Agenda of Papakura Local Board

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Wednesday 6 May 2020, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Papakura Business Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tracy Shackleton from the Papakura Business Association, will speak to CCTV funding.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

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

8.2 Deputation - Bruce Pulman Park

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Gary Troup, acting Chairman of Bruce Pulman Park, will introduce Steven Bartholomew, acting CEO of Bruce Pulman Park, who will update on activities of the park.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Gary Troup and Steven Bartholomew from Bruce Pulman Park, for their presentation on the activities of Bruce Pulman Park.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport May 2020 report to the Papakura Local Board	15
b ⇩	One Local Initiative report to the Papakura Local Board	23

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Papakura Local Grant Round Two and Multi-Board Grant Round Two 2019/2020.

File No.: CP2020/04922

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 27 March 2019 (PPK/2019/32) as provided in Attachment A to this report. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $137,777 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

5. The Papakura Local Grant Round One and Multi-Board Grant Round One 2019/2020 is complete and $67,856 was allocated to that round. At the September 2019 business meeting the board resolved (PPK/2019/171) to allocate a further $2,500 to the Papakura Santa Parade from the Community Grants budget line, leaving $67,421 for the remaining grant rounds.

6. In Small Grants Round One 2019/2020 the local board allocated a total of $20,326.51. Then at the December 2019 business meeting the board resolved (PPK/2019/223) to allocate a further $5,000 to the Local Civic Events Papakura work programme for proposed upcoming local civic events.

7. The local board also granted $1,811.25 for the Hawkins Theatre hireage costs for the Papakura Theatre Company fundraising weekend in support of the Australian fires (PPK/2020/17). A total of $40,283.24 is available for the remaining grant rounds.

8. Twenty-four applications were received for consideration for Papakura Local Grant Round Two 2019/2020 with a total requested of $100,203.34. Eighteen applications were received for consideration for the Papakura Multi-Board Grant, Round Two 2019/2020, with a total requested amount of $51,570.00.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Papakura Local Board Grants Round Two 2019/2020 listed in Table One.

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested
LG2014-202	The Rising Foundation Trust	Community	Towards programme co-ordinator costs for The Rising Foundation Trust	$3,460.00
LG2014-204	Papakura Business Association	Arts and culture	Towards costs to install the Matariki flags in Great South Road, Papakura.	$2,400.00
LG2014-205	Auckland Southern District Chinese Association Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire, financial auditing, costume making activities, Maori cross-cultural activities and transportation costs for the Auckland Southern District Chinese Association.	$5,000.00
LG2014-206	Papakura Community Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards costs for sports equipment and percussion instruments for the Red Hill Community Centre.	$4,204.91
LG2014-207	Tai Brown	Community	Towards venue hire, sausages, drinks, vouchers, promotional printing and t-shits for the graduation of participants in the men’s counselling workshops in Papakura.	$1,000.00
LG2014-208	NZ PREMIERSHOW DOG OF THE YEAR INCORPORATED	Community	Towards cost for the purchase of prizes and hireage of the evening tables and chairs	$2,682.02
LG2014-209	Great Potentials Foundation	Community	Towards costs of two new laptop computers for the Great Potentials service centre.	$3,830.22
LG2014-211	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Community	Towards educational resources, insurance, salary and professional development of the Life Educaiton co-ordinators at Strathallan School.	$5,000.00
LG2014-213	The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire for the sports activities at the Bruce Pulman Park.	$5,000.00
LG2014-215	South Auckland Performing Arts Competition Society (SAPACS) Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire of the Hawkins Theatre for the SAPACS Performing Arts Festival 2020.	$10,043.67
LG2014-217	Papakura Contract Bridge Club Incorporated.	Community	Towards costs of a defibrillator for the Bridge Club in Papakura.	$4,500.00
LG2014-218	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards Youthline’s Helpline operational costs, volunteer triage support and supervision costs.	$5,000.00
LG2014-219	Papakura City Brass	Arts and culture	Towards shirts and hats with band branding.	$4,000.00
LG2014-220	Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation Charitable Trust	Community	Towards resources, transport and operating costs of the "We Can Keep Safe pre-school programme".	$2,111.00
LG2014-221	Merrin Brown	Community	Towards venue hire, sausages, drinks, vouchers, promotional printing and t-shits for graduation of participants from the women’s counselling workshops in Papakura.	$1,000.00
LG2014-222	Shiloh Creative Life Centre Charitable Trust	Community	Towards venue hire and participation fees for the "Youth Tribe Arts Leadershop Programme" in Papakura.	$8,234.24
LG2014-223	New Foundations Trust	Community	Towards a contribution for facilitators costs for the “lead the way” programme at Papakura Intermediate.	$3,600.00
LG2014-225	Bruce Pulman Park Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire of the Bruce Pullman Park for youth activities.	$5,000.00
LG2014-226	Papakura City Football Club	Sport and recreation	Towards coaching course fees for junior and youth level coaching.	$5,000.00
LG2014-228	Children's Autism Foundation	Community	Towards contractor and administration costs of outreach sessions in homes of autistic children in Papakura.	$4,500.00
LG2014-229	New Zealand Kennel Cub (trading as Dogs New Zealand)	Events	Towards set-up and pack-down costs of the grandstand for exhibitors at the 2020 National Dog Show held in Papakura.	$5,000.00
LG2014-230	Shiloh Creative Life Centre Charitable Trust	Community	Towards participant costs, including fees and venue hire for the "dads and lads" fishing programme.	$5,637.28
LG2014-231	New Netball Team Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire for the Bruce Pulman Park for the hosting of the round robin games of the Northern Star regional team.	$1,000.00
LG2014-233	Action Education	Arts and culture	Towards workshop costs for the spoken word programme in Papakura,	$3,000.00
Total				$100,203.34

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

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested
MB1920-206	KidsCan Charitable Trust	Community	Towards programme items including food, raincoats, shoes and socks for children attending KidsCan low decile partner schools within the Papakura area.	$6,000.00
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.	$1,600.00
MB1920-2103	Skatepark Maintenance Services Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards skatepark supervision and an activation programme for the skateparks in Takanini, Mangere Mountain and Pukekohe.	$27,000.00
MB1920-2108	Rainbow Youth Incorporated	Community	Towards the "Peer Support groups" for Rainbow Youth from 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021	$2,870.00
MB1920-2109	LifeKidz Trust	Community	Towards play equipment and support worker wages.	$2,000.00
MB1920-2112	Fresh Movement Arts Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the Fresh Movement Arts tour in partnership with the Revo Tour in schools from 1 June to 30 October 2020.	$2,000.00
MB1920-2113	Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust	Community	Towards veterinary costs for the puppies in prison programme.	$3,000.00
MB1920-2114	Auckland Basketball Services Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards the junior coaching programme including coaching fees, promotion and administration. from 1 July to 15 December 2020.	$5,000.00
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.	$3,000.00
MB1920-2117	CLM Counties Manukau Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards a community hydrohub, a portable solar powered water dispenser.	$5,000.00
MB1920-213	Fix Up, Look Sharp	Community	Towards venue hire, transport, mobile phone and storage leasing costs.	$2,000.00
MB1920-258	Te Whānau Tupu Ngātahi o Aotearoa - Playcentre Aotearoa	Community	Towards research costs at five local board Early Childhood Education centres in south Auckland.	$1,500.00
MB1920-263	Parenting Place Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the delivery costs of life skills, mental health and wellbeing presentations.	$5,000.00
MB1920-267	Training and Budget Services Incorporated.	Community	Towards rental costs of the organisation’s office space.	$5,000.00
MB1920-271	Counties Manukau Sports Foundation	Events, Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire and event co-ordinator costs for the 2020 Counties Manukau Sporting Excellence Awards.	$2,500.00
MB1920-281	Road Safety Education Limited	Community	Support towards the company's operational costs to manage the delivery of Road Safety Programme across Auckland	$3,000.00
MB1920-290	Kiwi Harvest Limited	Community	Towards driver wages and operational expenses.	$4000,00
MB1920-293	Age Concern Auckland Incorporated	Community	Towards salary costs, supervision, phone, vehicle and travel costs.	$3000,00
MB1920-294	OUTLine New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards a portion of general operating expenses including volunteer training, clinical supervision, advertising, stationary, insurance, Information technology costs, training fees and volunteer costs.	$2,100.00
Total				$51,570.00

Horopaki

Context

9. 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.

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

11. 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.

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

13. 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.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. 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. For example, under alert level two, only gatherings of up to 500 people outdoors and up to 100 people indoors, can take place. Events and activities have been assessed according to this criteria.

16. 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. 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. 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; decreasing use of single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and education about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. 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.

19. 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

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

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

22. A summary of each application received through Papakura Local Board Grant Round Two and Multi-Board Grant Round Two 2019/2020 is provided in Attachments B and C to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. 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.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

25. The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $137,777 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

26. The Papakura Local Grant Round One and Multi-Board Grant Round One 2019/2020 is complete and $67,856 was allocated to that round. At the September 2019 business meeting the board resolved (Resolution PPK/2019/171) to allocate a further $2,500 to the Papakura Santa Parade from the Community Grants budget line. leaving $67,421 for the remaining grant rounds.

27. The Local Board Small Grant’s Round One 2019/2020 was completed and an amount of $20,326.51 was allocated. At the December 2019 business meeting the board resolved (Resolution PPK/2019/223) to allocate a further $5,000 to the Local Civic Events Papakura' work programme line 290 for the proposed upcoming local civic events.

28. The local board also resolved to grant the Hawkins Theatre hireage costs for the Papakura Theatre Company fundraising weekend in support of the Australian fires (PPK/2020/17). An amount of $1,811.25 was allocated, leaving $40,283.24 for the remaining grant rounds.

29. Twenty-four applications were received for the Papakura Local Grant, Round Two 2019/2020 with a total requested of $100,203.34 and eighteen applications were received for consideration for the Papakura Multi-Board Grant, Round Two 2019/2020 with a total requested amount of $51,570.00

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. 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

31. Following the Papakura Local Board allocating funding for the local grants round two, council staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Local Board Grants Programme 2019/2020	39
b ⇨	Papakura Local Grant Round Two 2019/2020 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Papakura Multi Board Grant Round Two 2019/2020 Application Summary (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Helen Taimarangai - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge Shared Path

File No.: CP2020/05603

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the preferred concept plan for the installation of a shared path connection from Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2016 Papakura Greenways Plan identifies 23 pedestrian connections aimed at creating a network of priority walking and cycling routes across the area. One section, Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace, was identified for advancement through funding from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund in October 2017. This scope of work was expanded to include the design of section 13, Freelance Terrace to Pescara Bridge in August 2018.

3. Combining the two sections of work was based on the incoming installation of a new pedestrian bridge and metro-grade cycleway along the Southern Motorway Corridor. This demonstrated an opportunity to connect walking and cycling paths and complete the network linkages.

4. A series of concept alignments based on the existing conditions and public input were developed and presented at the local board workshop in August 2019. It was at this time that a preferred alignment was recommended for approval.

5. This report outlines the design alignments, required budgets, and seeks approval of the recommended concept option to deliver on the greenways shared path connection from Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the concept design for a new shared path linking Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge, as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) note the Auckland Transport report to the Papakura Local Board in April 2020 recommended allocating 50% of the available Local Board Transport Capital Fund being $1,066,307 as a contribution to the shared path.

c) allocate 50% of board’s remaining Local Board Transport Capital Funding as per Auckland Transport’s recommendation amounting to $1,066,307, which together with the allocation from the previous Papakura Local Board of $1,280,000 to bring the board’s allocation for the project to $2,346,307.

d) request that Auckland Transport supported by community Facilities progress a business case urgently to the New Zealand Transport Agency for the remainder of the funding required to deliver the Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge shared path project.

Horopaki

Context

6. The 2016 Papakura Greenways Plan identifies 13 pedestrian connections aimed at creating a network of walking and cycling routes across the area. The Greenways Plan is intended to guide the provision of a network of pathways to increase the recreational and non-motorised transport opportunities for users.

7. Section 12, Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace is a new section of path which would connect a previously constructed boardwalk linking Prince Edward Park to Freelance Terrace. It is characterised by a coastal environment, limited esplanade, and private residences along a raised bluff.

8. Section 13, Freelance Terrace to Pescara Bridge is dominated by an existing 1.2m wide concrete track in moderate condition. However, the pathway follows a localised inlet and is dominated by heavy vegetation. It is predominantly used as a walking path.

9. In December 2017 the local board approved (resolution PPK/2017/251) the allocation of funds through the Papakura Local Board Transport Capital Fund to progress the section 12 connection, and requested staff begin the detailed design and report back on the firm order of costs.

10. The board resolved in 2018 to expand the design scope and rough order of costs (PPK/2018/145), as follows:

a) approve that staff proceed with developed design and order of costs for sections 12, Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace, and 13, Freelance Terrace to Pescara Point Bridge, of the Papakura Greenways Plan

b) note that staff do not recommend the use of pontoons as a shared path structure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. A series of site investigations and public engagements were conducted to both prepare a site analysis of current conditions and to better understand local use. This combination of existing conditions and feedback was used to assemble pathway alignment options for evaluation. The following information is a summary of the information collected and advice.

12. Topography – The project site is characteristically coastal, with a steep esplanade bluff and adjacent tidal estuary. The existing grading and drainage are without any dominant overland flows. The design options consider these slopes and look to avoid any unnecessary earthworks.

13. Geotechnical - The geotechnical assessment considers the project area stable enough to support a shared pathway. However, the coastal boardwalk alignment requires fairly deep piles as a result of the geological conditions. Additionally, Section 13 has a cross slope that is subject to lateral movement, and therefore it is recommended to have a retaining wall for this portion of the pathway.

14. Infrastructure – Infrastructure is limited to the existing concrete pathways and stormwater outlets. The main issue with existing infrastructure is located at the midpoint of section 12 where a buried stormwater pipe drains to the estuary.

15. Arboreal – The existing vegetation on site is a mixture of native and introduced species with some invasive plants present. The proposed design of section 13 avoids using fill which follows a recommendation to minimise impacts to the root zone of existing pohutakawa trees. The proposed coastal boardwalk for section 12 has minimal impact to the existing vegetation, but it is recommended to remove invasive species and replace with native materials.

16. Ecological – An ecological assessment was conducted of both pathway sections. It was found that the overall ecological features of the site are considered high quality. This is primarily due to the threatened and at-risk species within the habitat, as well as the value of the estuary ecosystem itself. However, the ecological impacts associated with the proposed development are considered to be low in accordance with the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) impact assessment methodology, as the project will not change the baseline conditions of the site. Taking this advice into consideration, the recommended alignment for section 12 is not on the limited esplanade to avoid disturbing existing habitat, but instead follows a coastal alignment.

17. Visual Impact – In the visual impact assessment, all potential alignments and possible materials were considered. It was recommended that where compliant, no balustrade should be promoted, as it would be a visual intrusion and disrupt the viewshed. It is acknowledged that properties along Freelance Terrace would have minor adverse visual effects. An option to mitigate this further through an in-land connection is considered further below. The option to cross the inlet is not recommended as it would detract more from the visual values at present. Additionally, the in-land alignment is not supported as it takes users away from the coastal environment and diminishes the overall experience.

18. Coastal – The shoreline is currently stable as it is afforded protection from the marsh habitat and coastal planting. However, with anticipated sea level rise, more inundation of the foreshore margin can be expected, and the shoreline may naturally retreat over time. The coastal assessment outlined the existing conditions as having full tidal range but limited current flows, minimal wave action, as well as no significant boat wake. The proposed pile structure would allow for continued water movement in and out of the estuary without impediment. It is understood that the proposed deck level of the boardwalk would be set at approximately reduced level (RL) 2.8m, which is the same as the 20yr average recurrence interval (ARI) coastal storm event inundation. The deck is then anticipated to have inundation during extreme storm events. This design is to minimize the height of the boardwalk and reduce the visual intrusion but allow the boardwalk to be raised over time to adjust for sea level rise.

19. Disabled Access - Each pathway option has been reviewed for compliance with disabled access standards. The in-land option is in excess of the recommended slope at the midpoint inlet and therefore is the less supported option for full public access. The coastal boardwalk option is compliant and is predominantly level over the course of the alignment. The connection of Section 13 to the Pescara overpass bridge does increase in elevation. The developed design seeks to minimise this slope to the extent possible.

20. Several alignment options were prepared at the draft concept level but were excluded based on the findings of the site investigations. The esplanade alignment for Section 12 was eliminated as it would degrade the terrestrial habitat, and also, due to the narrow width and steep slope, could not accommodate a shared path’s dimensions. The alignment as suggested to cross the inlet nearest to the existing boardwalk was removed as a viable option. This was done as it was not considered safe due to the added fall height, the exposure to tidal currents, and the visual intrusion of being so far from the shoreline.

21. Through this elimination process, two remaining alignments were advanced for consideration. The in-land alignment was considered an option as it is supported by several residents along Freelance Terrace and also was an alternative design noted in the 2012 Pahurehure and Hingaia Walkway Feasibility study. The coastal boardwalk option is the preferred option as it has safe access and a better experience of the natural environment. The two alignment options are as depicted below:

A picture containing text, map

Description automatically generated

22. A summary table of the proposed options is as follows:

Section 12 & Section 13 Greenway Shared Path – Alignment Options
Options	*Do Nothing (Status Quo)*	In-land Connection	Coastal Boardwalk
Pathway Type	No change, no connection	Limited timber boardwalk, widened street path on Freelance Terrace, and concrete path 3m wide	Timber boardwalk and concrete path, 3m wide
Benefits & Challenges	· Benefit is no further costs · Challenge is walking and cycling connection is not made	· Benefit is lower cost option · Challenges are the bluff terrain not conducive to easy walking and cycling access, exposure to vehicles, and less enjoyment of coastal nature	· Benefit is contiguous link with enjoyment of coastline nature · Challenges are added cost and timeline
Engineer’s Estimated Cost	$0	$2.5 million	$3.5 million

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. The most immediate climate threat to the project is sea level rise. The usability of the structure may become compromised as deck inundation becomes more frequent as sea levels rise. Therefore, the design of the boardwalk sub-structure is to allow for raises to the deck, so that an adaptive approach to changing environmental conditions can be easily undertaken.

24. The production of cement is a significant contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The quantity of concrete for these options is minimised where possible. Alternatively, the use of timber boardwalk has less emissions as the timber stores carbon taken from the atmosphere. Existing concrete can be recycled as basecourse to help minimise emissions.

25. The objective of the greenways project is to provide shared walking and cycling pathway connections. All options and the subsequent installation would reduce fossil fuel emissions over the long term by promoting non-motorised emission free transport linkages.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The concept options were consulted with the Auckland Council Operational Management and Maintenance and Project Delivery teams. These teams responded with no significant issue to the options and noted that all surfaces should be non-slip.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Local impacts were collected through the initial phase of community engagement. An online survey was open from 15 March until 12 April 2019. Additionally, an open day for in-person conversations was conducted on 30 March 2019 on the northern esplanade to Freelance Terrace. All stakeholders were invited to comment through the online survey or open day attendance.

28. The initial results of this feedback showed concerns for a potential increase of crime with a coastal boardwalk connection and the subsequent promotion of more people accessing the area. Further concerns for the coastal boardwalk option included maintenance, household security, impact to views, and impacts to wildlife. Local impacts in support of the coastal boardwalk option included improved access to other areas, disabled access, enjoyment of the coastline, and an improved ability to commute.

29. The draft concept options were discussed at the local board workshops on 21 August 2019 and 06 May 2020. It was at this time that the local board expressed their preference for the coastal boardwalk option as the preferred alignment.

30. The project aligns with the following Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 –

· Outcome 4: Papakura is well-connected and easy to move around

§ Objective – Papakura’s cycleway and walkways provide safe, connected alternative routes to get us to where we need to go.

· Outcome 5: Treasured for its environment and heritage

§ Objective – The environment in and around our harbour and streams is enjoyed by increasing numbers of people.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Engagement with mana whenua was undertaken as part of the consultation process. A number of joint site walks were conducted with Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, and Ngaati Whanaunga on 24 April 2019, 27 August 2019 and 19 September 2019 respectively. All concept options were discussed, and council staff received the following feedback. The planting of native plant materials is encouraged while removal or disturbance is to be avoided in the protection of the coastal habitat. Water quality is to be protected with minimised disturbance, detailed erosion control, and stormwater management.

32. Overall effects were seen to be low, and support was given to the coastal boardwalk alignment, provided the boardwalk follows closely along the land contours of the Pahurehure Esplanade.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. The previous Papakura Local Board allocated $1,280,000 towards this project in 2017 (resolution PPK/2017/251). The remaining budget for physical works under the original is $975,000. The cost estimate for all options stands outside of this available budget, and therefore has insufficient funding to build both Sections 12 and 13 of the greenways plan. The local board acknowledged the budget shortfall at the workshop held on 21 August 2019 and 06 May 2020, and expressed support for seeking additional funding.

34. From the Auckland Transport report in April 2020, the required funding total was $4,067,918. Upon review with the Consultant, the design went through a value engineering process to seek savings and minimize costs. The total estimated costs are as follows:

35. Funding is available through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund which has a remaining balance of $2,332,263 for this political term. As noted in the April 2020 Auckland Transport report, it is recommended to allocate 50% of this available budget, being $1,066,307, in support of project delivery.

36. With this, there still remains a budget shortfall, and therefore it is advised the Papakura Local Board request that Auckland Transport progress a business case urgently to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for remaining funding required for the delivery of the Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge shared path project. A preliminary discussion with NZTA suggested they were open to considering such a business case for partnership funding.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. A safety-in-design review was conducted of the alignment options in coordination with the consultant. The following risks were identified as the primary risks, and mitigation treatments were incorporated where possible.

Risks	Impact	Mitigation
Existing Conditions – Underground services, overhead powerlines, drainage, vegetation, habitat, viewshed	Moderate – Disturbance to all existing conditions raises the risks of injury, disruption, health and safety measures, and environmental impacts	Good construction methodology, clear instructions, coordinated planning, site safe delineations, minimise limit of disturbance
Construction – Equipment, dust and fumes, workmanship, excavations, demolition, disposal, access	Moderate – Injuries, health and safety, rework, added costs	Apply safe work method, clear detailed instructions, enclose construction area, fencing, traffic control
Operation and Public Use – Slips, trips, falls, social behaviour, shared space pedestrian and cyclists	Moderate/High – Conflicts of use, injuries	Employ Principals of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), ensure adequate sightlines and good passive surveillance throughout for cyclists and pedestrians, non-slip surfacing, sized appropriately to accommodate shared path dimensions
Maintenance, Inspection, Cleaning, Repair – Asset wear and tear	Low/Moderate – Access to boardwalk, inspection of shared path, on-going repairs	Materials of shared path are simplified to timber boardwalk and concrete paths, requiring limited maintenance and comparable repair to other pathways
Natural Events – Sea level rise, storm events, flooding, erosion	Low/Moderate – Structural integrity, inundation, damage	Boardwalk height can be adjusted over the long term, and site disturbances are kept to a minimum to avoid erosion

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. If the recommendation is supported by the local board, the project will be progressed to business case to NZTA, consent, detailed design, and procurement phases to enable construction.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Elliot Street to Pescara Bridge Shared Path	51

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kimberly Graham, Project Manager, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Karen Marais, Manager Elected Member Advice, Community Facilities

John Shermbrucker, Manager Portfolio Delivery, Community Facilities

Mark Townsend, Head of Project Specialisation Office, Community Facilities

Rod Sheridan, General Manager, Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Approval for a new road name at 295 Hingaia Road, Hingaia

File No.: CP2020/05483

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to name four new roads, being three public roads and one private commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 295 Hingaia Road, Hingaia.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. On behalf of the developer, Ben Harper from Surveyworx Ltd (the applicant’s agent), has proposed the names presented in the table below for consideration by the local board.

4. Any of the 12 proposed road name options shown in the table below 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 names ‘Toitoi Circle’ and ‘Eke Circle’ where suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho. These have been suggested as options for Road 1.

6. The proposed names for the new roads at 295 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, are:

Table 1: Preferred And Alternative Road Names
REF	Applicant’s preferred names	Alternative Name Option 1	Alternative Name Option 2
Road 1	Toitoi Circle	Eke Circle	Tānapu Circle
Road 2	Tipa Drive	Pipi Drive	Karatī Drive
Road 3	Hikihiki Drive	Hangore Drive	Pāhurehure Drive
COAL 4	Kōpī Lane	Patatini Lane	Tera Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve 4 names for the following new roads within the development at 295 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60311739, SUB60223353 and LUC60311311):

I) Public Road 1: (local board to insert chosen name and road type)

II) Public Road 2: (local board to insert chosen name and road type)

III) Public Road 3: (local board to insert chosen name and road type)

b) COAL 4: (local board to insert chosen name and road type)

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent BUN60311739 (subdivision reference number SUB60223353) was issued in December 2017 under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Area Act 2013 (HASHAA) for the construction of 62 residential freehold lots, seven commonly owned access lots (COALs), two local reserves, one drainage reserve, one utility reserve, one esplanade reserve and three public roads.

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

9. In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), the 4 roads that are the subject of this application and report require names because they each serve more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

- a historical, cultural, 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.

12. The applicant has proposed names around three local themes:

i) horses, stud farms and horse racing, which the local area is renown for.

ii) the Manukau Harbour, which is in close proximity to the development. The subject site is located directly on the inlet/river that empties out into the harbour.

iii) local flora found in the area.

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

Table 2: Road 1 - 295 Hingaia Road Preferred and alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning
Road 1	Toitoi Circle (Applicant Preferred)	Māori word meaning: (verb) to trot like a horse Suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho
Road 1	Eke Circle (Applicant first alternative)	Māori word meaning: (verb) to ride or mount a horse Suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho
Road 1	Tānapu Circle (Applicant second alternative)	Māori word meaning: (verb) to rear up (of a horse).

Table 3: Road 2 - 295 Hingaia Road Preferred and alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning
Road 2	Tipa Drive (Applicant Preferred)	Māori word meaning: (noun) scallop, queen scallop. A fan-shaped bivalve mollusc found on sand and mud-banks from low tide level to depths of 45 m. The top shell is flat and the bottom half curved. Relevant as the nearby Manukau Harbour is home to scallops and other seafood.
Road 2	Pipi Drive (Applicant first alternative)	Māori word meaning: (noun) Pipi, a common shellfish found in the nearby Manukau Harbour.
Road 2	Karatī Drive (Applicant second alternative)	Māori word meaning: (noun) Young Snapper A fish once abundant in the nearby Manukau Harbour.

Table 4: Road 3 - 295 Hingaia Road Preferred and alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning
Road 3	Hikihiki Drive (Applicant Preferred)	Māori word meaning: (verb) to carry in the arms. It is also the name of one of the nearby sandbanks in the nearby Manukau Harbour.
Road 3	Hangore Drive (Applicant first alternative)	Māori word meaning: (stative) be more than half full. Hangore is the name of one of the nearby sandbanks in the Manukau Harbour.
Road 3	Pāhurehure Drive (Applicant second alternative)	It is the name of the nearby inlet in the Manukau Harbour.

Table 5: COAL 4 - 295 Hingaia Road Preferred and alternative Names and Meaning
Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning
COAL 4	Kōpī Lane (Applicant Preferred)	Māori word meaning: (noun) Karaka; a tree with dark green, very glossy, large leaves and orange berries containing seeds which are poisonous unless roasted. Cultivated by Māori. This tree is prevalent in the area, hence the name of the area - Karaka.
COAL 4	Patatini Lane (Applicant first alternative)	Māori word meaning: (noun) berry, fleshy fruit with several pips.
COAL 4	Tera Lane (Applicant second alternative)	Māori word meaning: (noun) saddle (for a horse).

14. The names proposed by the applicant in the tables above 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 most suitable names within the local context.

15. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable and not duplicated elsewhere in the region, apart from the name Toitoi. There is Toi Toi Place in Northcote, approximately 34kms away, but this separation distance, and the different road types, means that ‘Toitoi’ would still be acceptable for use in this development.

16. ‘Circle’, ‘Drive’ and ‘Lane’, as shown in the tables above, are acceptable road types for the new public roads and private commonly owned access lot, suiting the form and layout of the roads, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

17. All 7 relevant local iwi groups were written to (via email) by the applicant (/agent) and invited to comment on the proposed names, with only 2 iwi groups responding:

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki accepted all the road name options originally proposed by the applicant.

Ngāti Tamaoho suggested to change the proposed road names for Road 1, and provided two road name options. These were in turn accepted by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and have been included in the applicant’s proposal for consideration by the local board.

No other iwi provided responses or comments. It is therefore implied that no other iwi were opposed to the use of any of the proposed names in this location for these small 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. This report seeks the decision of the local board. The decision will not 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 support Auckland’s 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.

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.

22. Twelve Te Reo Māori road name options have been proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. 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

24. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	295 Hingaia Road Attachment A - Site Plan	59
b ⇩	295 Hingaia Road Attachment B - Location Plan	61

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrea Muhme - Planner

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Endorsing Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates for 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05115

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate for the Papakura Town Centre Business Improvement District (BID) programme for the 2020/2021 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Tāmaki Makaurau, including Papakura, where local business and property owners have agreed to work together to improve their business environment, promote innovation and attract new businesses and customers.

3. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes, including Papakura Business Association (PBA), by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

4. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BIDs. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

5. Each business association operating a BID programme sets the BID grant amount at its Annual General Meeting (AGM) when members vote to approve an operational budget for the following financial year. This budget funds the implementation of a business plan that delivers programmes based on each BID’s strategic priorities.

6. PBA members approved a BID grant sum of $250,000 for 2020/2021. This figure is unchanged from the current financial year and was last increased when its BID boundary was expanded in 2018.

7. The business associations operating BID programmes are incorporated societies that are independent of the council. However, to sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

8. For the council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, the council requires the BIDs to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

9. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

10. Staff are satisfied PBA complies with the BID Policy.

11. Staff propose the Papakura Local Board receives this report and recommends to the Governing Body the setting (striking) of the BID targeted rate sought by PBA as part of the council’s 2020/2021 Annual Budget decision-making.

12. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2020. This enables PBA to implement programmes that contribute to a vibrant and prosperous metropolitan centre and strong local economy, thereby supporting the economic and placemaking aspirations of the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017.

13. PBA, like all BID-operating business associations, will continue to play an important role in supporting its members facing two global challenges. Firstly, helping local businesses throughout the COVID-19 alert level stages and, secondly, responding to the world’s climate change emergency with a strong focus on sustainability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) recommends to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 for the following Business Improvement District (BID) programme:

i. $250,000 for Papakura Business Association.

Horopaki

Context

BID programmes promote economic well-being and collaboration with the council

14. Tāmaki Makaurau is growing fast and is projected to include another one million people in the next 30 years. This level of growth presents challenges and opportunities for Auckland town centres and commercial precincts.

15. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Auckland, including Papakura Town Centre, where local business and property owners have agreed to work together, with support from the council, to improve their business environment, promote innovation and attract new businesses and customers.

16. BID programmes provide the opportunity for the council group to partner with business associations, including PBA, to seize on the opportunities from Auckland’s growth, particularly in key metropolitan centres such as Papakura.

17. BID programmes encourage collaboration to achieve greater local outcomes. They provide a mechanism to enable local boards to engage with the business sector in local town centres and business areas in a co-ordinated way.

BIDs provide essential support in the economic recovery from COVID-19

18. The economy has been heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown, including both retail-based town centres and industrial precincts.

19. BID-programme operating business associations now, more than ever, provide the local business leadership required to help businesses recover from the seismic economic shock and transition to a viable future state.

BIDs are funded by a targeted rate on business ratepayers within a set area

20. BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate applied to all commercially rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct.

21. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes by collecting the targeted rates and providing these funds, in their entirety, by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

22. This revenue is paid to the business associations every quarter to provide a regular and sustainable income stream to implement an agreed work programme.

The BID Policy is the mechanism to ensure accountability for BID targeted rates

23. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) ensures accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourages good governance and programme management.

24. The policy outlines the principles behind the council’s BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, amalgamating and disestablishing BIDs; determines rating mechanisms; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements.

Diagram A: From calculation to approval, how the BID targeted rate is set.

The business association sets the BID grant amount to deliver its work programme

25. BID-operating business associations are provided with a rate modelling spreadsheet to help with their budget decision-making. The spreadsheet models any proposed changes to their current BID grant amount and, most importantly, how that influences the BID targeted rate for everyone who will pay it. When considering a change to the BID grant amount, BIDs must take into account what the local business and property owners can afford.

26. Each BID prepares an annual business plan for the following financial year that will deliver programmes based on their strategic priorities and financial parameters.

27. The cost of implementing that business plan is set out in an annual budget that the BID’s board (governing committee) agrees will be recommended for approval by the business association membership.

28. The AGM provides the forum where members vote to approve the operational budget and, in doing so, set the requisite BID grant amount for the following financial year.

Local boards are responsible for recommending the targeted rate if a BID complies with the BID Policy

29. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BIDs. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the setting of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

30. Papakura Town Centre Manager Tracy Shackleton addressed the local board on 4 December 2019 to update members on the progress towards achieving the BID’s business and strategic plans.

31. The Papakura Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the Papakura BID programme last year (resolution number PPK/2019/71), as did 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their rohe.

The Governing Body sets the targeted rate when it approves the Annual Budget

32. The recommendation in this report is put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2020/2021 and its setting (striking) of the targeted rates.

33. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Governing Body is authorized to make the final decisions on what BID programme targeted rates, if any, to set in any particular year or property (in terms of the amount and the geographic area to be rated).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

34. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID Policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Papakura Business Association complies with the BID Policy

35. Staff are satisfied that PBA has fully met the requirements of the BID Policy.

36. Staff require BID-operating business associations to provide to the council the following documents, and stay in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· Current strategic plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rate funds responsibly.

· Annual report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted ratepayers.

· Business plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the strategic plan, to be achieved and resourced.

· Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and the council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

· AGM minutes – the provisional minutes of each business association’s 2019 AGM meetings which contain the resolution, voted on by members, confirming the BID grant amount for the following financial year.

37. In addition, BID-operating business associations are required to inform the council staff of progress with other compliance requirements, including:

· Incorporated Society registration – a current registration of the business association along with all required documents up to date.

· Key initiatives – identified activities to be advanced in the next 12 months.

· Resolving problems or issues, if any – problems or issues that have an impact on the governance or operation of the BID programme.

38. The BID Policy sets an annual compliance deadline of 10 March for the information to be forwarded to the council, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Business association’s compliance with the BID Policy as of 10 March 2020

Requirement Financial Year 2018/2019
Strategic Plan	updated 2019/2020
Audited financials
Annual Report
Business Plan
Indicative budget
Board Charter
Annual Accountability Agreement
Annual meeting w/ local board	4 December 2019
Programme Agreement	valid to June 2023
Incorporated society registration
Key initiatives
Key initiatives	Initiatives include working with Papakura commercial project team; #LivePapakura campaign; working with local marae
2019 AGM minutes (provisional)
Resolving problems or issues	Nothing to record

39. As Papakura Business Association has comprehensively complied with the BID Policy, staff advise the local board to recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate.

Papakura Business Association retains the same BID grant amount for 2020/2021

40. The amount of PBA’s proposed BID targeted rate for 2020/2021 - $250,000 – is unchanged from the current financial year.

41. PBA last increased its BID targeted rate in 2018, following a successful BID boundary expansion.

42. Many among Tāmaki Makaurau’s 48 BID-operating business associations reaffirmed decisions to increase their 2020/2021 targeted rates, with rises ranging from 1.2% to 14.4%. However, eight BIDs rescinded their AGM resolutions in the wake of the pandemic-related economic downturn, and opted to retain their current, 2019/2020 BID grant levels.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43. Through targeted rate-funded advocacy and activities, BID-operating business associations, including PBA, promote and often facilitate environmental sustainability programmes.

44. From running carbon-reducing ‘shop local’ campaigns to promoting online channels and championing waste reduction and recovery programmes, there are many examples of Papakura’s BID leading the local business sector’s response to the world’s climate change emergency.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. Papakura is identified as a growing metropolitan centre in the Auckland Plan. The PBA’s BID programme provides an ideal opportunity for the council group to partner with local business leaders to seize on the opportunities from this township’s growth.

46. Advocacy is a key service provided by business associations and those with BID programme-funded personnel are at an advantage. PBA ensures the views and ambitions of its members are provided to council teams, including CCOs, on those policies, plans, programmes and projects that impact them.

47. With Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development’s enhanced spatial focus on Tāmaki Makaurau’s south and west, ATEED often works with the southern-located PBA on local economic development initiatives and events.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. The local board’s views are most frequently expressed by its appointed representative on the board of each BID-operating business association. This liaison board member can attend BID board meetings to ensure there is a direct link between the council and the operation of the BID programme.

Visions, plans aligned

49. Papakura’s business association and local board share an interest in the local rohe and are ambitious for its future and its people. They also share goals that include economic prosperity, community identity, placemaking and pride.

50. Papakura Town Centre’s BID programme tangibly supports the vision and aspirations of the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017, best expressed in Outcome 1: A vibrant and prosperous metropolitan centre and Outcome 3: A strong local economy.

51. To reinforce that point, the Papakura Business Association’s Strategic Plan highlights the town centre’s own vision, “to be a safe place where people come together to meet, eat, shop and do business”. PBA’s activities practically deliver on its own and the local board’s visions.

Local rohe, local benefit, local funding

52. Recommending that the Governing Body sets the targeted rate for Papakura Business Association means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its rohe, and provide services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in its strategic plan.

53. Papakura Local Board is among several local boards who provide additional funding to local business associations, however accountability for any grants is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those contractual obligations are separate from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Papakura boasts the largest suburban Māori population in New Zealand, with 26.8% of Papakura residents being Māori (SOURCE: 2018 CENSUS). Working in partnership with local marae presents an opportunity to advance Māori economic development within the township and beyond. To reference the business association’s vision again, “Papakura is known for its passionate community spirit and for celebrating its cultural diversity, including its significant local Māori community”.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

56. The targeted rate is payable by the owners of the commercial properties within the geographic area of the individual BID programmes. In practice, this cost is often passed on to the business owners who occupy these properties. This cost will be harder to meet at a time when businesses are financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and alert level restrictions. The council may consider extending its Rates Remission and Postponement Policy to commercial property owners as part of the Annual Budget 2020/2021. If approved, this would help mitigate the impact of the targeted rate on those who are struggling financially.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from this recommendation to endorse the BID targeted rate for PBA.

58. To sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

59. The rules and obligations of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members and to have its accounts audited.

60. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

61. The economic shockwaves created by the COVID-19 global pandemic are being felt everywhere, including Auckland’s town centres and business precincts. The BID programme is an internationally proven approach to engage and empower local businesses. The Papakura BID programme will, through business resilience, recovery and support initiatives, help to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. If the local board supports this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rate be set as part of the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

63. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2020, to PBA. This enables the BID to implement programmes that improve the local business environment, support businesses to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and help address the climate change emergency through sustainability initiatives.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Paul Thompson - BID Programme Specialist

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/05921

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 Papakura 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.

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

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Local board feedback on Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 – additions of places of significance to Mana Whenua

File No.: CP2020/05942

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the views of the local board on:

· Plan Change 22 (PC22) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)(AUP)

· Plan Modification 12 (PM12) to the Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2018 (Inner Islands) (HGI).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2014, in collaboration with 19 mana whenua entities, Auckland Council initiated the Māori Cultural Heritage Programme (MCHP) to improve the understanding and protection of Māori cultural heritage across the Auckland region.

3. As part of the implementation of the findings of the MCHP, the council has proposed two plan changes in order to appropriately recognise and protect culturally significant sites within both the AUP and HGI. These two plan changes form tranche one of what is intended to be a series of future plan changes to progressively identify and protect culturally significant sites.

4. Eleven mana whenua entities have completed assessments for sites in these plan changes. Thirty-three sites are proposed for scheduling: 30 sites in the AUP and four in the HGI. Note that one site, Te Rangihoua (Te Putiki o Kahumatamomoe), is included in both the AUP and HGI to represent its landward and coastal extents.

5. On 21 March 2019, PC22 and PM12 were originally notified. Following submissions and after further analysis, on 26 September 2019 a minor correction was made to PC22 to remove an incorrect reference. Due to technical and procedural issues, on 24 October 2019 a second amendment to withdraw the Te Wairoa River site was notified. On 11 February 2020, the plan changes were then re-notified to a limited number of directly affected parties.

6. The details of the sites related to the local board are listed in Attachment A to this report.

7. Key themes of the submissions received are to:

· support PC22 as notified

· support PC22 with a minor amendments to Schedule 14.1 and a site description in Schedule 12

· oppose PC22 due to potential effects on houseboat activities

· support PM12 as notified

· support PM12 and apply the same approach to other reserves on Waiheke Island

· oppose PM12 for various other reasons.

8. On 8 August 2019, the Regulatory Committee appointed three independent hearing commissioners to hear and make decisions on PC22 and PM12 (REG/2019/49). This included at least two independent commissioners with expertise in planning and tikanga Māori.

9. This report is the mechanism for the local board to provide its formal views on PC22 and PM12 prior to the public hearing. Any comments received will be included in the planner’s hearing report and considered by the independent commissioners. Any local board views provided should be that of the local board, therefore no technical recommendations are made in this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) provide local board views on Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12.

b) appoint a local board member to speak on behalf of the local board views at a hearing on the plan changes.

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of the local board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in Resolution b) is unable to attend the plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of the council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents.

11. In 2014, the council initiated a Māori Cultural Heritage Programme (MCHP) in collaboration with 19 mana whenua entities in the Auckland region with the purpose of improving the understanding and protection of Māori cultural heritage and to identify the best management options that recognise and protect the cultural values of these sites. To date 400 such sites of have been nominated by mana whenua for consideration.

12. The AUP currently contains 75 scheduled Sites and Places of Significance to mana whenua. There are no Māori Heritage sites currently identified in the HGI Plan.

13. The Auckland Council’s Planning Committee resolution (PLA/2017/39) approved engagement with mana whenua and landowners in order to develop draft plan changes to add qualifying sites to the AUP and the HGI plan. The criteria to identify and evaluate these sites are contained within the Auckland Regional Policy Statement section of the AUP.

14. On 27 November 2018, the Planning Committee resolved to approve the proposed plan changes for notification (PLA/2018/128).

15. The plan changes propose:

i. The addition of 30 sites to the AUP’s Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay, as identified in Chapter L Schedule 12. There are also consequential changes to Schedule 6 (Outstanding Natural Features) and Schedule 14.1 (Historic Heritage Overlay) to reflect the cultural significance of the identified sites; and

ii. The addition of four sites to the HGI Plan. There are also changes to the explanatory text of the plan to clarify the criteria by which sites are identified and evaluated.

16. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the reporting planner will include those views in the hearing report for these plan changes. Local board views will be included in the analysis of the plan changes and submissions received.

17. If the local board chooses to provide its views, local board members will be invited to present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who make the decision on the plan changes.

18. This report provides an overview of PC22 and PM12 and gives a summary of the key themes which have arisen through submissions. This report does not include a recommendation. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

19. The AUP and the HGI plans contain objectives, policies, and rules to manage and protect both Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (AUP), and Māori Heritage sites (HGI). The proposed plan changes do not alter any of the existing objectives, policies, rules or resource consent assessment criteria set out in the two plans.

20. PC22 proposes the following changes:

· The addition of 30 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (SSMW) to Schedule 12 of AUP.

· The addition of a ‘significance of the site to Mana Whenua’ evaluation criterion (criterion k) to eight sites already listed in Schedule 6 – Outstanding Natural Features Overlay of the AUP.

· The addition of the ‘significance of the site to Mana Whenua’ evaluation criterion (criterion c) to five sites already listed in Schedule 14.1 - Schedule of Historic Heritage Overlay of the AUP(OiP).

· The addition of the sites to the AUP viewer (the online tool to view the AUP maps).

21. PM12 proposes the following changes:

· The addition of four Māori Heritage Sites (MHS) to Appendix 1f of the HGI.

· The addition of explanatory text to Appendix 1f, Appendix 4 and Part 7.13 of the HGI – Māori heritage to include references to the criteria for the identification and evaluation of MHS.

· The addition of the sites to the HGI planning maps.

Further discussion:

22. There are 33 sites proposed across both PC22 and PM12. These sites cover a wide range of zones including open space, coastal marine area, and transport corridor zones.

23. The sites are owned by or designated by Auckland Transport, Department of Conservation, Auckland Council, CRL Ltd, Ports of Auckland, The NZ Transport Agency, Watercare, LINZ, Ministry of Education, Transpower NZ Ltd and First Gas Limited.

24. By scheduling the sites, there will be greater awareness and weight placed on existing objectives, policies and methods within the plans for protecting cultural heritage when considering applications for resource consent, private plan changes, designations and policy development in both plans.

25. In the AUP, scheduling introduces more restrictions on activities within the sites with respect to disturbance in the coastal marine area, temporary activities, new buildings and structures, new alterations and additions to existing buildings, and subdivision.

26. In the HGI, scheduling will remove permitted levels of ground disturbance within scheduled sites, making all ground disturbance activities require resource consent. Resource consent will also be required for establishing toilets and changing facilities within scheduled sites.

Themes from submissions received

27. On 21 March 2019, PC22 and PM12 were originally notified. Following submissions and after further analysis, on 26 September 2019 a minor correction was made to PC22 to remove an incorrect reference. Due to technical and procedural issues, on 24 October 2019 a second amendment to withdraw the Te Wairoa River site was notified. On 11 February 2020, the plan changes were then re-notified to a limited number of directly affected parties.

28. Following the processes outlined above, a total of seven primary submissions and two further submissions have been received for PC22. Six primary submissions and three further submissions have been received for PM12. The following key themes have been identified in the submissions received:

· support PC22 as notified

· support PC22 with minor amendments to Schedule 14.1 and a site description in Schedule 12

· oppose PC22 due to potential effects on houseboat activities

· support PM12 as notified

· support PM12 and apply the same approach to other reserves on Waiheke Island

· oppose PM12 for various other reasons.

29. Minor amendments identify a technical error in the plan change where an evaluation criterion has been omitted from one of the schedules. They also propose additional wording to one of the site descriptions to include reference to bird roosting/gathering sites.

30. Effects on existing houseboat activities in Putiki Bay (Waiheke Island) are of concern to two houseboat owners. Heritage scheduling which is outside the proposed plan change area is of concern to one submitter opposing PM12.

31. One submitter is opposing the scheduling of Rangihoua Park / Onetangi Sports Fields on Waiheke Island as part of PM12 on the basis that they feel the scheduling would place unrealistic conditions on the continued use and development of these activities. This was supported by one further submission with 92 co-signatories.

32. On 26 March 2020, the latest summary of the decisions requested by submitters on PC22 was notified and is available on the council’s website at the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/pc22summarydecisions/summary-of-decisions-requested-and-submissions.pdf

33. On 26 March 2020, the latest summary of the decisions requested by submitters on PM12 was notified and is available on the council’s website at the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/docspc22/pm-12-renotification.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. The decision whether to provide local board views:

· will not lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and negatively affect the approach to reduce emissions.

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

35. This is because the plan changes do not promote new activities within the sites and, by their nature of protecting Māori cultural heritage, are unlikely to encourage a greater intensity of development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. As mentioned previously, the 33 sites covered by these two plan changes cover a range of environments. These include roads, carparks, publicly owned parks and lakes, rivers and streams. They are also subject to a number of designations.

37. During the development of the plan changes, relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) were consulted. With respect to council internal departments, the sites have particular relevance to the council’s Customer and Community Services Department. This department includes the Community Facilities, Parks, Sports and Recreation, and Service Strategy and Integration teams.

38. Many of the proposed sites contain leases which are managed by the above department. The strategic management of public open spaces is also managed by these teams through the use of reserve management plans as well as other open space and recreation planning tools.

39. The Customer and Community Services Department has been actively involved in the plan changes during their development and notification. None of these teams have raised opposition to the proposed scheduling.

40. From a CCO perspective, Auckland Transport has been involved in the development of the plan changes as they apply to public roads and parking infrastructure. Auckland Transport is not opposed to the plan changes.

41. One of the sites, Te Puna Wai a Hape (Site 091), schedules land currently owned by Watercare Services Limited. Watercare has been involved during the development of the plan changes and is not opposed to the scheduling.

42. No CCO has made a submission or further submission on PC22 or PM12.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. Further detail such as a map showing the location of the sites relevant to the local board and previous involvement by the board are in Attachment A to this report.

44. The main impact of PC22 and PM12 is to place greater recognition on the cultural significance of identified sites. This is likely to increase the need for consultation with affected mana whenua when considering activities within the sites. The scheduling places greater restrictions on some land use activities and coastal activities as outlined previously.

45. A summary here of what local board engagement was undertaken during the development of this plan change is included in Attachment A to this report.

46. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view are as follows: interests and preferences of people in the local board area; well-being of communities within the local board area; local board documents, such as the local plan and local board agreement; responsibilities and operation of the local board.

47. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views so the decision-makers on PC22 and PM12 can consider those views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. This report addresses matters that relate to two plan changes to protect and manage new nominated sites and places of cultural significance to Mana Whenua. All Mana Whenua entities have been invited to participate in this process and 11 Mana Whenua entities have actively contributed to these plan changes.

49. Recognising and protecting Mana Whenua cultural heritage is identified as an issue of regional significance in the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (RPS). Policies in the RPS specifically provide for the identification, protection and enhancement of the tangible and intangible values of identified Mana Whenua cultural heritage.

50. In November 2018, a governance hui was conducted where staff briefed all 19 Mana Whenua entities on the feedback received from the 14 affected local boards and of the landowner engagement. The IMSB has also been kept informed of these plan changes and has participated in their approval for notification.

51. Some iwi authorities have made submissions in support of these plan changes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. Any views provided by the local board will be included in the planner’s hearing report. The local board will be informed of the hearing date and invited to speak at the hearing in support of its views. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sites related to the Papakura Local Board	83

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matthew Gouge - Planner AUPIHP

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

27 May 2020

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - May 2020

File No.: CP2020/05561

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 21 May 2020.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - May 2020	103

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

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

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

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