Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Auckland Transport April 2020 Report

File No.: CP2020/05793

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

To provide an update to the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) on transported related matters in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1. This report updates the Board on regional and local matters including the Community Safety Fund, Local Board Transport Capital Fund, Frost and Carr Roads safety improvements and construction traffic issues.

2. The report also includes an update on a range of projects and issues.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport April 2020 report

b) request Auckland Transport to provide rough orders of costs for the following projects:

i) Traffic Calming in The Avenue, Lynfield

ii) Tetra Traps in the May Road and Onehunga catchments

iii) Bike Parking at Roskill South Shops, Mt Eden Road near Duke Street and at 90 Mt Albert Road

iv) Five bus shelters

v) A raised table on Beagle Avenue, Sandringham

vi) Improvements to the Stoddard Road pedestrian crossing near Tory Street

vii) A pedestrian refuge near Melrose Street shops

viii) Cycleway extensions:

· Sandringham Road – from Gifford Avenue to Mt Albert Road

· Hillsborough Road from Mt Albert Road to the SW motorway

· Dominion Road from the SW motorway to Roskill South

· Hendry Avenue - resolve how the cycleway meets the footpath

ix) Formalise the walkway under Hayr Road Bridge to join Melrose Rd

x) Widen and improve the footpaths on Roseman Street and Christie Street and make a link to SH20 shared path

xi) Add a pedestrian crossing on Queenstown Road, near Hendry Avenue.

Horopaki

Context

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

4. This report updates the Puketāpapa Local Board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the local board area, it updates the local board on their consultations and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and Community Safety Fund (CSF).

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

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

6. The CSF is a capital budget established by Auckland Transport for use by local boards to fund local road safety initiatives. The purpose of this fund is to allow elected members to address long-standing local road safety issues that are not regional priorities and are therefore not being addressed by the Auckland Transport programme.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Capital Fund

7. For the 2019/22 term the Puketāpapa Local Board currently has $2,244,897. At its February workshop the Board were advised of the process for considering projects for potential funding. In the workshops in March and April the Board considered which projects it wishes to be assessed to get a rough order of costs (ROC).

8. These projects were to be workshopped in May for decision in June. However, with the restrictions on travel and meetings during levels four and three of the Covid 19 pandemic it has taken longer for most boards, including Puketāpapa to finalise the list of projects than originally planned. It is likely this will lead to the consideration of the RoC’s in June and decisions on projects to proceed to detailed design and construction in July.

9. The assessment of ‘Rough Order of Costs’ is also hampered by travel restrictions. In addition, some projects cannot be assessed until travel patterns, morning and evening peaks and “school runs“ return to a semblance of pre-covid levels.

10. At the workshops, AT received clear direction on what projects the Board wished to be assessed and the internal assessment process is now underway. Projects that have been previously considered for the Local Board Capital Fund or the Community Safety Fund do not need be re-assessed but are included for completeness.

Project	Detail
The Avenue Traffic Calming	Traffic calming on the Avenue between Commodore Drive and Halsey to reduce speed
Tetra Traps	Tetra Traps to prevent solid waste entering waterways, May Round area and Onehunga Bay
Bike Parking	Roskill South shops, Mt Eden Road near Duke St, 90 Mt Albert Road
Bus Shelters	- Two shelters on near Roskill South - Mt Albert Road near Waite Street - Hillsborough Road on the southern side between SH20 and Dominion Road where berm width and topography permits - Mt Albert Road near Mt Roskill Road - On Hillsborough Road for the 68 Bus Route
Beagle Ave	An additional raised table on Beagle Ave
Stoddard Road	Improved pedestrian crossing on Stoddard Road near Tory Street
Melrose Road	Pedestrian Refuge near the shops
Cycle Way Extensions	Sandringham Rd extended up to Mt Albert Rd, Hillsborough Rd extended from Mt Albert Rd to the SW cycleway, off the SW cycleway towards Roskill South on Dominion Rd, Hendry Ave resolve how the cycle way joins the footpath
Walkway	Formalise the walkway under Hayr Road Bridge to join Melrose Rd
Footpath enhancement	Widen and improve the footpaths on Roseman and Christie and make a link to SH20 shared path
Pedestrian Crossing	Queenstown Road near Hendry Ave

Community Safety Fund

11. As part of an initiative to advance safety across Auckland, $20m was allocated for local boards to recommend local safety projects. The Puketāpapa Local Board’s allocation was $604,664. Potential projects were workshopped by the Board, assessed by AT staff and then at it’s 20 June 2019 meeting, resolved as follows:

i) 65 Hillsborough Road to provide a safe crossing place ($90,000)

ii) 244 Hillsborough Road pedestrian crossing facility ($338,000)

iii) 383 Hillsborough Road pedestrian crossing facility ($348,000)

iv) 639 Richardson Road pedestrian crossing facility ($15,000)

v) Pah Road crossing awareness ($10,000)

vi) Safety measures around Wesley Primary School ($130,000)

vii) 40 Stoddard Road near Tory Street - improved pedestrian crossing safety ($170,000)

viii) Melrose Road - pedestrian refuge island near shops ($80,000)

ix) Hillsborough Road/ Mt Albert Road crossing safety ($195,000)

x) Arundel Street, Stamford Park Rd, Rogan Street intersection improvements ($350,000)

and note that the two highest priorities: 65 Hillsborough Road and 244 Hillsborough Road may not need to be funded by the Local Board Transport Community Safety Fund because they are currently set to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The availability of this funding for these two safety projects will be confirmed shortly.

12. The projects at 65 Hillsborough Road and 244 Hillsborough Road were subsequently funded by the Transport Capital Fund making the 383 Hillsborough Road the highest priority project for the Community Safety Fund (CSF).

13. Since then AT staff have been assessing the projects that were able to be funded with the Board’s allocation. These being:

· 383 Hillsborough Road pedestrian crossing facility ($348,000)

· 639 Richardson Road pedestrian crossing facility ($15,000)

· Pah Road crossing awareness ($10,000)

· Safety measures around Wesley Primary School ($130,000)

14. It is recommended that the board request that one of the community safety fund projects that is currently unfunded be put forward for detailed design. This would enable the project to be progressed in the near future and be funded from the remaining Community Safety Fund and ‘topped up” by Local Board Capital Fund. That way the Board can fully utilise its community safety fund.

15. The Board may also wish to consider the currently un-funded CSF projects as part of its list of projects that may be funded in the upcoming Local Board Capital Fund allocation.

16. The updates on these projects are below

Project	Status	Update
Pedestrian crossing at 383 Hillsborough Rd, by Waikōwhai Primary (Community Safety Fund).	Design	Project team is preparing the consultation documents for new signalised pedestrian crossing near Waikōwhai School. Timeframes for consultation are yet to be confirmed due to current COVID-19 situation.
Pedestrian crossing improvements at 639 Richardson Rd, by Waikōwhai Intermediate and Hay Park School (Community Safety Fund	Construction	Project team is awaiting project estimate and delivery timeframes from contractor to install red carpet SLOW patches on 639 Richardson Rd
Pah Road crossing awareness (Community Safety Fund)	Construction	Project team is currently processing procurement for installing the electronic feedback signs on Pah Road.
Potter Ave raised table to replace kea crossing for Wesley Primary School (Community Safety Fund).	Design	Project team is preparing the consultation documents for upgrading existing kea crossing on Potter Ave to a raised zebra crossing. Timeframes for consultation are yet to be confirmed due to current COVID-19 situation.

Frost and Carr Roads Safety Improvements

17. The Mt Roskill Safer Communities Project is a project to improve safety on Frost and Carr Roads, particularly for pedestrians. Included in the project are a number of raised crossing and footpath widening improvements.

18. The project began in early March but was put on hold when the Government went to Alert Level 4. The site was made safe and works stopped.

19. Once New Zealand dropped to Alert Level 3 works recommenced. Beginning with the completion of stage one, near the school. For the week beginning 4 May the works are to reconstruct concrete footpath, install tactile pavers and subcontractor to install streetlights.

20. With the changes in school term times and reduced traffic, a revised schedule will be developed and the Board informed.

Issues with Construction Projects

21. AT has always received and responded to issues related to construction projects. Now that the Unitary Plan is mostly operative, there are large number of apartments, in particular, being constructed.

22. Over the last few months and particularly in the lead up to Christmas 2019, AT received a number of complaints about parking in relation to construction projects. These developments are consented via Auckland Council’s regulatory team. In some cases, AT staff has input about parking, changes in vehicle access ways and traffic implications, however, sometimes not. Some of these developments are notified for public input, but many are not, as they are allowed if they are largely in accord with provisions of the unitary plan.

23. Where the construction methodology does require the temporary occupation of the road corridor, a traffic management plan is required. These are administered by AT and once the plan is in place, they are audited. Where the nearby parking is unrestricted construction vehicles are permitted to park there, as is any other vehicle. Where there is an illegally parked vehicle, such as across a driveway, the quickest was to get enforcement is to call 09 355 3553.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The impact information in this report is confined to Auckland Transport and does not impact on other parts of the Council group. Any engagement with other parts of the Council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The Board receives update reports from AT as part of its monthly business meeting agendas.

28. The Board also holds regular workshops with AT between business meetings, with briefing memos provided as necessary.

29. Local board members may direct queries on issues via electedmember@at.govt.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Consideration of impacts and opportunities for engagement will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. There are no specific financial implications that result from receiving this report. The decision to confirm the Local Board projects for assessment will have implications when the RoC’s are reported back

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. For a number of these issues further updates via memo or workshop will occur before the next business meeting.

34. The RoC’s will be reported to the June or July meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas - Elected Members Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Manager Elected Member Relationship Member Unit

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Approval for two new road names at 16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue, and 3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue, Mt Roskill

File No.: CP2020/05473

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board to name two new private roads, both being commonly owned access lots, created by way of a subdivision development at 16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue, and 3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue, Mt Roskill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Kāinga Ora have proposed the names presented in the tables below for consideration by the Local Board.

4. Any of the six 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.

5. The proposed names for the two new private roads are:

COAL 1 (16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue, Mt Roskill):

· Rerenga Lane (Applicant preferred)

· Toku Wāhi Lane (Alternative 1)

· Pukewiwi Lane (Alternative 2)

COAL 2 (3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue, Mt Roskill):

· Nekuneku Lane (Applicant preferred)

· Tausiga Lane (Alternative 1)

· Te Ako Tonu Lane (Alternative 2)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the name (local board to insert chosen name) (‘COAL 1’) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue in Mount Roskill in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60330751 and SUB60330753).

b) approve the name (local board to insert chosen name) (‘COAL 2’) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue, Mt Roskill in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60333322 and SUB60333323).

Horopaki

Context

6. 16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue
Resource consent BUN60330751 (subdivision reference number SUB60330753) was issued in May 2019 for the development of seven residential units and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

7. 3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue, Mt Roskill
Resource consent BUN60333322 (subdivision reference number SUB60333323) was issued in April 2019 for the development of thirteen residential units and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

8. The six proposed names were first submitted by the applicant to the 20 September 2018 Puketāpapa business meeting (CP2018/16758) for consideration at neighbouring sites in Mount Roskill. The names were not chosen by the board in 2018, and having been checked and confirmed by Council and LINZ that they are still acceptable for use in 2020, the applicant has resubmitted the names for the two roads included in this report.

9. In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), the COALs require a road name because they serve more than five lots.

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 a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

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

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

Table 1: 16-18, 22-24 Freeland Avenue & 2A-2C Burnett Avenue Preferred and Alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning as described by the applicant
COAL 1	Rerenga Lane (Applicant Preferred)	“Rerenga can translate to ‘Sunrise’ in Te Reo Māori - Bringing light in a new voyage/journey. Rerenga can also mean new beginnings which resonates with the people of Mount Roskill, whether it is new beginnings in a new home or anything else they endeavour throughout their life. Roskill development is a large scale redevelopment of new homes in Mount Roskill. With any difficult circumstances in life, it can seem long and challenging at times. But with challenge and change - comes growth. The redevelopment of Mt Roskill is no different. What is important about the redevelopment of homes and communities is the important kaupapa or the ‘why’ we are doing it. Shedding light about the kaupapa on a voyage/journey is important and this sentiment can resonate with the current and new residents of the community. Rerenga is a ātaahua word in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mount Roskill.”
	Toku Wāhi Lane (Alternative 1)	“Toku Wāhi means ‘My Place’ in Te Reo Māori. Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities places vulnerable New Zealanders into homes that need it. There is a large number of state homes in the area of Roskill South and the people that live there or will move in there may not have had a place to call their own often in their lives. As part of the redevelopment we are building more homes to ensure that more vulnerable people have a chance to really call their home or community ‘My Place’. Toku Wāhi is a ātaahua phrase in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mount Roskill.”
	Pukewiwi Lane (Alternative 2)	“Pukewiwi and Puketāpapa are both gazetted names for the suburb Mount Roskill. This name was chosen previously as it holds significance in Mt Roskill being an official name for the area and in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mt Roskill.”

Table 2: 3-7, 21-25 Sanft Avenue Preferred and Alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning as described by the applicant
COAL 2	Nekuneku Lane (Applicant Preferred)	“Nekuneku means ‘Sunset’ in Te Reo Māori - To let go of what has been. The redevelopment of Roskill South meant that a lot of old homes on underutilised land had to be removed from the community. These homes have been there for a long period of time which surpassed their life span. Regardless, it would have been difficult to see them go – there were memories, relationships, journeys’ etc. that were developed in these homes. But as one door closes, another will open - however there will always be memories and lessons learnt from the past. This idea of ‘Sunset’ or ‘to let go of what has been’ can correlate with not only the old homes of Mount Roskill, but the end of any chapter in one’s life. Nekuneku is a ātaahua word in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mount Roskill.”
	Tausiga Lane (Alternative 1)	“Tausiga means ‘Care’ in the Samoan language. Care was one of the core values of Housing New Zealand. As our new values are being formulated, there is no doubt that ‘Care’ will be imbedded into our culture and practices. Kāinga Ora houses about 187000 vulnerable people and holds approximately 65000 homes. With a high number of state homes in Roskill South, we hope that care is imbedded into the community also. Tausiga is a aulelei word in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mount Roskill.”
	Te Ako Tonu Lane (Alternative 2)	“Te Ako Tonu means ‘Learning/Innovate’ in Te Reo Māori. Learning/Innovate was one of the core values of Housing New Zealand. As our new values are being formulated, there is no doubt that ‘Learning/Innovate’ will be imbedded into Kāinga Ora’s culture and practices. Innovation is exactly what we are doing in Mount Roskill by redeveloping and introducing new homes and way of life in the community. There is always room to grow and learn new ideas and this sentiment can correlate into the lives of those within the community. Te Ako Tonu is a ātaahua phrase in a language that relates to cultures predominantly in Mount Roskill.”

14. Assessment: 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.

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

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

17. Iwi and community consultation: Kāinga Ora consulted with mana whenua and the local communities before the names were submitted to the board in 2018. No objections were received for any of the proposed names included in this report.

On the 12^th December 2019, Kāinga Ora contacted local iwi groups again for feedback or to suggest any new names. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara responded in support of the names, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua deferred to other iwi groups, who in turn did not respond.

No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names in this location for the two private roads.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The 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

21. The naming of roads is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. To aid Local Board decision making, the ‘Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines’ includes:

· The Objective of recognising ancestral linkages to areas of land by engagement with mana whenua and the allocation of road names as appropriate and a Principle that Māori road names are actively encouraged, and;

· An agreed process to enable mana whenua to provide timely feedback on all proposed road names in a manner they consider appropriate.

22. The road names proposed in this report have been provided to all mana whenua for consideration through council’s central facilitator. Where feedback has been received, this has been indicated.

23. Five Māori road name options have been proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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	19
b ⇩	Location Plan	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Approval for a new road name at 2 - 4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough.

File No.: CP2020/05444

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot, created by way of a subdivision development at 2-4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. On behalf of the developer and applicant, Budock Prop Ltd, agent Plan Co Limited have proposed the names presented in the tables 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.

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 2-4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough are:

· Borough Lane (Applicant Preferred)

· Monte Cecilia Lane (Alternative 1)

· Pah Hill Lane (Alternative 2)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the name (local board to insert approved name) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 2-4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60332602 & SUB60332604).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60332602 (subdivision reference number SUB60332604) was issued in March 2019 for the construction of 11 new townhouses and one commonly owned access lot (COAL). The COAL will serve the rear 6 dwellings.

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 five 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 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. Theme: The applicant has proposed names that reflect the name of the development (‘The Borough’), as well as the history of Pah Homestead and the surrounding local landmarks.

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

Proposed name	Meaning as described by applicant
Borough Lane (Applicant preferred)	The proposed name ‘Borough’ is derived from the name of the suburb being Hillsborough, which was named after James Carlton Hill who left the land to the City for use as a public domain in his 1858 will.
Monte Cecilia Lane (Alternative 1)	The historic Pah Homestead mansion in Hillsborough was purchased by the Roman Catholic Church in 1913 and renamed Monte Cecilia. Throughout the years, a number of sites have paid homage to this initial naming, with the opening of Monte Cecilia Primary School and Monte Cecilia Park. Being within the vicinity of these sites, the proposed name ‘Monte Cecilia Lane’ continues to pay homage to their local landmarks.
Pah Hill Lane (Alternative 2)	Through researching the history of Hillsborough, Pah Homestead was found to be constructed for James Williamson on the Pah Farm estate in 1877-79. Aptly referred to as “The House on the Hill”, the proposed name ‘Pah Hill Lane’ is reflective of this historical dwelling which was once allegedly the largest house ever built in New Zealand.

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

15. Road type: ‘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. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment.

Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara deferred to whanaunga Ngati Whatua Orakei, who in turn did not respond.
No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names 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 naming of roads is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. To aid Local Board decision making, the ‘Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines’ includes:

· An agreed process to enable mana whenua to provide timely feedback on all proposed road names in a manner they consider appropriate.

21. The road names proposed in this report have been provided to all mana whenua for consideration through council’s central facilitator. Where feedback has been received, this has been indicated.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand 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 for 2-4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough	27
b ⇩	Location Plan for 2-4 & 6 Budock Road, Hillsborough	29

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Panuku Development Auckland Six Monthly Report to Puketāpapa Local Board 1 August 2019 to 31 January 2020

File No.: CP2020/04542

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Puketāpapa Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area and the region for the six months from 1 August 2019 to 31 January 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Panuku is charged with balancing financial and non-financial outcomes in order to create and manage sustainable and resilient places where people want to live, work, invest, learn and visit. The activities of Panuku cover four broad areas:

· redevelopment of urban locations, leveraging off council owned land assets, mostly within existing suburbs

· review of, and where appropriate, redevelopment of council non-service property

· management of council property assets including commercial, residential, and marina infrastructure

· other property related services such as redevelopment incorporating a service delivery function, strategic property advice, acquisitions and disposals.

3. Panuku currently manages one commercial interest in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

4. One property is currently under review as part of our rationalisation process.

5. One property was purchased in the Puketāpapa Local Board area during the six months reporting period.

6. No properties were sold in the Puketāpapa Local Board area during the six months reporting period.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Six Monthly Local Board Report for 1 August 2019 to 31 January 2020.

Horopaki

Context

7. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

8. The Auckland Plan is the roadmap to deliver on Auckland’s vision to be a world class city, Panuku plays a significant role in achieving the ‘Homes and Places’ and ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcomes.

9. Panuku leads urban redevelopment in Manukau, Onehunga, Wynyard Quarter, Waterfront, Northcote, Avondale, Takapuna, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Ormiston and Flat Bush, Panmure, Pukekohe, City Centre and redevelopment of the Haumaru Portfolio.

10. Panuku manages around $3 billion of council’s non-service property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others. “Non-service properties” are Council owned properties that are not used to deliver Council, or CCO, services.

11. As at 31 December 2019, the Panuku managed regional property portfolio comprises 1674 properties, containing 1035 leases. This includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

13. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery, to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

14. Below is a high-level update on activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area:

Properties managed in the Puketāpapa Local Board Area

15. Panuku currently manages one commercial interest within the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

16. Optimisation is a self-funding development approach, targeting sub-optimal service assets approved in 2015. The process requires agreement between Community Facilities, Panuku and local boards and is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form while delivering on strategic outcomes, such as housing or urban regeneration while not impacting on council rates

17. Using optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased lower maintenance and operating costs, improved service delivery, while benefiting from co-location of other complimentary services or commercial activities. Optimisation frees up undercapitalised development opportunities such as air space, full sites, or part sites.

18. Using optimisation as a redevelopment and funding tool, the Local Board can maximise efficiencies from service assets while maintaining levels of service through the release of some, or all, of that property for sale or development.

19. Local boards are allocated decision making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds in accordance with the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

20. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and/or development if appropriate. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes.

21. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, through a more efficient use of resources to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

22. Panuku works closely with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to identify potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

23. Target for July 2018 to June 2019:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$30 million disposal ‘recommendations’	$30.4 million disposal recommendations.

July 2019 to June 2021 Target

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio Review	$45m disposal recommendations.	$20 million disposal recommendations as at 28 February 2020.

Process

24. Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with the local ward councillors, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

25. Properties currently under review in the Puketāpapa Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body.

Property

Details

Plantation Reserve (119A) May Road, Mt Roskill

Plantation Reserve is a long narrow site that was vested with the former Mount Roskill Borough Council upon subdivision in 1952.

The site is subject to right of way easements for a number of adjoining residential properties.

Plantation Reserve is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Due to its configuration and limited open space values it was subject to rationalisation.

In 2019 Council departments and CCOs confirmed no alternate public work requirement or planned and funded future strategic need to retain Plantation Reserve.

Puketāpapa Local Board consultation occurred in 2015, 2019 and 2020.

Panuku is addressing concerns raised by the board and will report back in 2020 for a formal position on a proposed disposal.

Acquisitions and disposals

26. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other services. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

27. Panuku does not decide which properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of the council.

28. Panuku has purchased 8 properties for open space across Auckland in the time period between 01 August 2019 and 31 January 2020 at a cost of $28.2 million.

29. One property has been purchased in the Puketāpapa Local Board area during the reporting period for open space.

30. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Disposals

31. In the reporting period between 01 August 2019 and 31 January 2020, the Panuku disposals team has entered into five sale and purchase agreements, with an estimated value of $3.6 million of unconditional net sales proceeds.

32. Panuku 2019/20 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

33. No property has been sold in the Puketāpapa Local Board area during the reporting period.

Under review

34. No properties are currently under review in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. The Panuku Priority Location programmes support regeneration of existing town centres, developing underutilised sites within the urban area, close to transport links. Increasing the density of housing results in reduced carbon emissions through improved utilisation of existing infrastructure and transit-oriented development. The provision of easy, safe and attractive walking and cycling routes reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and enables low carbon lifestyles. Panuku has adopted a minimum standard of a Homestar 6 rating for all homes, resulting in warmer, drier and more energy efficient buildings.

36. Climate change increases the probability of hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding and drought in the Puketāpapa Local Board Area. Panuku seeks to future-proof our communities by:

a) specifying adaptation and resilience in the design of buildings and spaces.

b) specifying that infrastructure and developments are designed to cope with warmer temperatures and extreme weather events.

c) use of green infrastructure and water sensitive design for increased flood resilience, ecological and biodiversity benefits

d) provision of increased shade and shelter for storm events and hotter days.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. The views of the council group are incorporated on a project by project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. Any local or sub-regional impacts related to local activities are considered on a project by project basis.

39. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries relating to a property in the local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Panuku works collaboratively with mana whenua on a range of projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the rohe and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

41. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. The next six-monthly update is scheduled for September 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Lisa Gooding - Senior Engagement Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05325

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa Grants Programme 2020/2021 for adoption as provided in Attachment A to this report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopt the Puketāpapa Grants Programme 2020/2021, with two local and one quick response grant round.

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 will 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 Puketāpapa 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 prioritising of projects which:

· support community resilience and recovery, in response to the COVID-19 crisis and

o demonstrate how a project will proceed at each COVID-19 alert level

o demonstrate how a group will reach the more vulnerable in our community

11. The local board has also requested further advice on options to vary the number of quick response grant rounds in the 2020/2021 grant programme. The options are outlined in the table below, with accompanying benefits and disadvantages for each option.

Number of Grant rounds

Pros

Cons

Status Quo

Two local

Two quick response

The community is familiar with the grant rounds that were previously available, so they plan their projects accordingly

The budget for 2020/2021 may not allow for two quick response grant rounds. The grant rounds are always oversubscribed and expectations would be raised that funding is available to cover the grant requests.

Two local and one quick response round.

The ability to choose the right round for the size of the funding requested. It offers a good spread of rounds throughout the financial year.

With only one quick response round offered, smaller projects would only have one opportunity to apply. Applicants will be limited by the maximum amount of $1,000

12. Staff recommend that the grant programme for 2020/2021 is adopted with two local and one quick response round.

13. This would ensure good coverage of grant rounds over the financial year. It would also not raise expectations from the community on the ability of the local board to fund activities, due to the forecast of more constrained budgets in 2020/2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 ⇩	Puketāpapa Grants Programme 2020/2021	41

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moumita Dutta - Senior Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Puketāpapa Local Grants and Multiboard Round Two 2019/2020 and Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Two 2019/2020 grant allocations

File No.: CP2020/05852

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for Puketāpapa Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 including multiboard applications and Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Two 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Puketāpapa Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 (refer Attachment B) including multiboard applications (Attachment C) and Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Two 2019/2020 (Attachment D).

3. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 18 April 2019. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $75,640 for the 2019/2020 financial year. A total of $37,755.85 was allocated in previous grant rounds, this leaves a total of $37,884.15 to be allocated to one local grants and one quick response round including one multiboard round.

5. Eight applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $29,894 and sixteen multiboard applications were also received requesting a total of $43,573.02.

6. Two applications were received for Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $1,999.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Puketāpapa Round Two, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2015-202	St John's Presbyterian Church (Mt. Roskill)	Community	Towards the purchase of new chairs, a commercial fridge and renovating "St John's Presbyterian Church's Community Hall's" toilet and kitchen facilities.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2015-203	Basava Samithi of Australasia (NZ Chapter) Inc	Community	Towards the cost of venue hire and volunteer and facilitator costs for the "Community Development" programme.	$5,000.00	Ineligible
LG2015-204	Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation Charitable Trust	Community	Towards resources, transport and operating costs to deliver the "We Can Keep Safe" pre-school programme.	$2,111.00	Eligible
LG2015-206	Roopa Aur Aap Charitable Trust	Community	Towards costs to provide counseling services and victim support services to victims of family violence.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2015-207	Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the cost of running an elderly support programme, specifically venue hire and transport to celebrate the organisation's Silver Jubilee Anniversary.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2015-208	Blue Light Ventures Incorporated	Community	Towards the cost of tickets to "Rainbows End" for 150 youth from the Puketapapa local board area.	$3,783.00	Eligible
LG2015-209	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the supervision and triage support staff wages.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2015-201	Rise 2020	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of exercise gear.	$1,000.00	Eligible
Total				$29,894.00

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Multiboard Round Two, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB1920-268	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the Youth and Community Engagement, “Matariki for Tamaki” Tour programme and creative workshops from July 2020.onwards, including artist salaries, workshop fees and camera hire	$1,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-2100	The Kids for Kids Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the National Young Leaders Day and the "Kids for Kids" mass choir event, including venue hire from 8 to 11 November 2020.	$2,600.00	Eligible
MB1920-2115	The Operating Theatre Trust, trading as Tim Bray Theatre Company	Arts and culture	Towards the 'Gift a Seat' outreach programme to enable children from low decile schools to experience live children’s theatre from 21 September to 18 December 2020.	$3,160.10	Eligible
MB1920-2122	Action Education Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the annual cost of office rent from 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021.	$600.00	Eligible
MB1920-203	Epsom Chinese Association Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire (Fickling Centre), marketing, performers fee and workshop materials for a community day on 25 July 2020.	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-206	KidsCan Charitable Trust	Community	Towards programme items food, raincoats, shoes and socks for children attending KidsCan low decile partner schools within the Auckland region.	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-240	Recreate NZ	Community	Towards costs of volunteers’ expenses, facilitator fees and activity expenses to run 'Urban Youth" events between May 2020 till April 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-243	Anxiety New Zealand Trust	Community	Towards venue hire, psychologist fees, printed resources and administration costs to deliver a series of community workshops from June 2020 to May 2021.	$1,700.00	Eligible
MB1920-294	OUTLine New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards a portion of general operating expenses including telephone and internet costs, printing, insurance, clinical supervision wages, training fees and volunteer costs.	$1,050.00	Eligible
MB1920-2110	Social Enterprise Auckland Incorporated	Community	Towards a zoom webinar, venue hire, food and drink, administration, donations, project management, video editing and contractor costs.	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-2106	PHAB Association (Auckland) Incorporated	Community	Towards operational costs, including youth worker wages, activity costs, administration and coordination fees from May to April 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-2109	LifeKidz Trust	Community	Towards play equipment and support worker wages.	$1,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-2111	Deaf Wellbeing Society Incorporated	Community	Towards the fortnightly zero waste workshops at the Melville Cricket Pavilion from 6 August 2020 to 24 June 2021.	$2,345.00	Eligible
MB1920-216	The ReCreators	Community	Towards online workshop costs including materials, webinar costs, tool usage, design, advertising, registration and preparation for the events	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-278	New Zealand Eid Day Trust Board	Community	Towards costs of security, audio-visual equipment, sound, and cleaning to host New Zealand Eid Day 2020 - Eid-ul-Adha.	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB1920-257	Auckland United Softball Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards operational costs and wages for the United Softball Association	$2,117.92	Eligible
Total				$43,573.02

c) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Two 2019/2020, listed in Table Two below:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR2015-201	Genealogical Computing Group of New Zealand Society of Genealogist	Events	Towards printing programme brochures for the Auckland Family History Expo.	$1,000.00	Eligible
QR2015-202	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Community	Towards the cost of printing 590 take-home workbooks for students at the Mt Roskill Intermediate School.	$999.00	Eligible
Total				$1,999.00

Horopaki

Context

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

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

9. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

10. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 18 April 2019. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

13. Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, staff have also assessed each application according to which alert level the proposed activity is able to proceed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

18. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

19. A summary of each application received through Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two 2019/2020, multi-board and Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Two 2019/2020 is provided in Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

21. Two applicants applying to Puketāpapa Local Grants Round Two, eleven applicants applying to Mulitboard Grants Round Two and two applicants applying to Quick Response Round Two indicate projects that target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

23. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $75,640 for the 2019/2020 financial year. A total of $37,755.85 was allocated in previous grant rounds, this leaves a total of $37,884.15 to be allocated to one local grants and one quick response round including one multiboard round.

24. Eight applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $29,894 and sixteen multiboard applications were also received requesting a total of $43,573.02.

25. Two applications were received for Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $1,999.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Following the Puketāpapa Local Board allocation of funding for the local grants and multiboard round two, and quick response round two the grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2019-2020	53
b ⇨	Puketāpapa Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Puketāpapa Multiboard Round Two 2019/2020 applications (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Two 2019/2020 applications (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moumita Dutta - Senior Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/05869

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency Innovating Streets for People pilot fund

File No.: CP2020/05910

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local boards with an overview of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) Innovating Streets for People pilot fund (ISPF).

2. To request feedback on projects within your local board area that have been proposed by staff across Auckland Transport (AT), Auckland Council, and Panuku for inclusion in Auckland Council’s application to the ISPF.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) announced a pilot fund in April 2020 that supports pilot projects and interim improvements for safe active transport. The Innovating Streets Pilot Fund (ISPF) is intended to help councils create more people-friendly spaces through the application of tactical urbanism techniques such as pilots, pop ups and interim projects. While the fund is intended to support pilots that can be rolled out rapidly and at relatively low cost, projects should also be able to demonstrate a pathway to more permanent status, should they prove successful.

4. Local boards have previously been invited to contribute localised strategic direction and guidance regarding projects that may be suitable to submit for funding. This guidance has been incorporated into the development of a list of potential projects that will be circulated to local boards by 25 May 2020.

5. Local boards are now invited to provide formal feedback on the list of potential projects within their local area, including their view of which projects are the highest priority.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the list of local projects proposed as suitable for inclusion in Auckland Council’s application to the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) Innovating Streets Pilot Fund (ISPF) by 12pm on 29 May 2020.

a) delegate authority to <member> to provide feedback on the list of local projects proposed as suitable for inclusion in Auckland Council’s application to the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) Innovating Streets Pilot Fund (ISPF) by 12pm on 29 May 2020.

Horopaki

Context

6. On 3 April 2020, Waka Kotahi announced the ISPF, which supports council projects that aim to transition streets to be safer and more liveable spaces. The fund encourages the use of ‘tactical urbanism’ techniques, such as pilots and pop ups - interim treatments that can be delivered within a short timeframe to test and help demonstrate the value of future permanent street changes that make walking and cycling easier. Projects that Waka Kotahi aims to support include:

· temporary, or semi-permanent, physical changes to streets

· improvements that test a permanent fix and prototype a street design

· activations that help communities re-imagine their streets.

7. There are two application rounds for the ISPF:

· The first round opened on 3 April and closed on 8 May 2020. Successful applicants are expected to be announced in June 2020.

· The second round opens on 8 June and closes on 3 July 2020 with successful applicants to be announced by the end of July 2020.

8. Qualifying projects are expected to be delivered by June 2021.

9. In addition to the two funding rounds, Waka Kotahi is offering support for interventions that specifically relate to Covid-19. Auckland Transport (AT) is leading an emergency response programme in conjunction with Auckland Council and are applying for a funding subsidy for the costs associated with Covid-19 measures which are already being implemented across Auckland.

10. The selection process for round one was led by AT. Due to tight timeframes for submission, consultation was not possible. Twelve projects were submitted to Waka Kotahi for consideration. All these projects come from existing programmes previously approved by Auckland Council and align well with Governing Body and local board strategic transport priorities.

11. If these projects are awarded funding from Waka Kotahi, comprehensive stakeholder engagement will occur throughout the planning and delivery of each project, as per Waka Kotahi’s selection criteria.

12. For round two ISPF funding, a project team has been established across Auckland Council, AT and Panuku and a process developed to identify potential projects and take them through to a finished application.

13. On 8 May 2020, local boards were invited to contribute localised strategic direction and guidance regarding projects that may be suitable to submit for funding. This guidance has been incorporated into the development of a list of potential projects circulated to local boards on or before 25 May 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The ISPF provides an opportunity for Auckland Council and AT to catalyse positive change across Auckland in line with Auckland Council’s strategic goals of improving walking and cycling options and creating more people-friendly spaces.

15. The techniques of tactical urbanism supported by the pilot fund represent an innovative change to the typical way in which projects are engaged upon, designed and delivered. Tactical urbanism entails piloting and testing key project elements on a temporary basis, that can generally be rolled out rapidly and at low cost. This constitutes a form of ‘engagement by doing’ and enables the relative success of ideas to be assessed before they are committed to more permanently.

Criteria for the assessment and prioritisation of projects

16. When providing feedback on the list of potential projects, local boards should keep the following criteria in mind, which will be used by the project team to finalise the list of projects to recommend to the Emergency Committee.

17. Prioritised projects will:

· improve transport choices and liveability of a place

· help mitigate a clear safety issue (related to Deaths and Serious Injuries at a specific location)

· be effective at:

o reducing vehicle speed (to 30km/hr or less), and/or

o creating more space for people on our streets, and/or

o making walking and cycling more attractive

· use temporary pilots, pop ups or treatments as a pathway to permanent change in the future

· contribute to more equitable access to opportunities and essential services, particularly in areas with low levels of travel choice

· support mode shift to low-carbon modes

· support Māori outcomes, i.e.:

o adopt a design or project approach founded on Māori principles

o help advance Māori wellbeing, e.g. active Māori participation, improved access to marae, kura, kohanga, papakāinga, employment

· test key elements or is designed to generate community support for the ‘parent’ project

· be part of an existing planned and budgeted project (AC projects only)

· demonstrate the importance of the project within the current AT work programme (AT projects only)

· demonstrate ability to deliver

· demonstrate strong likelihood of project delivery by June 2021

· demonstrate co-design approach involving key stakeholders and community, including:

o support from the relevant local board(s) and stakeholders

o support from local community/stakeholders (e.g. business association)

· display clear process, including milestones, cost, monitoring and evaluation, and identification of risks and mitigation

· demonstrate value for money

· demonstrate opportunity to improve efficiency, or reduce risks associated with future permanent upgrades.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The transport sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Auckland region with around 40 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions. Increased support and prioritisation of ‘no and low’ emissions modes of transport such as active transport, micro-mobility modes and public transport, will help reduce these emissions.

19. The interventions supported by the Innovating Streets for People pilot fund enable a reduction of transport emissions, which would support Auckland Council’s ability to achieve its climate goals and is well aligned with the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework, and with the in-principle changes to this framework endorsed by the Environment and Climate Change Committee (resolution number ECC/2020/12).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Auckland Council and AT are following an aligned approach for the ISPF submission and are working together to develop joint application packages.

21. Relevant parts of the council, including Ngā Mātārae; the Auckland Design Office; the Development Programme Office; Libraries; the Southern Initiative; Arts, Community and Events; Parks, Sports and Recreation; Plans and Places, and Panuku, have been engaged to prepare and collate funding proposals for the second round.

22. If a project application is successful, there will be a need to implement, coordinate and monitor the outcomes of projects that are funded by the ISPF. This would be jointly coordinated by AT and staff from across the Auckland Council family.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Staff captured informal local board views earlier this month by inviting local boards to contribute localised strategic direction and guidance regarding projects that may be suitable to submit for funding. This guidance has been incorporated into the development of the list of potential projects.

24. The types of projects that Waka Kotahi seek to promote through this fund will have positive impacts on local communities in terms of the outcomes that are reflected in the assessment criteria.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Māori are likely to benefit from interventions that support safer and more accessible active transport in Auckland. This is because Māori are over-represented in pedestrian-related crashes and tend to live in parts of Auckland where travel choice is poorest. To ensure these interventions benefit Māori equitably, they need to be complemented by meaningful access to active modes such as bicycles and micro-mobility devices, as well as supporting infrastructure such as secure bicycle parking outside main destinations.

26. The Innovating Streets fund encourages community-led interventions to transform urban spaces into safe and liveable spaces for people. There are opportunities to tap into the creativity and local knowledge of Māori communities in Tāmaki Makaurau to create urban interventions that address community needs and provide a strong sense of place.

27. Ngā Mātārae, the Southern Initiative and the Independent Māori Statutory Board have been approached for their input into the proposed project list.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The proposed high levels of funding assistance from Waka Kotahi (up to 90 per cent of a project’s value) will potentially result in savings for both Auckland Council and AT on any projects that may already have been planned and funded prior to the pilot fund application.

29. The funding provided by Waka Kotahi for piloting or testing of temporary interventions is likely to reduce design time and increase financial security for permanent improvements in the future. Trialling of real-life options for more permanent activities can also reduce or avoid potential costs associated with the redesign of interventions in case desired outcomes could not be achieved.

30. There are no financial implications for local boards arising from providing feedback on the list of potential projects, except for those projects proposed by local boards, and which they have proposed to fund themselves.

31. Local boards that submit an expression of interest for a project need to demonstrate both the ability to fund the temporary project and, if the project does not link to an existing AT, Auckland Council or Panuku funded permanent project, that the local board is able to completely fund the permanent project as well.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There is a risk that Auckland Council may not be able to afford the local share of 10 per cent of the project cost needed to implement interventions under the ISPF, particularly given the present circumstances and the need to significantly amend the draft Annual Plan 2020/21. Note that while successful projects will require 10 per cent funding from council, they will bring the benefit of additional funding into Auckland. Similar financial constraints may also apply to AT and Panuku who are also potentially funding projects.

33. Another risk is the possibility that the implementation of successful Auckland Council projects under the pilot fund will not lead to the desired outcomes for Auckland. To mitigate this risk, staff have developed a set of assessment criteria for projects (see paragraph 17) to ensure strategic alignment with Auckland Council objectives before projects are submitted to Waka Kotahi.

34. Waka Kotahi’s Criteria 2: Ability to Deliver requires a co-design approach with community and key stakeholders in the development and delivery of projects. The possibility that unified community support for local interventions cannot be achieved through the co-design process within the required timeframe poses an additional risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on the list of local projects proposed as suitable for inclusion in Auckland Council’s application to the ISPF by 12pm (midday) on 29 May 2020.

36. Each project will then be assessed against the criteria described above, and the project team will produce quality advice for endorsement from an Auckland Council committee.

37. AT projects will be presented to the AT Board on 3 June 2020 for endorsement.

38. All projects will be presented to an Auckland Council committee in early June 2020 following which, all interested parties will be notified whether their proposed project has been selected to proceed to an ISPF application.

39. Following this decision, further work will be undertaken to develop, prepare, and review each project that has been selected for submission to Waka Kotahi.

40. Completed applications will be submitted to Waka Kotahi prior to the closing date of 3 July 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead – Senior Policy Acvisor – Local Board Services

Authorisers

Megan Tyler – Chief of Strategy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 May 2020

Feedback on:

The Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Accessible Streets Regulatory Package (2020)

15 April

_________________________________________________________________________

Context

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency has released an Accessible Streets Regulatory Package. This is a collection of rule changes 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.

The package intends to 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.

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.

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

Submissions on the package close on 22 April 2020.

Relevance to the Local board

Local boards are a key part of the governance of Auckland Council. Local boards have responsibilities set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, specifically:

Ø identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council

Local boards provide important local input into region-wide strategies/plans and can also represent the views of their communities to other agencies, including those of central government.

Puketāpapa Local Board feedback:

Proposal 1A: Pedestrians and powered wheelchair users

1. Do you agree that powered wheelchairs should be treated as pedestrians? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Powered wheelchairs are important mobility device for those who require them. It is important that they be legally allowed to use the most appropriate surface / lane for their device.

Proposal 1B: Changing wheeled recreational devices

2. Do you agree with the proposal to replace wheeled recreational devices with new categories for unpowered and powered transport devices? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal, subject to changes.

· The rise of micro-mobility devices such as electric scooters, electric skateboards and bicycles means that footpaths will be increasingly used by non-pedestrians, and a framework is required to ensure the safety of all users, especially pedestrians.

· We believe all micro-mobility devices should be able to use footpaths at low speed.

· It is essential that speed limits are defined for non-pedestrian users. We believe a 10km/h speed should be implemented when near pedestrians as this allows for pedestrian safety and ensures device users are not out of control.

3. What steps should the Transport Agency take before declaring a vehicle not to be a motor vehicle?

No comment

4. If the Transport Agency declares a vehicle to not be a motor vehicle, do you think it should be able to impose conditions? If yes, should such conditions be able to be applied regardless of the power output of the device?

· The Transport Agency should consider the creation of a new category “Micro Motor Vehicle” into which any powered transport device falls. This would allow

· These devices could then be able to use footpaths at speeds of under 15kph.

5. We propose to clarify that:

c) a. low powered vehicles that have not been declared not to be motor vehicles by the Transport Agency (e.g. hover boards, e-skateboards and other emerging devices) are not allowed on the footpath

d) b. these vehicles are also not allowed on the road under current rules, because they do not meet motor vehicle standards

e) c. if the Transport Agency declares any of these vehicles not to be motor vehicles in the future, they will be classified as powered transport devices and will be permitted on the footpath and the road (along with other paths and cycle lanes).

f) Do you agree with this proposed clarification? Why/why not?

· The Board is not supportive of this proposal, unless as per point (c) the Transport Agency declares them to be powered transport devices.

· Without point (c), this clarification effectively bans e-skateboards etc from both the footpath and the road, rendering them useless as transport devices.

Proposal 1C: Clarifying cycles and e-bikes

6. Do you agree with the proposal that:

g) • Small-wheeled cycles that are propelled by cranks be defined as cycles, and

h) • Small-wheeled cycles that are not propelled by cranks, such as balance bikes, be defined as transport devices?

i) Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· It will enable smaller bikes to use a range of surfaces and lanes.

Proposal 1D: Mobility devices

7. Mobility devices have the same level of access as pedestrians but will have to give way to pedestrians and powered wheelchairs under the proposed changes. Do you agree? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· As the most vulnerable road users, it’s important to protect pedestrians and enforcing these give way provisions are critical.

8. Do you think there will be any safety or access-related problems with mobility devices operating in different spaces? Please explain.

· Given that they are required by those with mobility issues, it is important that they be legally allowed to use the most appropriate surface / lane for their device.

· There could potentially be issues around footpath width, particularly in areas with legacy footpaths that are below standard.

9. We intend to review the mobility device category at a later date. What factors do you think we need to consider?

· When reviewing the mobility device category, keep it to powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters which have strict standards. Escooters, segways (see page 21 about the segway ruling), ebikes and other devices should not be considered a mobility device.

Alternative proposal

10. We have outlined an option to not change vehicle definitions. This means we would make changes at a later date instead. Do you prefer this option to our proposal to change vehicle definitions now (see proposals 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D for more details)? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of changing definitions now.

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

11. Our proposed changes will allow mobility devices, transport devices, and cycles on the footpath - provided users meet speed, width and behavioural requirements. Do you support this? Why/why not? Should there be any other requirements?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· It is important that low-speed, low-risk cycling/riding is legally allowed on footpaths, to allow parents to ride with children, and for cyclists/riders to avoid high-risk roads that have poor cycling facilities.

· Some roads are simply not safe to cycle on for both young and older, but if following the feedback given in Proposal 1B, footpaths should be safe for all users and they can negotiate those spaces.

12. We have outlined two alternative options to address cycling on the footpath. These are:

o) a. allow cyclists up to 16 years of age to use the footpath; or

p) b. Continue the status quo, where most cyclists are not allowed to use the footpath.

q) Do you prefer either of these options instead of allowing cyclists on the footpath?

· The Board prefers the original proposal, allowing cyclists on the footpath.

13. Would you support an age limit for cycling on the footpath? What age would you prefer?

· The Board would not support an age limit.

· Ability and confidence is not linked to age in every situation, and older riders may not feel comfortable on certain roads.

14. Our proposal allows road controlling authorities to restrict cycle or device use on certain footpaths or areas of footpaths to suit local communities and conditions. Do you agree with this proposal? Why/why not? Do you have any comments on the proposed process?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· It is important for local authorities to control this, particularly in busy urban areas.

x) Problems will be where the road is very dangerous (double lane roads with no strip median, cars in and out of carparking, etc) but the footpath is very narrow, in a bad condition and/or obstructed by plants. In which case the local authority will probably need to deem the footpath not safe for cycling. We believe that if a footpath is deemed unsafe for cycling there needs to be provision for cyclists made, either through protected cycle lane or creating a shared path.

15. We envisage that local authorities will make decisions to regulate the use of paths by resolution, rather than by making a bylaw. Should this be specified in the Land Transport Rule: Paths and Road Margins 2020 to provide certainty? Why/why not?

· No Comment

16. We’re proposing that road controlling authorities consider and follow criteria in addition to their usual resolution processes if they want to restrict devices from using the footpath. Do you agree with this proposal and the proposed criteria? Why/why not?

aa)

· The Board is generally supportive of this proposal with the following reservation:

· The proposal would require a longer timeframe (consultation etc) meaning that there may be delay in actioning urgent issues.

bb)

17. We have also outlined an option to maintain current footpath rules. Would you prefer this option instead of the proposed framework with speed and width requirements? Why/why not?

cc)

· A new framework is required, to ensure the most vulnerable road users are protected. Pedestrians must not be put at risk by these changes.

dd)

Proposal 2A: Users on the footpath will operate vehicles in a courteous and considerate manner, travel in a way that isn’t dangerous and give right of way to pedestrians

18. We propose that pedestrians should always have right of way on the footpath. Do you agree with this proposal? Why/why not?

ee)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road corridor users and must be protected.

19. This proposal sets out three behavioural requirements; that footpath users will:

ff) • operate vehicles in a courteous and considerate manner,

gg) • travel in a way that isn’t dangerous, and

hh) • give right of way to pedestrians.

ii) Do you agree with these three requirements? Are there any others we should consider?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

Proposal 2B: Default 15km/h speed limit for vehicles using the footpath

20. Do you agree with the proposed default speed limit of 15km/h for footpaths? Why/why not? Do you think the proposed speed limit should be higher/lower?

jj)

· The Board is supportive of the standard speed limit being 15kph on footpaths as this is a good level to get the benefits of micro-mobility devices while keeping pedestrians safe. Anything higher would lead to an increase in accidents, permanently lower would dissuade people from using these devices. We support the speed limit, with the caveat that users drop their speed when around pedestrians.

kk)

21. Do you agree with the proposal that road controlling authorities will be able to lower the default speed limit for a footpath or areas of footpaths? Why/why not?

ll)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Local authorities need to be able to act quickly and independently to solve local issues.

mm)

22. Are there other ways, that you can think of, to improve footpath safety? Please explain.

· Improving footpath safety, for low walkability neighbourhoods, with bad quality footpaths, widening footpaths for better use and potential shared use should be considered.

· There is a need to focus on footpath maintenance and ensure this is well funded.

· There are guidelines that NZTA should publish for local authorities such as gentle signalling (such as a bell) when coming up behind or passing as good practice. Give way to all pedestrians. Slower mode on left hand side as guideline for local authorities to promote

Proposal 2C: 750mm width restriction for vehicles that operate on the footpath

23. Do you agree with the proposed maximum width measurement of 750mm (except for wheelchairs) for devices on the footpath? Should this maximum width limit be wider/narrower?

nn)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· A standard width bicycle trailer is under 600mm wide, so 750mm seems adequate for parents who wish to ride on the footpath while their children are in a trailer.

oo)

24. Do you use a mobility device? If yes, what is the width of your device? Would the proposed width restriction impact you?

· No comments.

25. Should the maximum width limit apply to mobility devices? Why/why not?

· In general yes, but with future technology there may be a need to change this as new devices come onto the market to deal with different health needs.

26. We propose that people who already own a device wider than 750mm could apply for an exemption. This document also considers three alternative approaches to mitigate the impact on existing device owners:

pp) a. mobility devices purchased before the rule changes could be automatically exempt from the width limit.

qq) b. The Transport Agency could declare certain wider devices to be mobility devices under section 168A of the Land Transport Act, and exclude them from width requirements, or

rr) c. Apply a separate width limit to mobility devices.

ss) Which is your preferred option? Do you have any comments on these alternatives?

· Option B is preferred.

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

27. Do you agree that road controlling authorities should be able to declare a path a shared path or a cycle path? What factors should be considered when making this decision?

tt)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Local authorities need to be empowered to make changes that are appropriate to their populace and urban form.

uu)

28. Do you agree with the behavioural requirements we are proposing? Should there be other requirements or rules to use a shared path or cycle path?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· The user priority table is appropriate and should be implemented.

29. Do you agree that all users be required to give way to pedestrians when using a shared path? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Pedestrians are the most vulnerable corridor users and must be protected.

30. Do you agree with the proposed speed limits for shared paths and cycle paths and the ability of road controlling authorities to change these limits? Please explain.

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Local authorities need to be empowered to make changes that are appropriate to their populace and urban form.

31. Do you think that the Transport Agency should be able to investigate and direct road controlling authorities to comply with the required criteria? Why/why not?

· The Board is tentatively supportive of this proposal, with the proviso that acknowledgement is made that different areas: rural and urban require different rules.

· Local authorities need to be empowered to make changes that are appropriate to their populace and urban form.

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

32. Do you agree that devices other than cycles should be allowed to use cycle lanes and/or cycle paths? Why/why not?

vv)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· The rise of micro-mobility devices means that more cycle lanes and shared paths are required, and these devices must be able to use them legally.

ww)

33. Do you agree that road controlling authorities should be able to exclude powered transport devices or unpowered transport devices from cycle lanes and/or cycle paths? Why/why not?

· The Board is not supportive of this proposal.

· The increased variety of devices may lead to fragmentation of the definitions of powered / non-powered devices. The identification of each may also become difficult.

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

34. Do you agree with the proposal that powered transport devices must be fitted with a headlamp, rear facing position light, and be fitted with a reflector (unless the user is wearing reflective material) if they are used at night? Why/why not?

xx)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· We agree that a front-facing light and a rear-facing light are required at night.

yy)

35. Do you think these requirements are practical? For example, if you own a powered transport device, will you be able to purchase and attach a reflector or lights to your device or yourself?

zz)

· Many powered transport devices will already have front and rear facing lights.

· Front facing lights are relatively easy to attach to handlebars.

· Rear facing lights may be more difficult to attach e.g. on an e-scooter

· Reflectors may not be able to be attached to devices where there are limited or thin surface areas.

· It is important that a requirement be made of sellers to ensure devices meet this criteria.

aaa)

36. Do you think unpowered transport device users should be required to meet the same lighting and reflector requirements as powered transport device users at night time? Why/why not?

· If they are travelling on the road, then they must have lights.

Proposal 6A: Allow cycles and transport devices to travel straight ahead from a left turn lane

37. Do you agree that cyclists and transport device users should be able to ride straight ahead from a left turn lane at an intersection, when it is safe to do so? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· It is safer for users to stay in the left lane to go straight ahead.

Proposal 6B: Allow cycles and transport devices to carefully pass slow-moving vehicles on the left, unless a motor vehicle is indicating a left turn

bbb)

38. Do you agree that cyclists and transport devices should be allowed to carefully ‘undertake’ slow-moving traffic? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Cyclists are often able to move at a higher average speed than peak traffic, and removing that ability disincentives the use of bicycles.

Proposal 6C: Give cycles, transport devices and buses priority over turning traffic when they’re travelling through an intersection in a separated lane

39. Do you agree that turning traffic should give way to users travelling straight through at an intersection from a separated lane? Why/why not?

ccc)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Road users going straight ahead, including cyclists and pedestrians, should have priority over all turning traffic, as it is safer and ensures turning traffic travels at a safer speed.

40. Our proposed change will introduce a list of traffic control devices used to separate lanes from the roadway to help you understand what a separated lane is and if the user has right of way at an intersection. Is such a list necessary? Why/why not?

ddd)

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Education for all road users is an important part of these changes, and traffic control devices can aid this.

eee)

41. Should the definition of a separated lane include the distance between the lane and the road? Why/why not?

· No Comment

Proposal 6D: Give priority to footpath, shared path and cycle path users over turning traffic where the necessary traffic control devices are installed

42. Do you agree that turning traffic should give way to path users crossing a side road with the proposed markings? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Road users going straight ahead, including cyclists and pedestrians, should have priority over all turning traffic, as it is safer and ensures turning traffic travels at a safer speed.

· It is very important that a period of education takes place before the law change to ensure drivers are aware of the rule change.

43. Do you think that the proposed minimum markings are appropriate?

· Yes, the proposed markings are appropriate.

44. We are proposing future guidance for additional treatments. Is there any guidance that you would like to see or recommend?

· No comment

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

45. Do you agree with the proposal for a mandatory minimum overtaking gap for motor vehicles of 1 metre (when the speed limit is 60km/h or less), and 1.5 metres (when the speed limit is over 60km/h) when passing pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and users of other devices? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal, with one important change.

· 1.5 metres should be the minimum at all speeds. Having two different minimums adds to confusion and doesn’t make anything safer for non-motorists.

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

46. Do you agree with the proposal that road controlling authorities should be able to restrict berm parking without the use of signs and instead rely on an online register? Why/why not?

· The Board is partially supportive of this proposal.

· It is important for local authorities to enforce their own streets without relying on central government. We foresee an increase in enforcement required to police this and will result in increased costs to councils.

· In general, the board does not support berm parking at all as it causes damage and creates safety issues. However, we acknowledge that there are streets which have access issues with on-street parking. These streets could be defined by council as areas where berm parking is permitted.

· The finer details of how this will work needs to be managed. We would be willing to have a ‘trial’ of the register in Puketāpapa as we have live examples of places with a culture of berm parking and local advocates both for and against berm parking.

47. Would it be helpful if information on berm parking restrictions was available in other places, like at a local library, i-SITE, or a local council?

fff)

No Comment

Proposal 9: Give buses priority when exiting bus stops

ggg)

48. Do you agree that traffic should give way to indicating buses leaving a bus stop on a road with a speed limit of 60km/h or less? Why/why not?

· The Board is supportive of this proposal.

· Increasing efficiency of public transport is a high priority for the Auckland region.

· The proposed change provides certainty for all road users.

49. Should traffic give way to buses in other situations? For example, when a bus is exiting a bus lane and merging back into traffic lanes? Why/why not?

· Buses should have right of way over all other vehicles (except emergency vehicles).

· It is important that bus drivers take the safety of all other road users to mind and are educated about how they interact with others on the road.

Conclusion

The board has made its position clear on the proposals and largely supports the changes being made. We applaud the focus on making streets a better place for all users. We emphasise the need for education before these changes are made, similar to when the give way rules changed in 2012. As this is a large suite of changes it is important that all of Aotearoa is familiar with the changes before they are set into law.

End.

Chairperson	Harry Doig
Deputy Chairperson	Julie Fairey
Members	Ella Kumar, JP
	Fiona Lai
	Bobby Shen
	Jon Turner

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ella Kumar board member report 01 March - 30 April 2020	97
b ⇩	Bobby Shen board member report period 20 February 2020 - 19 March 2020	101
c ⇩	Bobby Shen board member report period 19 March 2020 - 16 April 2020	105
d ⇩	Bobby Shen board member report 16 April 2020 - 21 May 2020	109
e ⇩	Jon Turner board member report 06 March 2020 - 07 May 2020	113

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20200312 Workshop Record	125
b ⇩	20200319 Workshop Record	127
c ⇩	20200326 Workshop Record	131
d ⇩	20200402 Workshop Record	133
e ⇩	20200409 Workshop Record	135
f ⇩	20200416 Workshop Record	137
g ⇩	20200430 Workshop Record	139
h ⇩	20200507 Workshop Record	141

Author	Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketāpapa
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki & Puketāpapa