2 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration
of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be
vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between
their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might
have.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for
Elected Members (the code) requires elected members to fully acquaint
themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland
Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of
conflict of interest:
i)
a financial conflict of interest, which
is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to
an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member
ii)
a non-financial conflict interest, which
does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example,
from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or
from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has
produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the
Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both
types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical
examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code
of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines
are available for inspection by members upon request.
Any questions
relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship
Manager in the first instance.
4 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Upper Harbour Local Board:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 18 June 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that
details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total
speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
At the close of the agenda no
requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public
Forum
A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary
Business
Section 46A(7) of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The
local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b)
The presiding member explains at the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item is
not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a)
That item may be discussed at that meeting
if-
(i)
That item is a minor matter relating
to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii)
the presiding member explains at the
beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the
item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation
may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent
meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
|
Upper Harbour
Local Board
09 July 2020
|
|
Local board input into the Emergency
Budget 2020/2021
File No.: CP2020/08721
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
receive consultation feedback on the regional proposals in the
Emergency Budget 2020/2021 from people and organisations based in the Upper
Harbour Local Board area.
2. To
provide feedback to the Governing Body on the proposed Emergency Budget
2020/2021.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. The Annual Budget 2020/2021 was first consulted on in February and
March 2020 (Consultation part 1). Since this consultation was undertaken, the
COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s
financial position which will have flow on effects for the proposed budget for
the 2020/2021 financial year.
4. Council has considered what those impacts are likely to be and has
asked Aucklanders for their views on aspects of the proposed budget, now
referred to as Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
5. This second round of public consultation (Consultation part 2) took
place between 29 May and 19 June 2020.
6. During the second round of consultation, Aucklanders were asked for
their views on three key proposals:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate paid by accommodation providers.
7. Council
received feedback through telephone interviews, written forms, including online
and hard copy forms, emails and letters.
8. This
report summarises the public feedback received through Consultation part 2 on
the proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
9. Out
of the 34,915 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Emergency
Budget 2020/2021 (compared to 4765 during consultation part 1), 1258
submissions were from people living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area
(compared to 185 during consultation part 1):
· Eight-hundred
and thirty-three (833) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on the general rates increase for 2020/2021. Of those, 47.9 per cent
selected a 2.5 per cent general rates increase and 34 per cent selected a 3.5
per cent general rates increase. A small proportion of submissions (18.1 per
cent) selected the ‘I don’t know’ option, which was mostly
used to expressed disagreement with either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent general
rates increase.
· Eight-hundred
and forty-seven (847) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on the rates postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19, showing
that a majority of respondents support the proposal (63.8 per cent) and a lower
proportion of respondents do not support the proposal (26.6 per cent).
· Eight-hundred
and forty-three (843) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on suspending the targeted rate paid by accommodation providers,
showing that a majority of respondents support the proposal (74.6 per cent) and
a small proportion do not support the proposal (13 per cent) or don’t
know (12.3 per cent).
10. Local board views on these regional matters will be
considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final
decisions on the Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Upper Harbour Local
Board:
a) receive
consultation feedback on the regional proposals in the
Emergency Budget 2020/2021 from people and organisations based in the Upper
Harbour Local Board area.
b) provide
feedback to the Governing Body on the proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
|
Horopaki
Context
11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March
2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 (Consultation part 1).
12. Since this
consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted considerable
pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on
effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Given the new
financial realities facing Auckland, work has been undertaken to adjust the
proposed budget, now referred to as Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
13. Council has
undertaken further public consultation with Aucklanders for their views on
Auckland Council’s proposed ‘Emergency Budget’ in response to
the financial impacts of COVID-19 (Consultation part 2) which included
considering whether to adopt a 2.5 per cent rather than 3.5 per cent general
rates increase for the 2020/2021 financial year, among a suite of other measures aimed
at offering support to all ratepayers, including businesses, facing hardship.
This was carried out from 29 May to 19 June 2020.
14. The Emergency
Budget consultation asked Aucklanders for their view on three main proposals:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate by accommodation providers.
15. This report includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the
regional proposals in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 from people or
organisations based in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.
Local board input on regional plans
16. Local boards
have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests
and preferences of the people in their local board area in relation to the
context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland
Council. This report gives an opportunity for the local board to provide
input on the proposed Emergency Budget.
17. Local board
plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that
guide both the development of local board agreements, which are adopted every
year as part of the Annual Budget, and input into regional plans.
Types of feedback
18. Overall
Auckland Council received feedback from 34,915 submitters in the consultation
period. This feedback was received through:
· written
feedback – hard copy and online forms, emails and letters
· over
the phone.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
19. The proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021 sets out
priorities and how they will be funded. The regional consultation on the
proposed Emergency Budget focused on changes to rates and fees; the key
proposals were:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate by accommodation providers.
20. The submissions received from the Upper Harbour Local
Board area on these key issues is summarised in this report, along with an
overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local
impact.
21. Out of the 34,915 submissions received on the regional
proposals in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 (compared to 4765 during
consultation part 1), 1258 submissions were from people living in the Upper
Harbour Local Board area (compared to 185 during consultation part 1). A
majority of these were from individual submitters:
|
Submitters
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Individual
|
1241
|
99%
|
|
Organisation
|
17
|
1%
|
|
TOTAL
|
1258
|
100%
|
22. Sometimes council receives submissions that have come via
a platform created by an external organisation – these are referred to by
council as pro forma submissions. Council has received an unusually
large number of pro forma submissions in this consultation process. These have
primarily come from two organisations – the Auckland Ratepayers’
Alliance (ARA) and Generation Zero (Gen Zero).
23. Of the 1258 submissions in the Upper Harbour Local Board
area, 357 were from people using the ARA submission. There were no pro forma
submissions using the Gen Zero submission in Upper Harbour.
24. Other notable pro forma submissions received from people
living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area were:
· 37
pro forma submissions requesting council to re-prioritise the Glenvar Road
project
· 30
pro forma submissions opposing the planned reduction in the number of animal
shelters from three to two, as well as the closure of the Waiheke animal
shelter.
25. When people submit via council’s official consultation
platform (either the hardcopy feedback form or the digital form), they are
directed to council’s consultation document and supporting information
which are the statutory basis for the consultation process. People who submit
via pro forma submissions often will not have had this same information
presented to them when they submit, although each pro forma submission is
different in its approach.
26. For example, the submission form set up by the Auckland
Ratepayers’ Alliance did not refer to council’s consultation
material and did not ask the same questions that were included on the
council’s feedback form. Generation Zero’s submission form also did
not ask the same questions as the council’s feedback form. However,
Generation Zero did include links to the council’s consultation material
in the information supporting their submission form.
27. As with all feedback, pro forma submissions must be given
due consideration with an open mind, and it is up to elected members to
determine the weight that is given to this feedback.
General rates increase for 2020/2021
28. Aucklanders were asked about a proposed general rates
increase of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent for 2020/2021.
Question 1: We
are proposing an average general rates increase of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5
per cent for 2020/2021. We looked at but could not responsibly propose rates
increases below 2.5 per cent because of the severe impacts that would have on
council services, new infrastructure, our debt levels and employment and
business activity in Auckland.
The scale of the financial challenge that we
face for next year with a revenue loss of over half a billion dollars due to
COVID-19 means that spending on some council services will need to be reduced
and many capital projects will be delayed even with the 3.5 per cent increase
we had previously planned.
With a lower rates increase of 2.5 per cent, we would need
to further reduce spending on council services and further delay investment in
transport, parks and community and town centre projects.
Which increase do you support?
29. Eight-hundred
and thirty-three (833) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on the general rates increase for 2020/2021. Of those, 399 (47.9 per
cent) selected a 2.5 per cent general rates increase, and 283 (34 per cent)
selected a 3.5 per cent general rates increase. One-hundred and fifty-one
submissions (18.1 per cent) selected the ‘I don’t know’
option.
30. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from
the Upper Harbour Local Board area:
31. Key themes
from submissions who selected 2.5 per cent general rates increase are:
· support
the lower increase considering the financial impacts that individuals are
experiencing as a result of the COVID - 19 pandemic
· council
should focus on delivering only key projects and essential/core services in
response to the loss of income
· find
savings in the operational model and inefficiencies within the organisation to
fund the difference.
32. A few
repeated comments in submissions that selected 2.5 per cent general rates increase
(56) expressed lack of support for any rates increase, however selected the
lower option presented in the questionnaire.
33. Key themes
from submissions selecting the 3.5 per cent general rates increase are:
· council
needs to keep current service levels
· keep
up with current investments and projects and not delay the progress that has
been made
· risk
and cost of delaying is too high in comparison to the cost of the rate increase
· continue
with investment to support Auckland economy
· minimal
cost to ratepayers with the least negative impact.
34. A few
repeated comments in submissions that selected the 3.5 per cent general rates
increase option were:
· would
pay a higher rate increase than what has been proposed to deliver on more
outcomes for Auckland
· would
rather pay the rate increase than for a park and ride service.
35. The
submissions where the ‘I don’t know’ option was selected were
used for the most part to express disagreement with either 2.5 per cent or 3.5
per cent general rates increase. Key themes across these are:
· no
rates increase
· rates
to remain the same
· rates
to decrease.
Rates postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
36. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to introduce a
COVID-19 Rates Postponement Scheme:
Question 2: We are proposing a COVID-19 Rates
Postponement Scheme. This will allow ratepayers who are struggling financially
as a result of COVID-19 to defer up to $20,000 of their rates for the 2020/2021
year. At the end of the postponement period ratepayers would have to 30 June
2022 to pay off the balance (including interest and administration fees).
What do you think of our proposal?
37. Eight-hundred
and forty-seven (847) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on the rates postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19, showing
that a majority of respondents support the proposal (63.8 per cent) and a lower
proportion of respondents do not support the proposal (26.6 per cent). A small
number of submissions selected the ‘I don’t know’ option (9.7
per cent).
38. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the
Upper Harbour Local Board area:
39. Of
the 540 submissions in support of the proposal, key themes are:
· support
for the proposal at is recognises the financial impacts COVID-19 has had on
Aucklanders
· support
for people that have faced job losses
· the
proposal needs to have a robust process to assess legitimate needs for
postponement
· support
the proposal if the interest and admin fee are removed.
40. Key themes
from the 225 submissions that do not support the proposal are:
· a
greater financial burden to ratepayers in the long run
· support
postponement but not the interest rate or admin fees being charged.
41. For
submissions where ‘I don’t know’ option was selected (82),
there was no clear theme. However, there were a few repeated comments about not
supporting interest and admin fees being charged.
Suspending the targeted rate paid by accommodation
providers
42. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to suspend the
targeted rate by paid by accommodation providers:
Question 3: Suspending the targeted rate paid by
accommodation providers Restrictions on travel and mass gatherings due to
COVID-19 have resulted in us reducing our spending on visitor attraction and
major events. We are proposing to suspend the Accommodation Provider Targeted
Rate (APTR) which helps fund these activities until 31 March 2021. The APTR
will only be charged for the last three months of the next financial year
(2020/2021) as we increase our spending in this area. This proposal will assist
the accommodation sector who are struggling financially.
What do you think of our proposal?
43. Eight-hundred
and forty-three (843) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were
received on suspending the targeted rate paid by accommodation providers,
showing that a majority of respondents support the proposal (74.6 per cent) and
a small proportion do not support the proposal (13 per cent) or don’t
know (12.3 per cent).
44. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the
Upper Harbour Local Board area:
45. The
main themes in submissions in support of the proposal was that the proposal
would reduce pressure in an industry that is likely to continue to be affected
due to COVID-19 restrictions, and that the targeted rate should not have been
introduced in the first place.
46. In
submissions that did not support the proposal, the key themes were that the
rate should be postponed, rather than removed or suspended, and that rates
should still be paid.
47. Submissions
where ‘I don’t know’ was selected, the key theme was lack of
understanding of the proposal or purpose of the targeted rate.
Other feedback
48. Aucklanders were asked if they had any feedback on any
other issues including the in-principle decisions made from the first round of
consultation.
49. The proposals that council previously consulted on, and
that have been agreed in principle subject to consideration of any further
feedback received in the Emergency Budget consultation, are:
· increase
to the waste management base service targeted rate
· increase
to the waste management standard refuse rate in former Auckland city and
Manukau city areas
· discontinuation
of the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate for ratepayers
in the Upper Harbour Local Board area effective from 1 July 2021
· introduction
of a new targeted rate for Central Park Henderson Business Improvement
District.
50. Of the 1258 submissions from people living in the Upper
Harbour Local Board area, one submission included feedback against the
discontinuation of the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.
Feedback on other topics
51. Submissions from people living in the Upper Harbour Local
Board area also included feedback on other topics. Key themes to emerge were on
the following:
· support
cycleways
· charging
for park and ride
· addressing
traffic congestion
· support
Glenvar Road project
· opinion
on public transport
· addressing
climate change
· opinion
on water supply issues
· supporting
America’s cup
· supporting
events in the city
· addressing
road safety
· reducing
Animal Shelter service.
52. The following
three tables provide a summary of feedback received on these topics:
53. A few other repeated comments of relevance to the Upper
Harbour Local Board included:
· do
not decrease current maintenance service levels
· do
not reduce library services.
Requests for local funding
54. Repeated comments requested investment in local arts, communities and events, affordable active
transport opportunities and environmental outcomes.
55. One submission requested local funding for the following
matters:
· removal
of dead and dying pine trees at Kowhai Beach Reserve
· a
sea wall at Kowhai Beach Reserve, Herald Island, to mitigate coastal erosion.
Information on submitters
56. The tables and graphs below indicate what demographic
categories people identified with. This information only relates to those
submitters who provided demographic information.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
57. The decisions
recommended in this report are procedural in nature.
58. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget may have climate impacts. The climate
impacts of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result
of this will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.
59. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget will be specifically designed to
mitigate climate impact, build resilience to climate impacts,
and restore the natural environment.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
60. The Emergency
Budget is an Auckland Council group document and will include budgets at a
consolidated group level. Updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new
information may include items from across the group.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
61. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report.
Local boards have a statutory role in providing local board feedback on
regional plans.
62. Local boards play an important role in the development of the
Emergency Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and
Performance Committee workshops on the Emergency Budget.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
63. Many local board decisions are of importance to and have an impact
on Māori. Local board agreements and the Emergency Budget are important
tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to
Māori.
64. Local board plans, which were developed in 2017 through engagement
with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities. There is a need to continue to build
relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.
65. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider
Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.
66. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will
assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can
influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s
decision-making processes.
67. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget may have impacts on Māori. The
impacts on Māori of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with
as a result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting
requirements.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
68. Local
board input will be considered by the Governing Body for the Emergency Budget
2020/2021 decision-making.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
69. Local boards
are required to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the
Emergency Budget by 10 July 2020, to enable the Governing Body to make
decisions on them when considering the Emergency Budget in 16 July.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
70. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to
the relevant Governing Body committees for consideration during decision-making
at the Governing Body meeting on 16 July 2020.
71. Local boards
will approve their local board agreements between 20 to 24 July 2020 and
corresponding work programmes in August 2020.
72. The Governing Body will adopt the Emergency Budget on 30 July 2020.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Heather Skinner - Local Board Advisor
Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper
Harbour
|
|
Authoriser
|
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager
|
|
Upper Harbour
Local Board
09 July 2020
|
|
New road names in the Hobsonville
Development Limited subdivision at 96 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville
File No.: CP2020/07793
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve road names for two new public roads
in the Hobsonville Development Limited subdivision at 96 Hobsonville Road,
Hobsonville.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the
council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied
in this situation
to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.
3. The
applicant, Hobsonville Development Limited, has submitted the following names
for the two new public roads serving the subdivision at 96 Hobsonville Road,
Hobsonville:
|
Preferred
names
|
Alternate
names
|
|
Te Ahurea
Street
|
Rapunga Street
|
|
Inunga
Street
|
Taiwhenua
Street
|
|
|
Ruwhenua Street
|
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Upper Harbour Local
Board:
a) approve
the following two road names for new roads in the Hobsonville Development Limited subdivision at 96
Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville, as referenced in Attachments A and
B to the agenda report:
i) Road
1 –
ii) Road
2 –
|
Horopaki
Context
4. The
subdivision at 96 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville, creates 15 residential lots
and has been approved by council. A condition of the subdivision consent was to
provide council with suggested names for the two new roads.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
5. The
Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that
where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development,
the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their
preferred new road name/s for local board approval.
6. Auckland
Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:
· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area
· a particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature,
or
· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area, and
· the use of Māori names is actively encouraged.
7. The
applicant has submitted the following names for consideration
|
Proposed names
|
Meaning
|
|
Te Ahurea
|
Translates to ‘horticulture’ – the subject site
has historically been used for cultivation.
|
|
Inanga
|
Translates to ‘whitebait – ecological report found
inanga living in the receiving catchment.
|
|
Rapunga
|
Translates to
‘seagull’ – southern black-backed gull.
|
|
Taiwhenua
|
Translates to
‘rural’ – the surrounding area has historically been rural
in character. This name is appropriate as it provides an historic connection
to the use of the land.
|
|
Ruwhenua
|
Alternate to
above translation for ‘Taiwhenua’.
|
8. The applicant proposed six names which were
all related to the locality, however only five of these were acceptable to Land
Information New Zealand (LINZ).
9. The
development is located on Hobsonville Road, very near to the Hobsonville
marina. The chosen theme is environmental and historical and reflects the
activities of the Hobsonville marina area.
10. Auckland
Council staff contacted local mana whenua and sought their comment on the five
names proposed. Only two responses were received, as follows:
· Ngati Manuhuri deferred to other mana whenua in the area to provide
feedback.
· Te Kawerau a Maki Iwi Tribal Authority confirmed that their top
three choices were Te ‘Ahurea’, ‘Inanga’ and
‘Taiwhenua’.
11. Council
staff acknowledge that, where possible, the use of Māori names is
encouraged in the Auckland Plan.
12. LINZ has confirmed that all proposed road names are unique and
acceptable. All names are also deemed to meet the
council’s road naming guidelines.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
13. 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
14. The decision
sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not
considered to have any immediate impacts on any council groups.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
15. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant
policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
16. The naming of roads is linked to the Auckland
Plan Outcome, ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference
in the world’. The use of
Māori names for roads, buildings
and other public
places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. To aid local board decision-making, the Auckland
Council Road Naming Guidelines includes:
· the objective
of recognising ancestral linkages to areas of land by engagement with mana
whenua and the allocation of road names as appropriate, and a principle that
Māori road names are actively encouraged
· an agreed process to enable mana whenua to provide timely feedback
on all proposed road names
in a manner they consider appropriate.
17. The road names proposed in this report
have been provided to all mana whenua for consideration
through council’s central facilitator. Where feedback has been
received, this has been indicated.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
18. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate
signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new
road name.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
19. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a
routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a
key part of the process.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
20. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand and
are recorded on its New Zealand-wide land information database. This includes
street addresses issued by councils.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
96 Hobsonville Road - scheme plan
|
47
|
|
b⇩
|
96 Hobsonville Road - location map
|
49
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Bruce Angove – Subdivision Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager
|
