if any, to any item on the agenda of a meeting.

25. To ensure this right can be exercised during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision needs to be made enabling any input to be given by audio or audio-visual link.

Standing Orders 7.7 Deputations and 7.8 Public Forum

26. The provisions for public input in standing orders are one of the ways that local boards give effect to the requirements of the LGA (s 78 and s 79).

27. The LGA provides that in the course of its decision-making, a local authority must consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter. The LGA does not specify how those views are to be obtained or what form that consideration should take. It does not require a public forum at meetings.

28. However, the LGA gives local authorities discretion as to how to comply with s 78 and what to consider. Through their standing orders, local boards and the Governing Body have chosen to enable public input through deputations and public forum at their meetings as one way to obtain community views, among other things.

29. To ensure this opportunity can continue to be made available during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision must be made in standing orders to receive this by audio or audio-visual link.

Proposed amendment

30. This report recommends that input from non-members continue to be enabled during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. This requires an amendment to the standing orders.

31. An amendment to standing orders requires a 75% majority vote.

32. A similar amendment has been made by the Governing Body to their standing orders. It is desirable to ensure consistency across the governance arms of Auckland Council. The Governing Body resolutions are as follows:

Resolution GB/2020/33 (n) That the Governing Body amend standing orders by inserting a new Standing Order 3.3.10 as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link A person other than a member of the Governing Body, or the relevant committee, may participate in a meeting of the Governing Body or committee by means of audio link or audio-visual link in emergencies if the person is otherwise approved to participate under these standing orders (such as under Standing Order 6.2 “Local board input” or 7.7 “Public input”.)

Resolution GB/2020/33 (p) That the Governing Body agree to change Auckland Council’s Standing Orders to provide full discretion to the chair of the Emergency Committee to decline public input requests

33. The local board’s standing orders currently gives discretion to the chair to decline deputations but not public forum requests. Giving discretion to the chair to manage requests for public forum during this time can ensure the requirements of the LGA regarding the provision of the technology requirements, can be supported.

Technology options available

34. Where attendance by audio or audio-visual link is permitted, the LGA requires that the chair of the meeting ensures:

· that the technology for the audio link or audio-visual link is available and of suitable quality

· that the procedure for use of the technology will ensure that participants can hear and be heard by each other.

35. The chair’s discretion will need to be exercised where the technology and quality cannot be guaranteed.

36. The audio and audio-visual link options available for non-member input are provided by Auckland Council through Skype for Business:

Option	Ability
Audio link only Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.	· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting · Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone
Audio-visual link Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting	· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending · Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

Option

Ability

Audio link only

Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.

· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting

· Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone

Audio-visual link

Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting

· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending

· Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

37. If enabled under standing orders, non-members who wish to give input would need to contact the local board with a request to attend. If approved by the chair, information on how to join the meeting using audio and audio-visual link options above will be sent out to the attendee by staff.

Summary of meeting

38. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the public to attend the meeting through a broadcast and/or peruse a recording after it has happened, a summary of the meeting will need to be provided by staff.

39. A summary in this context would be different from the content of agendas, reports and minutes which are all separately required to be publicly available. It should contain the thrust or key points of the discussion or debate at the meeting keeping in mind that its purpose is to provide an alternative to an audio or video recording of the meeting, in a situation where the public is not able to attend and hear this discussion themselves.

40. The ordinary definition of a summary is a brief statement or account of the main points of something. While the appropriate level of detail is likely to vary depending on what is being discussed at meetings, a summary is not expected to include verbatim notes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. 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

42. Staff attendance at meetings, while not specifically provided for, is a necessary part of local board meetings and as such is expected to take place using audio-visual link.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. This report seeks to amend the local boards standing orders to enable public input and Māori input at meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. This report seeks a decision that will ensure Māori input can continue to be given during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period.

45. This will ensure Māori are not prevented from giving input at a meeting on any matter that may be of interest to them.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The decision to amend standing orders is of a procedural nature and is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

47. The scaling up of technology to ensure compliance with COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 is being done at a cost to the council. The costs are not known at this stage and will be factored into operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The objective of the recent legislative changes is to reduce public health risks and ensure compliance with social distancing measures and other restrictions in New Zealand’s COVID-19 alert levels response plan.

49. While this is not specifically required by legislation, permitting public input by audio or audio-visual link, if practicable, can ensure the local board can receive and consider views of its constituents on decisions that they are making.

50. There is a risk that the audio-visual option would only be taken up by a small number of constituents as this would only be available to those who have the technical devices and internet access. The software that will be used for meetings is Skype for Business which is free to download and use. However, the internet access costs or availability of technology/devices can be a limiting factor for some constituents. Constituents who do not have internet access can participate, if approved, by phone.

51. The report is seeking discretion for the local board chair to decline public forum requests. This delegation should be exercised with caution so as to not undermine the intention of standing orders (which currently provided some limited grounds to decline public input). There will be instances where it is reasonable to decline (noting these examples are not intended to be exhaustive), such as:

· where the technology cannot be provided or quality cannot be assured

· a need to manage time allocations for the agenda

· the matter is neither urgent nor the subject of a decision to be made at the meeting

· the request is offensive, repetitious or vexatious.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. If approved, the amendments to standing orders can, if the local board chooses, continue beyond the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. Enabling these changes gives maximum flexibility for attendance of non-members at future meetings, including those with underlying health issues or compromised immune systems that may need to take extra precaution even after the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period has ended.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Manager, Local Board Services

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport report - April 2020	23
b ⇩	Speed limit changes in the Papakura Local Board area from 30 June 2020	31
c ⇩	Allocating Local Board Transport Capital Funds report - April 2020	35

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Approval for a new road name at 42 Beach Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2020/03122

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot, created by way of a subdivision development at 42 Beach Road, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. On behalf of the developer and applicant, Nanak Homes Limited, agent EMACS Group Ltd has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. Any of the three 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. Mana whenua were also consulted. It is up to the local board to decide upon the thematic suitability of the names within the local context.

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 42 Beach Road, Papakura:

· Vanni Lane (applicant preferred)

· Akoma Lane (alternative 1)

· Ruruku Lane (alternative 2)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the name (local board to insert chosen name and road type) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 42 Beach Road, Papakura in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60311366 & SUB60311368).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60311366 & SUB60311368 was issued 18 June 2018 for the construction of eight residential lots 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 is provided in Attachments A and B respectively to this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

- a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

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

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

11. The three proposed road names are each from a different language to reference the diverse cultures that are proposed to live in the new subdivision. The meanings reference the connection and love that the residents will have towards the land and towards each other.

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

Proposed Names & Preferences

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Vanni Lane

(applicant preferred)

Italian word meaning: God is gracious

Akoma Lane

(alternative 1)

Ghana origins meaning: The heart

Symbolises love, unity, patience, tolerance, goodwill, and faithfulness.

Ruruku Lane

(alternative 2)

Māori word meaning: (noun) band, bond, commitment.

In reference to the time and dedication the developer has put into creating this subdivision, as well as the bond that the future residents will have towards each other and their new homes.

13. 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.

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

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

16. All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment. No 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. This report seeks a decision from the Papakura Local Board and the decision is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. The decision sought from the Papakura 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 support Auckland’s Māori identity. One Māori 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 and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Plan of 42 Beach Road, Papakura	43
b ⇩	Site Plan of 42 Beach Road, Papakura	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

New road name in the subdivision at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka by Parkland Properties Limited

File No.: CP2020/04597

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to extend one existing road name and name thirteen new roads created by way of subdivision at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka by Parkland Properties Limited (BUN60077812, SUB60221444).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The developer, Parkland Properties Limited, have submitted the following road name options for the ‘Equidae Estate at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka. (Note: Road 1 is the existing road, and there is no ‘Road 13’):

Table 1: Proposed Road Names

Road 1	Name	Road Type
To be extended	Hinau	Road
Road 2	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Maukitua	Avenue
First Alternative	Lipizzaner	Avenue
Second Alternative	Ardennes	Avenue
Road 3	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Mangapikopiko	Parade
First Alternative	Bardigiano	Parade
Second Alternative	Mangalarga	Parade
Road 4	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Awa Paheke	Avenue
First Alternative	Maremmano	Avenue
Second Alternative	Boulonnais	Avenue
Road 5	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Wharekawa	Street
First Alternative	Holsteiner	Street
Second Alternative	Camargue	Street
Road 6	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Pukepuke	Street
First Alternative	Galiceno	Street
Second Alternative	Camarillo	Street
Road 7	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Paretaua	Street
First Alternative	Campolina	Street
Second Alternative	Halfinger	Street
Road 8	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Te Aua	Street
First Alternative	Westphalian	Street
Second Alternative	Hanoverian	Street
Road 9	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Waikowhai	Street
First Alternative	Eriskay	Street
Second Alternative	Criollo	Street
Road 10	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Huarere	Street
First Alternative	Morab	Street
Second Alternative	Orlov	Street
Road 11	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Taheke	Place
First Alternative	Noriker	Place
Second Alternative	Hirza	Place
Road 12	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Kueke	Street
First Alternative	Trakehner	Street
Second Alternative	Dartmoor	Street
Road 14	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Maungatahi	Place
First Alternative	Konik	Place
Second Alternative	Azteca	Place
Road 15	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Whakarau	Street
First Alternative	Sorraia	Street
Second Alternative	Skyros	Street

4. Approval is also sought to use a previously approved name, Hinau Road, for the extension of that same road (Road 1).

5. The preferred road names were suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho following discussion between them and the developer, Parkland Properties Limited. The discussion followed objection by Ngāti Tamaoho (supported by Te Ahiwaru Waiohua) to the names suggested by the developer which were based around the theme of horse breed names chosen in recognition of the New Zealand Bloodstock in Karaka. These names are now proposed as the first and second alternative road names.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the use of the existing name of Hinau Road for the extension of that road, and approve thirteen names from the abovementioned list of options created by way of subdivision at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka (Council references BUN60077812, SUB60221444), in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

6. The road name application involves a three-stage subdivision consent in the Hingaia Special Housing Area at 72 Hinau Road, Karaka and the council reference is BUN60077812.

7. The roads are required to be named in accordance with the national addressing standards as they each serve more than 5 lots.

8. The extension of the existing name ‘Hinau Road’ will avoid any confusion of addressing along the continuous roadway.

9. The developer has carried out extensive consultation with Ngāti Tamaoho and as a result all preferred names are those suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho, whilst the first and second alternative names are those suggested by the developer, Parkland Properties Limited.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

12. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

- A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

- A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature; or

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

13. The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration summarised in the table below:

Road 1	Name	Road Type
To be extended	Hinau	Road
Road 2	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Maukitua	Avenue
First Alternative	Lipizzaner	Avenue
Second Alternative	Ardennes	Avenue
Road 3	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Mangapikopiko	Parade
First Alternative	Bardigiano	Parade
Second Alternative	Mangalarga	Parade
Road 4	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Awa Paheke	Avenue
First Alternative	Maremmano	Avenue
Second Alternative	Boulonnais	Avenue
Road 5	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Wharekawa	Street
First Alternative	Holsteiner	Street
Second Alternative	Camargue	Street
Road 6	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Pukepuke	Street
First Alternative	Galiceno	Street
Second Alternative	Camarillo	Street
Road 7	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Paretaua	Street
First Alternative	Campolina	Street
Second Alternative	Halfinger	Street
Road 8	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred	Te Aua	Street
First Alternative	Westphalian	Street
Second Alternative	Hanoverian	Street
Road 9	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Waikowhai	Street
First Alternative	Eriskay	Street
Second Alternative	Criollo	Street
Road 10	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Huarere	Street
First Alternative	Morab	Street
Second Alternative	Orlov	Street
Road 11	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Taheke	Place
First Alternative	Noriker	Place
Second Alternative	Hirza	Place
Road 12	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Kueke	Street
First Alternative	Trakehner	Street
Second Alternative	Dartmoor	Street
Road 14	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Maungatahi	Place
First Alternative	Konik	Place
Second Alternative	Azteca	Place
Road 15	Road Name	Road Type
Preferred Name	Whakarau	Street
First Alternative	Sorraia	Street
Second Alternative	Skyros	Street

14. Parkland Properties Limited initially proposed names for its ‘Equidae Estate’ following the theme first introduced for street names in 2013 when it successfully proposed horse breeds for street names in its Karaka Estate subdivision along Hingaia Road.

15. The horse breed theme was chosen in recognition of the New Zealand Bloodstock in Karaka which remains a central and symbolic cornerstone to the Karaka area.

The developer advises that the Equidae Estate subdivision is continguous with the NZ Bloodstock and pays homage to this internationally famous enterprise.

The horse breed themed names were circulated amongst the local iwi groups and two non-supportive responses were received. As a result, the developer Parkland Properties Limited consulted further with Ngāti Tamaoho and have incorporated the iwi suggested names as the preferred names with an agreement reached with Ngāti Tamaoho for the horse breed themed road names put forward as the first and second alternative road names.

16. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that all the above names are acceptable to use.

17. The proposed names are all deemed to meet the road naming guidelines.

18. The road suffixes: All suffixes listed in the tables above are acceptable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. 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

20. 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 this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Eight local iwi were consulted over the proposed road names via Council’s facilitation service and responses were received from two iwi being Ngāti Tamaoho and Te Ahiwaru Waiohua.

23. The response received from Ngāti Tamaoho was not in support of the proposed road names and this stance was supported by Te Ahiwaru Waiohua. There were no other responses and no alternative names were suggested.

24. Following this response the developer, Parkland Properties Limited, contacted Ngāti Tamaoho to discuss iwi road naming suggestions. As a result of this consultation all preferred road names are those suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho, and it was agreed that the first and second alternatives would be those horse breed themed names suggested by the developer, Parkland Properties Limited.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	72 Hinau Road - Site Locality Map	55
b ⇩	72 Hinau Road - Scheme Plan - Road Numbering	57

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lesley Wood – Subdivision Advisor – South, Resource Consents

Authorisers

David Snowden, Team Leader, Subdivision, Resource Consents

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Addition to the Papakura Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2020/04562

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for a meeting date to be added to the 2019-2022 Papakura Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate a change to the timeframes for the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The timeframes for the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process have now been modified due to delays in receiving the processed submissions caused by the Covid-19 lockdown,

3. The Papakura Local Board scheduled an additional meeting for 6 May 2020 [resolution PPK/2019/219] to decide on their feedback and advocacy for the Annual Budget 2020/2021, based on submissions from their local board area.

4. The 6 May 2020 meeting will need to be cancelled due to the new timeframe, and a new additional meeting approved to meet the modified Annual Budget 2020/2021 timeframes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) cancel the additional meeting scheduled on 6 May 2020 at 4.30pm, to decide on their feedback and advocacy for the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

b) approve a new additional meeting date of 13 May 2020 at 5pm to the 2019-2022 Papakura Local Board meeting schedule, to accommodate the Annual Budget 2020/2021 timeframes.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings be publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7. The Papakura Local Board adopted its 2019-2022 business meeting schedule at its 4 December 2019 meeting [resolution PPK/2019/219].

8. That schedule provided for an additional meeting on 6 May 2020 to decide on their feedback and advocacy for the Annual Budget 2020/2021, based on submissions from their local board area.

9. The timeframes for the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process have been modified due to delays in receiving the processed submissions caused by the Covid-19 lockdown.

10. The local board will need to cancel the scheduled 6 May additional meeting due to the delay in these timeframes and approve a new additional meeting on 13 May 2020 so that the modified Annual Budget 2020/2021 timeframes can be met.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The local board has two choices:

i) add the meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule

ii) add the meeting as an extraordinary meeting.

12. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the Annual Budget 2020/2021 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled anyway.

13. For option two, only the specific topic Annual Budget 2020/2021 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process could be considered at this meeting.

14. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option one, approving this meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule, as it allows more flexibility for the local board to consider a range of issues. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. 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. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule an additional meeting and consider whether to approve it as an extraordinary meeting or an addition to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. If the local board decides not to add the addional business meeting to their schedule this will cause a delay to the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process, which would result in the feedback of this local board not being presented to the Governing Body for its consideration and inclusion in the Annual Budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Corlett - Advisor Plans & Programmes

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/04114

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Papakura 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 Papakura 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

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board input on the Water Services Regulatory Bill (Taumata Arowai)

File No.: CP2020/04390

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Noting the Papakura Local Board input on the Water Services Regulatory Bill (Taumata Arowai).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In mid-2017 the government launched the Three Waters Review, in parallel to the latter stages of the Havelock North Inquiry into drinking water safety. The review focussed on improving regulation and service delivery arrangements of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.

3. In July 2019, Cabinet agreed to a suite of system-wide reforms to the regulation of drinking water, including the establishment of a centrally located regulator to oversee a new drinking water regulatory system. Cabinet also agreed to targeted reforms to improve the regulation and performance of wastewater and stormwater systems, including some new regulatory functions that would be undertaken by a central regulatory body.

4. The Three Waters Review is a separate but related work programme to the Ministry for the Environment’s Essential Freshwater programme. The government released the Action for Healthy Waterways Discussion Document in September 2019, which outlined the proposals of the Essential Freshwater programme. The discussion document covered some proposals related to the Three Waters Review, such as the government’s intent to amend the National Environmental Standards for Human Drinking Water and the proposed approach to improving management of stormwater and wastewater systems. The discussion document did not include any information about the structure or function of the proposed central regulator.

5. Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulatory Bill (Taumata Arowai) was introduced to Parliament on 17 December 2019. It is expected this will be followed by introduction of the Water Services Bill in the coming months. These bills build on the government’s work to date on the Three Waters review. Submissions on Taumata Arowai close on 4 March 2020. The submission period for the Water Services Bill has not yet been announced.

6. Taumata Arowai will establish a stand-alone regulatory body with responsibilities relating to drinking water safety and administration of the drinking water regulatory system, along with improving the environmental performance and transparency of stormwater and wastewater networks.

7. Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill proposes the establishment of a new regulator, which will be a standalone crown agent, with the objectives of:

a) protecting and promoting drinking water safety and public health outcomes

b) effectively administering the drinking water regulatory system

c) building and maintaining capability among drinking water suppliers and across the wider industry

d) giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to functions and duties of Taumata Arowai

e) providing oversight of (and advice on) the regulation, management, and environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks

f) promoting public understanding of the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

8. While the regulator’s primary focus is drinking water, its functions include providing national-level oversight, leadership, communication, coordination, guidance, advice and information in relation to statutory requirements for and environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks and network operators.

9. Auckland Council’s role in the delivery of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services will not be significantly affected by the establishment of the regulator. The details within the Water Services Bill are expected to have implications for how council delivers these services, and how the planning and regulatory functions are carried out. Further detail and analysis of the implications of the Water Services Bill for Auckland Council will be provided following its release.

10. Auckland Council’s draft submission on Taumata Arowai was considered by the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 12 March 2020. The official submission period closed on 4 March, however, the Health Select Committee Secretariat permitted an extension for Auckland Council until 17 March 2020.

11. Local board input into the draft submission on Taumata Arowai was required by 24 February 2020 in order to be appended to the Auckland Council submission. The next scheduled meeting of the Papakura Local Board was 26 February 2020. Therefore, an urgent decision was required.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the urgent decision of the Papakura Local Board which provided input into the Water Services Regulator Bill (Taumata Arowai) as follows:

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) endorse the following Papakura Local Board input into the central government’s Water Services Regulator Bill (Taumata Arowai):

i) While the Papakura Local Board support the provision of quality drinking water, the board question whether having a crown entity controlling water services would have made any difference to the Havelock North scenario or the collapsing of infrastructure in Wellington.

ii) In the board’s view the issue for local authorities is the cost of infrastructure including renewals. The smaller the local authority the more difficult it is to finance based on the smaller rating base. The challenge of funding the infrastructure becomes prohibitive.

iii) The proposed crown entity is another regulatory layer that local authorities will have to comply with.

iv) Where smaller local authorities struggle with infrastructure financing this entity could also assist with raising capital for projects, ie: underwrite infrastructure projects.

v) The board is concerned that local authorities will loose control over the resource which is one of the core functions local authorities are responsible for.

vi) Local authorities have the accountability back to the community, it would be concerning if the crown entity did not have any direct accountability to the public.

vii) The Council-Controlled Organisation Auckland model hasn’t always been smooth sailing in terms of accountability. Essentially the Council-Controlled Organisation model is once removed from consumer. This becomes problematic when the Council-Controlled Organisation decides to increase costs at a higher than expected level. Although it is acknowledged that the Statement of Intent negotiations generally cover this isssue.

viii) The board believe the Watercare Services Council-Controlled Organisation does a wonderful job in the Auckland region and the board was very impressed with the work Watercare is doing in regard to research in wastewater and waste solids treatment.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board input on the Water Services Regulatory Bill (Taumata Arowai)	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

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

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Urgent Decision - Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency's Accessible Streets Regulatory Package

File No.: CP2020/04612

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Noting the urgent decision endorsing the Papakura Local Board’s feedback on the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Associate Minister of Transport is proposing a collection of rule changes known as the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.

3. These rules are intended to:

· make footpaths, shared paths, cycle lanes and cycle paths safer and more accessible

· accommodate the increasing use of micro-mobility devices like e-scooters on streets and footpaths

· encourage active modes of transport and support the creation of more liveable and vibrant towns and cities

· make social and economic opportunities more accessible, and

· make buses and active transport such as walking and cycling safer and more efficient.

4. The package will clarify the types of vehicles and devices that are allowed on footpaths, shared paths, cycle paths and cycle lanes, and how they can use these spaces. This will include a 15km/h speed limit on the footpath and a requirement for all other footpath users to give way to pedestrians.

5. The proposed rules also clarify how road controlling authorities may regulate pedestrians, devices and spaces like the footpath; and propose changes to the priority given to a range of road users to remove barriers to walking, device use and cycling.

6. The package consists of nine proposals:

· Proposal 1: Change and re-name the types of device that are used on footpaths, shared paths, cycle paths and cycle lanes

· Proposal 2: Establish a national framework for the use of footpaths

· Proposal 3: Establish a national framework for the use of shared paths and cycle paths

· Proposal 4: Enable transport devices to use cycle lanes and cycle paths

· Proposal 5: Introduce lighting and reflector requirements for powered transport devices at night

· Proposal 6: Remove barriers to walking, transport device use and cycling through rule changes

· Proposal 7: Mandate a minimum overtaking gap for motor vehicles passing cycles, transport devices, horses, pedestrians and people using mobility devices on the road

· Proposal 8: Clarify how road controlling authorities can restrict parking on berms

· Proposal 9: Give buses priority when exiting bus stops.

7. Local board input is required by 17 April 2020 to be appended to the Auckland Council submission.

8. Submissions on the package close on 22 April 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the urgent decision endorsing the Papakura Local Board’s feedback on the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s Accessible Streets Regulatory Package, included as Attachments A and B to this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	95
b ⇩	Papakura Local Board feedback on the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

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

Papakura Local Board

22 April 2020

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2020

File No.: CP2020/04308

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 16 April 2020.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2020	181

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Paula Brooke - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Chairperson	Brent Catchpole
Deputy Chairperson	Jan Robinson
Members	Felicity Auva'a
	George Hawkins
	Keven Mealamu
	Sue Smurthwaite

No.	Report Title	Item no.	Meeting Date	Governing Body Committee or Council Controlled Organisation or Forum or Local Board
1	Puketāpapa Local Board feedback on the Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation - emailed to members 3 March 2020.	14	19 February 2020	Puketāpapa Local Board
2	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board feedback on the CCO Review – emailed to members 15 April 2020,	17	19 March 2020	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 29 January 2020	187
b ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 5 February 2020	189
c ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 12 February 2020	193
d ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 19 February 2020	197
e ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 4 March 2020	201
f ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 11 March 2020	205
g ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 18 March 2020	207
h ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 25 March 2020	211
i ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 1 April 2020	213
j ⇩	Papakura Local Board Workshop Record 8 April 2020	217