I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Henderson-Massey Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting:

 

Tuesday, 15 September 2020

4.00pm

This meeting will proceed via Skype for Business.

Either a recording or written summary will be

uploaded to the Auckland Council website.

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Chris Carter

 

Deputy Chairperson

Will Flavell

 

Members

Brenda Brady, JP

 

 

Peter Chan, JP

 

 

Matt Grey

 

 

Brooke Loader

 

 

Vanessa Neeson, JP

 

 

Ingrid Papau

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Brenda  Railey

Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

 

9 September 2020

 

Contact Telephone: 021 820 781

Email: brenda.railey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Deputation: Waitakere Swimming Club - activities update                             5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Ward Councillors' Update                                                                                             7

12        Chair's Report - September 2020                                                                                 9

13        Te Atatū Marae - land tenure                                                                                      11

14        To classify an unclassified recreation reserve – Ramlea Park                              21

15        Auckland Transport's update for September 2020                                                  29

16        New road names in the Acanthus Limited subdivision at 33 – 37 Red Hills Road, Massey.                                                                                                                         39

17        Project Streetscapes: Weed Management report                                                    51

18        Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Henderson-Massey Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020                                                      91

19        Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020                                                                    131

20        Urgent Decision request to provide feedback on the Council's Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Review                                                                                    135

21        Henderson-Massey Local Board extraordinary business meeting scheduled for 10 November 2020                                                                                                          151

22        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                      153

23        Confirmation of Workshop Records                                                                        157  

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

25        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               171

19        Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020

a.      Draft 2019/2020 Henderson-Massey Local Board Annual Report              171

C1       Statement of proposal for a new Navigation Safety Bylaw                                  171  

 


1          Welcome

 

 

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 following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Member

Organisation

Position

Brenda Brady, JP

-        Safer West Community Trust

Trustee

Chris Carter

(Chair)

-        St Lazarus Trust

-        Waitemata District Health Board

-        Waitakere Badminton Club

Member

Member

Member

Peter Chan, JP

 

-        Cantonese Opera Society of NZ

-        Asian Leaders Forum

-        NZ-Hong Kong Business Association

-        NZ-China Business Association

-        Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA)

-        Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

Member

Member

Member

Member

Advisor

 

Trustee

Matt Gray

-        West Auckland Youth Development Trust

-        Billy Graham Youth Foundation

Director

Board Member

Will Flavell

(Deputy Chairman)

-        Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

-        COMET

-        Te Atatū Tennis Club

-        Waitākere Literacy Board

Member

Employee

Board Member

Board Member

Brooke Loader

-         Waitakere Licensing Trust

-         Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association

Member

Associate Member

Vanessa Neeson

-        Village Green Quilters

-        Ranui Advisory Group

Member

Chairperson

Ingrid Papau

-        Liberty Impact Community Trust

-        #WeLoveTuvalu Community Trust

-        Neighbourhood Support

-        Liberty Church

-        Mothers Helpers

Board Member

Member

Street Contact

Member

Ambassador

 


 

            Member appointments

            Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council:

External organisation

 

Leads

Alternate

Central Park Henderson Business Association

Brenda Brady and Brooke Loader

 

Heart of Te Atatu South

Brenda Brady and Brooke Loader

 

Massey Matters

Will Flavell and Peter Chan

 

Ranui Advisory Group

Vanessa Neeson (Chair) and Ingrid Papau

 

Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association

Peter Chan and Ingrid Papau

 

Waitakere Ethnic Board

Ingrid Papau and Peter Chan

 

Waitakere Healthlink

Peter Chan

Chris Carter

Te Whau Pathway Trust

Matt Gray and Brenda Brady

 

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 August 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 Henderson-Massey 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: Waitakere Swimming Club - activities update

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a deputation from Waitakere Swimming Club.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Paul Kent (Director of Coaching), Bronwyn Crawford (Board Chair) and Shirley Mackay (Club Administrator) on behalf of the Waitakere Swimming Club will provide a brief background of the Club including their current and future plans.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      receive the presentation from the Waitakere Swimming Club on its activities and thank Paul Kent, Bronwyn Crawford and Shirley Mackay for their attendance.

 

 

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.”


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Ward Councillors' Update

File No.: CP2020/11335

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a verbal update from the Waitākere Ward Councillors.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A period of 10 minutes has been set aside for the Waitākere Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Henderson-Massey Local Board on regional matters.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      thank Councillors Linda Cooper and Shane Henderson for their update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Chair's Report - September 2020

 

File No.: CP2020/11336

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on projects, meetings, and other initiatives relevant to the local board’s interests.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Board members are responsible for leading policy development in their areas of interest, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      receive Chair Carter’s tabled report for September 2020.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Te Atatū Marae - land tenure

File No.: CP2020/12475

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek the local board’s views on a report to the Governing Body (or relevant committee) which will recommend revising out of date resolutions in relation to the development of a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       For over 30 years the Māori community in West Auckland has worked to try and establish a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

3.       Waitākere City Council made successive resolutions supporting the development of a marae at Harbourview-Orangihina Park.  A range of obstacles prevented this happening over the last few decades. This included a claim by descendants of previous owners of the land.  However, this claim was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2016 and this decision was shortly followed by a decision to zone the site for Māori Purposes in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

4.       In 2020, Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust advised Auckland Council that they would like to pursue a long-term lease of the park.  They would also like council to acknowledge their long-term aspiration for 2.5 hectares of Harbourview-Orangihina Park to be held as a Māori reservation. 

5.       Parts of the resolutions passed by Waitākere City Council cannot now be implemented by Auckland Council as the circumstances have changed.  It is therefore recommended that the Henderson-Massey Local Board ask the Governing Body (or relevant committee) to amend the Waitākere City Council resolutions to provide for future tenure to Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust for the purpose of developing a marae.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)   request that the Governing Body (or relevant committee) amend the previous resolutions 270/2002 and 853/2005 of the Waitākere City Council by removing parts of those resolutions which are unable to be implemented including those parts which refer to the establishment of a trust.

b)   request that the Governing Body (or relevant committee) support the local board aspiration to grant a long-term lease to Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust over approximately 2.5 hectares of land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park to enable the development of a marae, subject to the completion of any relevant statutory processes, and;

 

c)   note that Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust would like to explore the option of creating a Māori reservation under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in the future.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       For several decades there have been significant efforts made to try and establish a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula. 

7.       In 2001 WCC made a resolution (number 1155/2001) that an area of 2.5 hectares be provided for a local marae on Te Atatū Peninsula and that this be explored alongside planning for the People’s Park.  This planning resulted in a concept plan, referred to as the TARRA Concept Plan, that showed a marae located on the site.

8.       The proposed location for the marae in 2001 remains the same today.  It overlaps two parcels of land known as 375 and 415 Te Atatū Road, Te Atatū Peninsula, and is legally described as Part Lot 2 DP 370, comprised in Record of Title NA82C/159, and Section 7 SO 506986, comprised in Record of Title 791268.  This land is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

9.       In 2002, Waitākere City Council (WCC) again resolved (resolution number 270/2002) to provide 2.5 hectares of the land at Harbourview People’s Parkland for the development of a marae (see Attachment A).  It was also agreed that an advisory group be established to work with Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust (Coalition Trust) to establish appropriate legal agreements between the parties.

10.     In the same year a report to council cites engagement with representatives of the following Māori entities in respect to the establishment of a marae in Te Atatū:

·     Te Kawerau A Maki,

·     Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei,

·     Ngāpuhi

·     Hoani Waititi,

·     Te Piringatahi o Te Maungarongo Marae, and

·     several prominent Māori leaders.

11.     In February 2003 the Harbourview-Orangihina Open Space Management Plan was adopted and this included a concept plan that provided for a marae.

12.     In 2005 WCC made another resolution (number 853/2005 – see Attachment A) to transfer 2.5 hectares of land at Harbourview to a trust structure under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.  It also resolved that the Chief Executive Officer continue to work with Te Atatū Development Group (previously referred to as the advisory group), to produce an appropriate trust structure in order to facilitate the transfer of land and development of a marae.

13.     In 2005 descendants of the previous owners of the land commenced proceedings to claim the land pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981.  The Supreme Court decided against the plaintiffs on 11 March 2016.  This delayed the development of a marae at Te Atatū for 11 years. 

14.     In 2016, the Auckland Unitary Plan zoned the 2.5-hectare area as Māori Purpose.  This allows for the establishment of a marae (from a regulatory perspective) on Harbourview-Orangihina Park.

15.     In April 2018, Council met with members of the Coalition Trust.  Four tenure options were discussed in relation to the resolutions cited above:

i.        title to the occupants in fee simple with revisionary interest to Council;

ii.       Reserves Act classification – local purpose (marae)

iii.      a long-term lease pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002;

iv.      a Māori reservation pursuant to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993; 

16.     In 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board supported the Coalition Trust to seek legal advice on the four options under discussion.  The outcome was that the Coalition Trust decided to apply to the Māori Land Court for a court order to establish a Māori reservation pursuant to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. 

17.     In 2018 Council granted $150,000 to the Coalition Trust from the contestable Cultural Initiatives Fund (CIF); of which, $50,000 was later released to cover the cost of producing a marae development plan. 

18.     In February 2019 the Harbourview–Orangihina Park Masterplan (masterplan) was adopted.  While the proposal for a marae wasn’t specifically addressed through the development of the masterplan the area for the marae was clearly carved out and set aside in accordance with previous commitments.

19.     In July 2019 the Te Atatū Marae Development Plan was completed, on behalf of the Coalition Trust, by Alan Wilcox.  This articulated the vision and approach that the Coalition Trust wished to take in the establishment of the marae. It showed the intent for the facility is to serve the region for education, artistic expression, rangatahi activities, tourism and much more.  It showed diverse income streams.  The resources required to develop the marae to its full potential were significant.

20.     In March 2020 the Henderson Massey Local Board resolved (resolution number HM/2020/37) to request that the land tenure for the marae be resolved by for the Parks, Arts Community and Events Committee (or most appropriate committee).  The local board noted its ongoing endorsement over the past four electoral terms for the land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park to be used for marae purposes.  The local board also acknowledged the Coalition Trust’s unwavering drive for more than three decades to secure tenure and progress the vision of development of a community marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

21.     In 2020 the Coalition Trust, after further conversation with council, decided to proceed with the third option cited above - a long-term lease, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, while retaining the option to pursue a Māori reservation at some point in the future. 

22.     At this point in time council has a grant agreement with the Coalition Trust to contribute to the scope, detailed design, consent and stage one of the marae development. This funding needs to be spent during the 2020-2021 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23.     In order to progress any form of marae development the resolutions passed in 2002 and 2005 by WCC need to be revisited as they were not fully implemented by WCC.  Those parts that have not yet been implemented cannot now be implemented by Auckland Council in their current form as circumstances have changed since the resolutions were passed by WCC.  Considering this, a report will be put to the Governing Body (or relevant committee) providing an overview of the historic commitment and seeking to revise these historic resolutions considering what has happened since they were passed.  As part of that report the options identified below will be canvassed:

a)       a long-term lease pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002;

b)       a Māori reservation pursuant to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993; 

c)       a long-term lease with an option to pursue a Māori reservation at a future date

24.     The local board is invited to provide their views on these options to be included in the staff report to the Governing Body (or relevant committee).  A brief assessment of the options is provided below.

A Māori reservation

25.     The Māori Land Court (Te Kooti Whenua Māori) is the New Zealand court that administers Māori reservations. The Māori Land Court operates under the provisions of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.  Part of Harbourview-Orangihina Park can be set aside as a Māori reservation. Council would need to first decide to apply to have the land set aside as a Māori reservation and nominate the people who will benefit from the reservation.  The council would then need to apply to the Māori Land Court who will conduct a hearing about the application and recommend to the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri that the Māori reservation be established (or not).  This process would involve public consultation and/or notification of the application to the Māori Land Court.  An affirmative decision is given effect by the gazettal (that is, notice in the New Zealand Gazette) of the creation of a Māori Reservation. The Court is then able to issue orders appointing trustees to administer the reservation.

26.     This process has several steps and would require new trustees to be identified.  It would change the status of the land from park to Māori reservation and any future tenure management issues would revert to the Māori Land Court. 

27.     This is not an option that council has historically pursued for marae in other locations.  It will take longer than a lease to establish and the complete change in status of the land is likely to attract public interest.  However, it provides the marae with a high level of security and a Māori centric tenure administration.

A long term lease

28.     A lease is a common mechanism used by council to enable community development and activity.  The local board has the allocated decision-making responsibility for the use of and activities within local parks which includes leases.

29.     Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (Guidelines) cite a maximum lease term of 20 years (two terms of ten years or four terms of five years).  The performance objectives embedded in a community lease provide the opportunity to review the performance from time to time over the lease duration.  The Guidelines also provide discretion to boards to vary the lease term but suggest that it should be in multiples of terms.

30.     The Resource Management Act determines that where a lease exceeds a term of 35 years (including renewals) it is deemed to be a subdivision.  This would require the land to be surveyed off.

A lease with an option for a Māori reservation

31.     The third option anticipates a combination of the options above.  A lease would be granted in the first instance which would support the first phase of development.  Then, at a later point in time, as indicated by the Coalition Trust, a Māori reservation could be considered. 

Option analysis

32.     The identified site has not been surveyed. A lease of less than 35 years is relatively simple to execute. In relation to defining the site a description and basic site plan will suffice. A longer-term lease or a Māori reservation will require a formal survey plan.

33.     The term of the lease will be up to the local board to determine once the historic WCC resolutions are amended.  A lease in line with the Guidelines could be considered.  A maximum lease term of 34 years, 364 days will likely be presented as an option noting:

·        there have been decades of historic long term/permanent tenure commitments

·        the site is zoned for this purpose

·        a marae will meet Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations to enable Māori to protect taonga including cultural practices

·        marae structures are intergenerational and not as vulnerable to changing trends that can affect other community uses. 

34.     Because the land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park is a park (as defined in section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002) the local board would need to consult on a proposal to lease the land (where the lease is for more than 6 months and has the effect of excluding or substantially interfering with the public’s access to that part of the park) before deciding to grant a lease. 

35.     The third option enables the marae to take time to be established in the first instance.  The process of developing and building capacity will often influence the nature of the development.  A lease provides for a working relationship with the local board.  This relationship would enable the marae to consider any learnings and changes through the development process before deciding if a Māori reservation is appropriate to pursue.

36.     It is notable that there has been express opposition in the past to the establishment of a marae at Te Atatū Peninsula.  A long-term lease with public consultation will provide a balance of allowing public input, not alienating the land and giving the Coalition Trust long term security.

37.     A Māori reservation will not provide as much future flexibility for the council to work with the Coalition Trust on the extent of the marae and its relationship with other park developments.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38.     Nothing in this report regarding land tenure options triggers any impact on climate change.  Proximity to the coast and environmental impact of development have been discussed in the past but these are not the subject of this report and will be considered later in the process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39.     In 2018, the Community Development and Safety Committee agreed to grant the Coalition Trust cultural initiatives funding to support the marae development. 

40.     There is a Watercare easement in the vicinity of the marae and there will be a need to work with both Auckland Transport and Watercare as development plans progress.  Based on the scale of the site, the significant roading infrastructure surrounding the site and the limited nature of the Watercare easement it is assumed that access to and development of the site will not be limited by transport or utility considerations. 

41.     Once stage one development plans are sufficiently well-advanced further consideration of several environmental and infrastructure effects can be undertaken in collaboration with the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42.     This report seeks the views of the local board. 

43.     The community views and impacts have been canvassed over the last few decades, including through the development of the management plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan.  There is a large constituency of support for a marae.  There is also opposition. 

44.     The masterplan (2019) noted the marae was outside of scope of the masterplan however the interface of the marae with the park was considered.  There were submissions on the proposed marae provision through the masterplan process, but those comments were not considered through the public notification and hearings process given the marae was out of scope.  However, the local community and interest groups are expecting to be consulted through the next phases of the marae development.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.     The Coalition Trust is focussed on creating a visible presence in the community, connecting with the whenua and starting to build stage one of a marae at Harbourview-Orangihina Park. 

46.     The Coalition Trust has previously indicated it would only consider a Maori reservation however have recently advised they would be happy with a long-term lease.  They understand this would first involve entering into an agreement to lease (ideally before June 2021).  Once the conditions of the agreement to lease have been met the actual lease would then become operative. A Māori reservation under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 is still an option the Coalition Trust would like to look at in the future. 

47.     The marae project at Te Atatū aligns with Kia Ora Te Marae, which is one of the ten priorities in Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, a Māori Performance Management Framework adopted by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on 20 August 2020.  This framework was developed following a review of previous plans and commitments.  In included input from mana whenua and mataawaka Māori.

48.     In its beginnings the earlier iterations of the Coalition Trust received support from mana whenua for the establishment of a marae at Te Atatū.  This is now out of date and the Coalition Trust are re-engaging with mana whenua and will invite them to reconfirm their support for the project.

49.     The establishment of a marae in Te Atatū is intended to meet the needs of Māori in particular, and the local community in general.

50.     The demographic trajectory in the subject area will see growth in both the Māori population and population in general.  The establishment of a marae in Te Atatū will help meet growing community needs. 

51.     The 2018 census shows that, at present, 17.2% of the Henderson-Massey Local Board area identify as Māori compared to Auckland, 11.5%. Usually 20,319 Māori live in Henderson-Massey.  This is an increase of 4,311, or 26.9%, since the 2013 Census.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

52.     The Coalition Trust are aware that the full vision is a large investment that will take many years of capacity building to achieve.  A shorter-term development plan/staged approach is being developed that is intended to be more financially affordable. 

53.     The cost of development will lie with the Coalition Trust although they would look to a range of funding partners to achieve the short- and long-term vision.  This may include council’s existing grant funding sources.

54.     The next steps outlined within this report will be supported by council staff at no extra cost to council (other than existing staff and grant commitments).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

55.     The long-held aspiration of the Coalition Trust is in line with the principles and intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  Council mitigates the risk of breaching obligations by working in partnership and in good faith with the Coalition Trust.

56.     This risk and associated mitigation are mana (prestige) enhancing for all involved.  An appropriately planned and developed marae in Te Atatū acknowledges council’s express support of protecting Māori taonga and supporting Māori community wellbeing. 

57.     Regulatory services provide management services to support marae development in line with the organisation support for Kia ora te marae.  This ensures the consent process includes an understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and can effectively support Māori outcomes.

58.     The long-term aspirations of the Coalition Trust are expensive however the risk of not achieving this is mitigated by a staged development approach and which will enable progressive capacity building within the marae.

59.     Historic community opposition includes concern about displacement of other activities and impact on the environment.  The displacement has been addressed through the many planning processes that have determined the appropriate long-term use of the site.  The impact on the environment will need to be addressed through development planning and is further mitigated through the Coalition Trust intent to be kaitiaki (guardians) for te taiao (the environment).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60.     This report will be followed by a report to the Governing Body (or relevant committee) to address the historic resolutions of WCC and formalise a way forward.

61.     Standing Order 1.9.5 of the Governing Body Standing Orders allows the Governing Body or one of its committees to revoke or alter all or part of a resolution passed by a previous meeting.  The previous resolutions of the WCC are treated as having been passed by the Auckland Council by virtue of s 35(1)(h) of the Local Government (Tāmaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. Therefore, it is open to the Governing Body or one of its committees to revoke or alter all or part of a resolution of the WCC.

62.     If the Governing Body (or relevant committee) supports an agreement to lease and lease being granted for a marae at Harbourview-Orangihina Park, then staff will bring a further report to the local board.  This will include advice regarding options for a lease and any procedural requirements including consultation.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2002 and 2005 resolutions from Waitākere City Council

19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jane Aickin - Maori Outcomes Lead | Nga Matarae – Customer and Community Services

Authorisers

Tania Winslade - General Manager, Ngā Mātārae | Māori Outcomes

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

To classify an unclassified recreation reserve – Ramlea Park

File No.: CP2020/11689

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the classification of Ramlea Park as recreation reserve pursuant to Section 16 (2A) and declaration and classification pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Ramlea Park (Attachment A) is made up of five land parcels. Four parcels are held in fee simple by the Auckland Council, subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and the remaining one parcel is held in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002.

3.       It is proposed to classify all land parcels as recreation reserve so that they all function for the purpose they were vested.

4.       Classification is a mandatory process under the Reserves Act and if not undertaken would mean the council is not meeting its statutory obligations. Classification involves assigning a reserve to its primary purpose which aids in the development of management plans and provides guidance to council when undertaking its land owner responsibilities.

5.       Local boards hold delegated authority under Section 16(2A) and Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify all council owned reserves.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      approve the classification of four parcels of land as a recreation reserve, pursuant to Section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977, legally described as:

i)        Part Lot 183 DP 38305 containing 1.5460 hectares, comprised in NA579/43 (part-cancelled)

ii)       Lot 29 DP 38305 containing 0.0809 hectares, comprised in NA1025/176

iii)      Lot 30 DP 38305 containing 0.0809 hectares, comprised in NA24A/1417

iv)      Part Lot 28 DP 38305 containing 0.0300 hectares, comprised in NA35D/1358

b)      approve the declaration and classification of one parcel as a recreation reserve, pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977, legally described as Part Lot 33 DP 38305 containing 0.0176 hectares, comprised in NA1004/107 (part-cancelled).

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The Reserves Act 1977 (“the Act”) came into force on 1 April 1978 and under section 16 all reserves are required to be classified. Classification involves assigning a reserve (or parts of a reserve) to the appropriate class. The class determines the principal or primary purpose of the reserve. The present values of the reserve are considered as well as the future “potential” values and the possible future uses and activities on the reserve.

7.       Ramlea Park is made up of five separate land parcels. Four are held in fee simple by the Auckland Council, subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and the fifth is held under the Local Government Act 2002. The largest parcel (Part Lot 183 DP 38305) was acquired by the Crown in 1951 as a recreation reserve and the ownership was transferred to the council by a subsequent legislation (s44 of the Counties Amendment Act 1961). The other parcels were acquired as public reserves and recreation ground by the former Waitemata City Council between 1975 and 1978. It is still functioning as it was vested.

8.       Classification of the reserves gives the council guidance for the development of management plans and will also allow council to grant an easement for some minor works to construct three wastewater connections within Ramlea Park from a development at 5 Barberry Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula (see Attachment B). The board provided positive feedback on the landowner approval in June 2020.

9.       Local boards hold delegated authority under Section 16 (2A) and Section 14 (1) of the Act to approve classifications of council owned reserves, subject to all statutory processes having been satisfied.

10.     While there is no provision under the Act requiring the council to publicly notify its intention to classify any reserve in terms of Section 16 (2A) or Section 14 (1) of that Act, engagement with iwi is still necessary as per Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

11.     The request for classification was presented to the North West Mana Whenua Forum on 5 August 2020 and was met with support.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     The parcels that make up Ramlea Park that are to be classified are shown in the table below and illustrated in the aerial map in Attachment A:

 

#

Land parcel

Area (Ha)

Title

Current Status

Description of current use

1

Part Lot 183 DP 38305

 

1.5460

 

NA579/43 (part-cancelled)

Unclassified. To be classified for recreation under s16(2A)

Sports fields, public open space area, grass area, athletics pavilion with public toilets

2

Lot 29 DP 38305

 

0.0809

 

NA1025/176

Unclassified. To be classified for recreation under s16(2A)

Public open space area, grass area, maintenance access

3

Lot 30 DP 38305

 

0.0809

 

NA24A/1417

Unclassified. To be classified for recreation under s16(2A)

Public open space area, grass area

4

Part Lot 28 DP 38305

0.0300

NA35D/1358

Unclassified. To be classified for recreation under s16(2A)

Public open space area, grass area

5

Part Lot 33 DP 38305

 

0.0176

 

NA1004/107 (part-cancelled)

Held under LGA. Taken for a recreation ground by Gazette Notice 1978 p2362. To be declared and classified for recreation under s14(1)

Public open space area, grass area

Recreation reserve classification

13.     The recreation reserve classification is the most appropriate for all parcels of Ramlea Park.

14.     The purpose of recreation reserves as set out in section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for “recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreational activities, including recreational tracks in the countryside”.

15.     The reserve is a large open space that is used for organised sports such as athletics and football and provides space for informal sport and recreation activities. The local athletics club have a lease for the pavilion on site. The reserve also provides access between Taikata Road, Peachgrove Road, Yeovil Road and Barberry Lane for pedestrians to walk or run through.

16.     Ramlea Park is zoned as ‘Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation Zone’ and is not the subject of any historical, cultural, scenic or ecological overlays under the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part.

Specialists consultation

17.     Land advisory, parks and places specialist, senior parks planner and the facilities manager have been consulted and support the proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     Classification is an administrative task. It will therefore have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions as the proposal does not introduce any new source of emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     Staff do not consider other council groups to be affected by the classification of Ramlea Park. Classification of reserves give the council guidance for the development of management plans that coincide with this purpose. Classifying as recreation reserve will not restrict any activities currently occurring or planned on this reserve.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     The proposal aligns with the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017 “Outcome 6: He wāhi manawapātia me te whakatairangahia ngā ātea tū wātea, Natural spaces are valued and restored.” The classification of reserves gives council clear direction on how the reserves should be managed.

21.     Classifying to recreation reserve will not change how the reserve is currently managed or used. Therefore, there are no impacts at the local or regional level.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     The council is required under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 to engage with local iwi. The item was presented and the North West mana whenua forum on 5 August 2020. There were no objections to the proposed classification at the hui.

23.     Ramlea Park is not identified as a site of value or significance to mana whenua in the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part and has no Cultural Heritage Inventory sites listed.

24.     Council’s Māori Heritage Team confirmed that there are no specific sites nominated in this area of Te Atatu Peninsula. They have however marked this area for future discussion with iwi due to the areas natural features such as productive soils, native bush, wetlands and waterways.

25.     A decision to classify Ramlea Park to recreation reserve has no readily identifiable impacts on Māori heritage and culture.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26.     There are no financial operational implications for the local board over and above the existing maintenance requirements of the reserve.

27.     Publication in the New Zealand Gazette records the local board’s resolution. A permanent public record of the classification will be obtained after registration of the published gazette notice against the title containing the reserve. The cost of publication is a one-off fee of approximately $100 and will be borne by Community Facilities.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     If the Henderson-Massey Local Board does not resolve the classifications as recommended, this decision would contravene the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     Staff will register the published notices against the relevant titles to ensure a permanent public record is retained about the classification actions.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ramlea Park aerial

25

b

Landowner approval proposal plans for 5 Barberry Lane

27

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Alayna Fiatau - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Auckland Transport's update for September 2020

File No.: CP2020/13051

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to the Henderson-Massey Local Board (the Local Board) on Auckland Transport (AT) matters in its area and an update on its local board transport capital fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report highlights AT activities in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area and contains information about the following:

·     2019-2022 Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the Community Safety Fund;

·     2019-2022 LBTCF projects workshopped by the local board

·     Public transport recovery under Covid-19

·     Auckland Transport, Kiwirail and Transdev are informing customers of the changes

·     Public consultations and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      receive Auckland Transport’s update for September 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

·   be safe

·   not impede network efficiency

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

7.       The Local Board held a workshop on Tuesday, 1 September with Auckland Transport to discuss the new allocated budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and to give direction on what projects they would like considered as part of that allocation.  A separate report will be presented at the Local Board October 2020 meeting.

8.       What you need to know about Public Transport under Alert Level 2 (Refer Attachment A)

https://engagemedia.azureedge.net/files/file/oniD2fBWbkeWXQjYS3MRfQ

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

          Roberts Road Shops -Te Atatu Road Intersection Safety Issues

12.     Auckland Transport had received a request from the Local Board on behalf of a member of her community about safety issues at the Roberts Road Shops.

13.     There is a scheme currently at the design stage which would modify the existing zebra crossing at this location, placing the facility on a speed table, resulting in lower vehicle speeds through this intersection.  However, following the request our Traffic Roading Engineer has visited the area of concern and assessed the feasibility of installing further road safety measures at this intersection.

14.     Several factors are carefully considered as part of this assessment, and these include traffic speeds and volumes, crash history and the topography of the area.

15.     Auckland Transport undertake this type of assessments and with requests outnumbering the locations that can be treated, sites with high crash numbers as well as higher traffic volumes are prioritised, or areas where patterns of risk are emerging.

16.     After investigating the intersection between Te Atatu Road and Roberts Road this has been identified as a low crash risk intersection and has not been identified as a priority site.

17.     This is due to other areas in the region experiencing higher speeds and safety risk, and therefore the need to be prioritised. Auckland Transport will continue to monitor this situation.

          Tirimoana School Traffic and Parking Issue

18.     Auckland Transport had received a request from the Local Board member to relook at the traffic and parking issues at Tirimoana School.

19.     Investigations have been undertaken which have resulted in the following findings.  There are no reported crashes on this particular stretch of road. It is a very low speed environment and removing the 5 minute parking spaces and replacing them with parking restrictions is unlikely to resolve all the issue.  It should be remembered that the Road Code requires vehicles that are parked and wanting to merge back into the traffic lanes are required to wait until it is safe before undertaking any manoeuvre. Auckland Transport is not responsible for individual vehicle users not following the road code, just with providing a road design that will not lead to death or serious injury (if used correctly).

20.     It is very evident when you look at Google Street View that vehicles are parking on the BYL’s or just stopping in the middle of the road to collect children.  Removing the 5-minute parking will not change this behaviour and is therefore not justified.

21.     In regard to flashing 40 km/hour school zone sign this has been responded to on a number of occasions and AT’s response has not changed, as this is still not seen as a high priority area when assessed against the criteria for prioritisation of the installation of these devices.

          Local Board Issues Being Investigated

22.     The Local board have requested the following issues be investigated.  They are still under investigation:

·     Safety Issues at the intersection of Awaroa Road and Great North Road, Henderson

·     Various of safety and roading issues on Hewlett and Waimumu Roads

·     Glendene Pavement repairs

·     Pedestrian Crossing request- Great North Road /Kirby Avenue (between the Glendene shops and the Felgrove St lights)


 

          Consultation documents on proposed improvements

 

23.     Consultation documents for the following proposal has been provided to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for its feedback and are summarised below for information purposes only.

24.     After consultation, Auckland Transport considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on or proceed with an amended proposal if changes are considered necessary.

·     West Hills Stage 2 Mega Lot

          Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

25.     Decisions of the TCC during the month of August 2020 affecting the Henderson/Massey Local Board area are listed below:

Date

Street (Suburb)

Type of Report

Nature of Restriction

Decision

 

1-Aug-20

Tarapuka Road / Whakanoho Road / Porowha Road / Tahetoka Street, Westgate

 

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

 

Cycle Path / No Stopping At All Times / Angle Parking / Bus Stop – AT Metro Only / Road Hump / Give-Way Control / Traffic Island

 

APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE

 

1-Aug-20

Juneau Place / Manhattan Heights, Glendene

 

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

 

No Stopping At All Times

 

 

CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26.     There are no specific impacts on Māori for this reporting period. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi-the Treaty of Waitangi-and its broader legal obligations in being more responsive or effective to Māori. Our Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to with 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website- https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications for the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     Operating budgets have been reduced through this process and some projects planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered.

29.     Both the Community Safety Fund and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund are impacted by these budget reductions.

30.     AT did attend workshops in August 2020 to discuss with local boards how to get best value from their 2020/2021 LBTCF allocations. Community Safety projects will continue in design and will be delivered once funds become available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.     Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the Henderson-Massey Local Board in October 2020.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

AT Covid-19 Update

35

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager (Henderson-Massey)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

New road names in the Acanthus Limited subdivision at 33 – 37 Red Hills Road, Massey.

File No.: CP2020/12374

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board for names for eleven new public roads created by way of the subdivision at 33 – 37 Red Hills Road, Massey.

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 agent on behalf of the applicant Acanthus Limited, has submitted the following names for the new public roads. Some of the roads to be named consist of more than one road number. However, this is due to the way the roads have been notated on the site plans but do form one continuous public road that requires a name.

Road 1

·           Taiororua Avenue (applicants preferred name)

With alternatives being;

·           Marangai Māuru Avenue

·           Puna Manawa Avenue

 

Road 2

·           Neretva Avenue (applicants preferred name)

With alternatives being;

·           Kārearea Avenue

·           Pūwhā Avenue

 

Road 3

·           Morus Road (applicants preferred name)

With alternatives being;

·           Rāpunga Road

·           Marumaru Road

 

Road 4

·           Puhikawa Street (applicants preferred name)

With alternatives being;

·           Kiwakiwa Street

 

Road 5, 10 & 14

·           Biokovo Street (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Puhikaioreore Street

·           Neineikura Street

 

 

 

Road 6 & 11

·           Horokaka Street (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Paratawhiti Street

·           Kupapa Street

 

Road 7, 12 & 15

·           Cahors Street (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Pūwhā Street

·           Taupeka Street

 

Road 8

·           Pressac Road (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Matā Road

·           Papai Road

 

Road 9

·           Kōkōtea Road (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Koihi Road

·           Pūrua Road

 

Road 13

·           Paretao Street (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Karuwhai Street

·           Hereheru Street

 

Road 16

·           Kotiu Place (applicants preferred option)

With alternatives being;

·           Maikukuroa Place

·           Tākaha Place

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      approve the following names for the eleven new public roads constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by Acanthus Limited at 33 – 37 Red Hills Road, Massey, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Road 1: Taiororua Avenue

Road 2: Neretva Avenue

Road 3: Morus Road

Road 4: Puhikawa Street

Road 5, 10 & 14: Biokovo Street

Road 6 & 11: Horokaka Street

Road 7, 12 & 15: Cahors Street

Road 8: Pressac Road

Road 9: Kōkōtea Road

Road 13: Paretao Street

Road 16: Kotiu Place

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       Resource consent has been obtained for a 27 residential super lot subdivision at 33 – 37 Red Hills Road, Massey and the council references are BUN60337852 and SUB60337854.

5.       A site plan of the roads and development can be found in Attachment A.

6.       A location map of the proposed development can be found in Attachment B.

7.       In accordance with the national addressing standard all public roads require a name.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8.       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.

-    The use of Maori names is actively encouraged.

9.       The applicant has therefore proposed those names set out in the following.

Proposed New Road Name

Meaning

Road Naming Criteria

Road 1

Taiororua Avenue (preferred)

Maori translation, Valley (noun). Feature of the site, the overland flow area forms a valley west of the site.

Meets criteria

Marangai Māuru Avenue (alternative)

Maori translation; North West(noun). The location of the new subdivision.

Meets criteria

Puna Manawa Avenue

(alternative)

Maori translation; spring (of water), oasis. Feature of the site.

Meets criteria

Road 2

Neretva Avenue (preferred)

The Neretva river flows through Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Meets criteria

Kārearea Avenue

(alternative)

New Zealand falcon. Bush falcon, a fast-flying bird of prey which often perches high in trees or on a rock and swoops to catch its prey.

Meets criteria

Pūwhā Avenue

(alternative)

Pūwhā is a common sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus). Māori called kauri gum, Kāpia, and had many uses for it. They chewed fresh gum from trees and softened older gum for chewing by soaking it in water and mixing it with the milk of pūwhā.

Meets criteria

Road 3

Morus Road

(preferred)

The Morus Gannet - white seabird with a buff-yellow head and mainly black flight feathers, breeding in colonies on islands and headlands. And wildlife found at Muriwai beach in close vicinity to the area. The Malbec subdivision is at the original gate way to Northwest Beaches and other areas.

Meets criteria.

Rāpunga Road

(alternative)

A seagull, southern black-backed gull and local wildlife.

Meets criteria

Marumaru Road

(alternative)

Maori translation; be shaded, sheltered. The boundary of the site is shaded bush.

Meets criteria

Road 4

Puhikawa Street

(preferred)

Horopito or pepper tree, Pseudowintera axillaris and Pseudowintera colorata.

Meets criteria

Kiwakiwa Street

(alternative)

A creek fern, Blechnum fluviatile.

Meets criteria

Road 5, 10 & 14

Biokovo Street

(preferred)

Biokovo is the highest coastal mountain located along the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic Sea, between the rivers of Cetina and Neretva.

Meets criteria

Puhikaioreore Street

(alternative)

Maori translation, treetop. A site feature, where the northern boundary is higher than the trees.

Meets criteria

Neineikura Street

(alternative)

Soft tree fern, Cyathea smithii - native tree fern with very soft fronds

Meets criteria

Road 6 & 11

Horokaka Street

(preferred)

Horokaka is a native plant with green to wine red, succulent, three-angled leaves and white to deep pink flowers. Its sprawling nature forms a mat, and is found on coastal cliffs, salt meadows and sometimes behind sandy beaches.

Meets criteria

Paratawhiti Street

(alternative)

King fern, horseshoe fern, Marattia salicina.

Meets criteria

Kupapa Street

(alternative)

Maori translation: to lie flat, stoop, go steadily, collaborate, collude.

Meets criteria

Road 7, 12 & 15

Cahors Street

(preferred)

The area in south west of France that the Malbec grape originated.

Meets criteria

Pūwhā Street

(alternative)

Pūwhā is a common sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus). Māori called kauri gum, Kāpia, and had many uses for it. They chewed fresh gum from trees and softened older gum for chewing by soaking it in water and mixing it with the milk of pūwhā.

 

 

Meets criteria

Taupeka Street

(alternative)

Gypsy fern, comb fern, Notogrammitis heterophylla.

Meets criteria

Road 8

Pressac Road

(preferred)

Located in France where the Malbec grapes are popular.

Meets criteria

Matā Road

(alternative)

Maori translation, Lava, flint, quartz, obsidian (noun).

Meets criteria

Papai Road

(alternative)

Maori translation, excellence, good looks, goodness, high quality (noun). Represents the high quality of the development and land.

Meets criteria

Road 9

Kōkōtea Road

(preferred)

Female tūī, female parson bird, Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae.

Meets criteria

Koihi Road

(alternative)

Telescope fish, Mendosoma lineatum, have jaws that extend outwards.

Meets criteria

Pūrua Road

(alternative)

Maori translation, by twos, in pairs, two by two. The location of the road being parallel to Road 8.

Meets criteria

Road 13

Paretao Street

(preferred)

Shining spleenwort, Asplenium oblongifolium - large tufted native fern with very glossy fronds.

Meets criteria

Karuwhai Street

(alternative)

A climbing shield fern, Rumohra adiantiformis - climbing native fern having light fronds with dark veins, leathery, plastic-like on very long, grooved stalks.

 

Meets criteria

Hereheru Street

(alternative)

A single crape fern, Leptopteris hymenophylloides - native tufted ground fern, often with a short woody trunk. Fronds very delicate, dark but translucent like a filmy fern.

Meets criteria

Road 16

Kotiu Place

(preferred)

Kotiu meaning is Maori translation, north-west wind. The location of the new subdivision.

Meets criteria

Maikukuroa Place

(alternative)

Prince of Wales Feathers, crape fern, Leptopteris superba - native tufted ground fern, often with a short woody trunk.

Meets criteria

Tākaha Place

(alternative)

Male Tūī, male parson bird, Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae.

Meets criteria

 

10.     The name of the subject development is ‘Malbec’ which means a French grape used for winemaking. The area is at the original gateway to the northwest beaches and other areas.

The proposed road names of ‘Cahors’ and ‘Pressac’ have been chosen as they are areas in France where the Malbec grape originated or is popular.

The names of Neretva, Pūwhā and Biokovo are historic to the Croation/Dalmation settlement in the Kumeu area, the vineyards and the collection of kauri gum.

The other proposed Maori names represent the plants, ferns, birds & fish which are native or local to the area and northwest beaches.

11.     Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed the proposed and alternative names are acceptable and no duplicates exist within the Auckland region.

12.     All iwi in the Auckland area were written to and invited to comment. No replies were received.

13.     The proposed new names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14.     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

15.     The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significance 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

The road names proposed in this report have been provided to mana whenua by the applicant for consideration. In this instance no feedback has been received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the Council.

19.     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

20.     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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

33 - 37 Red Hills Road Site Plans

47

b

33 - 37 Red Hills Road Location Map

49

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dale Rewa - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Project Streetscapes: Weed Management report

File No.: CP2020/12681

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the recommended regional methodology to edge and maintain weeds on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel on more than 5000km of urban roads in the Auckland region.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council manages edges and weeds on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel in the urban road corridor for statutory, asset protection, amenity, and health and safety outcomes.

3.       The service level for weed management on berms and in the kerb and channel is the same across Auckland. However, the methodologies for edging and weed control on hard surfaces, either plant-based, synthetic herbicides or thermal, e.g. hot water/steam, differ between local board areas. In some cases, different methods are used within the same local board boundaries. This reflects the continuation of legacy council approaches.

4.       In April 2019, Auckland Transport transferred services and budget to the council’s Community Facilities department to manage weeds within the road corridor on their behalf. Auckland Transport retains responsibility for the road corridor as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

5.       The transfer was completed as part of Project Streetscapes (which did not include the Hauraki Gulf Islands), a variation to the Community Facilities outcome-based maintenance contracts. Part of the project included developing recommendations for a regionally consistent approach for edging and weed control on hard surfaces in the road corridor.

6.       Community Facilities has continued with the legacy approach to weed control while completing a review of weed management methodologies. The scope of the review and recommendations are for edging and weed control on hard surfaces within the urban road corridor, excluding the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Rural roads are not included due to differences in population, roading infrastructure and land use in rural areas.

7.       The evaluation criteria for the review’s recommendations include environmental impacts, community input, the council’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and the objectives of the council Weed Management Policy for effective, efficient, and sustainable outcomes.

8.       A council People’s Panel survey was conducted in October 2019 as one mechanism to gauge how Aucklanders feel about managing weeds on footpaths and kerbs (see Attachment A).

9.       The recommendation of this review is for a combination of plant-based herbicide with spot spraying of glyphosate for difficult to manage weeds. This is estimated to lead to a reduction in glyphosate, carbon emissions and water usage across the region while achieving effective control. This approach is estimated to be achievable within existing operational budgets.

10.     Feedback is sought from local boards to be included in the recommendation to the Governing Body on a standardised approach for edging and weed control on hard surfaces in the road corridor (see Attachment B). This will be presented at the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 12 November 2020.

11.     Should a local board choose to utilise alternative methodologies to those agreed, they have the option of using locally driven initiative (LDI) funding to cover the cost difference between the agreed regional weed management method and the alternative.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the recommended approach to a standardised methodology to managing weeds on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel across more than 5000km of urban roads.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

12.     Community Facilities carries out edging and weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel across more than 5000km of Auckland urban roads. This is done for asset protection and amenity, as well as health and safety outcomes, including:

·     preventing root intrusion causing damage to the road surface, kerb and channel, footpaths and other road assets

·     ensuring vegetation growing in the kerb and channel does not interfere with water flow

·     ensuring the safety of pedestrians and road users by maintaining clear sight-lines and minimising trip hazards

·     maintaining the streetscape in a tidy and aesthetically pleasing condition.

13.     Auckland’s moderate and wet climate makes the area particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of weeds. The climate causes vigorous growth, easy establishment, and increased infestation of weeds. The road corridor provides a dynamic environment for the spread of weeds including through vehicle and water dispersal.[1]

14.     Uncontrolled weeds on footpaths and the kerb and channel cause damage that can lead to increased repairs and renewals with a funding and environmental impact. This damage may create trip hazards, putting people at risk.

15.     Agrichemicals are used for edging and weed control in the urban road corridor. Edging is required on both sides of the road, which is over 10,000km of footpaths and berms. The Auckland Council Weed Management Policy guides the use of herbicide by the council and supports best practice weed control.[2] All agrichemical use must follow the rules of the Unitary Plan, which ensures that, when used correctly, agrichemicals can make a positive contribution to sustainable land use.[3]

16.     The outcome-based contract specifications for the road corridor do not permit herbicide application outside schools or early learning services on days that these institutions are in use. There are limitations on the time of spraying in urban areas and the contract specifications include instructions to not complete weed control where the berm is clearly being maintained by the adjacent property owner.[4]

17.     All of Auckland is covered by a ‘no-spray register’ for berms adjacent to private property. Any resident who agrees to manage weeds to a specified standard can apply to ‘opt out’ of weed management completed by the council, through recording their intent on the no-spray register. Residents can register through a dedicated form on the council website or through the council call centre.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Weed management in the road corridor

18.     The service level outcomes for weed management on berms and in the kerb and channel are the same across Auckland. However, the methodologies for their maintenance, either plant-based, synthetic herbicides or thermal, e.g. hot water/steam, differs between local board areas. In some cases, different methods are used within the same local board boundaries. These differences reflect the weed control methods and herbicides that were used by the legacy councils of Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Waitākere City Council, North Shore City Council, Papakura District Council, Rodney District Council and Franklin District Council prior to amalgamation.

19.     In April 2019, Auckland Transport transferred services and budget to the council’s Community Facilities unit to manage weeds within the road corridor. Auckland Transport retains responsibility for the road corridor as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

20.     Weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel is now part of the outcome-based Full Facilities contract for streetscapes. These include pest plant control, mowing, town centre cleaning, and waste removal completed on behalf of Auckland Transport.

21.     Community Facilities has continued with the legacy approach for edging and weed control on hard surfaces, while completing a review of the methodologies with a view to making recommendations to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for a consistent regional approach. The scope of the review and recommendations is only for the urban road corridor and does not include rural areas or the Hauraki Gulf Islands. This reflects the differences in population, roading infrastructure and land use in rural areas.

Comparison of weed management methodologies

Synthetic herbicide – glyphosate

22.     The synthetic herbicide used for edging and weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel in the urban road corridor in Auckland is glyphosate. Glyphosate is used by the council for weed management on parks and reserves, and by most road controlling authorities in New Zealand to control vegetation in the road corridor.[5]

23.     Glyphosate is a low toxicity broad-spectrum non-selective herbicide which is particularly effective on broadleaf weeds and grasses. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that is absorbed through green plant tissue and is then translocated throughout the plant, including the root system, to kill the entire plant.[6]

24.     Glyphosate is diluted with water and applied via foliar spray with a small left-hand steer vehicle in the urban road corridor. It is the most cost-effective method as it needs to be applied less frequently than other methods. In the urban road corridor, spot spraying with glyphosate typically occurs six times per year to achieve the desired level of service.

25.     There is some community and international debate about the health risk of glyphosate with several regions no longer using, or minimising the use of, glyphosate for weed control in public areas.

26.     Auckland Council’s agrichemical use is guided by the New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their role as the regulator of hazardous substances in New Zealand. The EPA gathers information from multiple credible sources when deciding whether substances are safe to use. The EPA has granted approval for the use of glyphosate-containing substances in accordance with the EPA code of practice. Should the EPA change their position on glyphosate, the council would respond appropriately.

27.     In October 2019 the EPA stated the following:

Products containing glyphosate are considered safe, provided that all of the rules around their use are followed. …We are aware that some reports linking glyphosate to health impacts are causing concern. We are in alignment with the vast majority of regulatory bodies around the world – including in the European Union, United States, Australia and Canada - which agree that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer.[7]

28.     For all agrichemical use, the council complies with the Environmental Protection Agency Code of Practice (NZS 8409:2004 Management of Agrichemicals) for the storage, mixing, use, disposal and certification of contractors.

29.     Glyphosate is strongly absorbed into soil and has no residual activity.[8] Community Facilities only uses approved formulations of glyphosate, with no human hazard ratings, within the road corridor.[9] While the formulation being used within the road corridor is also approved for use in the aquatic environment, it does have a hazard rating for toxicity for aquatic life at high concentrations.[10] As per the Code of Practice, glyphosate is only used in appropriate weather conditions to minimise spray drift by rain and wind.

30.     A caution for the use of glyphosate is the development of resistance in some weed species.[11]

31.     Local boards that use spot spraying of glyphosate for weed management include Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau. All methodologies include some mechanical removal of weeds.

Plant-based herbicide

32.     Plant-based herbicides used in the urban road corridor include Biosafe and Bio Weed Blast. The active ingredient is a fatty acid which is a contact herbicide. When applied to weeds, it burns off the foliage, thus preventing or reducing seed production and restricting growth.

33.     As plant-based herbicides are not systemic, i.e. they do not kill down to the root, they must be applied more frequently than glyphosate to meet service levels. Although they can kill annuals, generally they will not kill longer-lived mature perennial weeds, as they re-sprout from specialised (e.g. rhizomes) root tissue after the foliage has been burned off. Fatty acid-based herbicides need to be applied to young or small plants for acceptable weed control.[12]

34.     Plant-based herbicides are diluted with water and applied via foliar spray with small left-hand steer vehicle in the urban road corridor, approximately 12 times per year. The exclusive use of plant-based herbicide is approximately three times more expensive than glyphosate because of the additional frequency and quantity of product required.[13] There is an additional cost consideration due to the corrosive impact of the fatty acid on equipment which needs to be replaced more regularly.

35.     While plant-based herbicides are inactivated on contact with the soil and have no residual activity[14], there is a health and safety risk to be managed by the operators. The active ingredient is an eye, skin and respiratory irritant. There is a strong notable odour from plant-based herbicide which can be, and has been, the source of complaints from the public.

36.     For all agrichemical use, the council complies with the Environmental Protection Agency Code of Practice (NZS 8409:2004 Management of Agrichemicals) for the storage, mixing, use, disposal and certification of contractors.

37.     Plant-based herbicide is approved for use in Auckland and has been used since prior to amalgamation. Although there are no restrictions imposed by the EPA for application within the road corridor, the products have a hazard rating for toxicity for aquatic life. Instructions from the manufacturer include applying when conditions are dry, and rain is not expected in the road corridor within the next two hours.[15]

38.     Local boards that use plant-based herbicide exclusively, include Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Waitematā (excluding the central business district), Waiheke and Ellerslie in Ōrākei. All methodologies include some mechanical removal of weeds.

Thermal – steam and hot water

39.     Thermal technologies include steam and hot water. Water heated to high temperatures is applied to weeds with a hose and lance to destroy the foliage. Thermal weed management leaves the roots primarily untreated.[16]

40.     Thermal technology requires significant water use, using between 10-12L of water per minute.[17] Non-potable water sources can be used to mitigate demand on treated water sources, however non-potable water is not currently available in most areas of Auckland. This leaves the implementation of this method vulnerable to water restrictions as we have seen in 2020.[18]

41.     This method utilises mobile diesel boilers to heat water to 98 degrees. Diesel boilers use up to 9L[19] of diesel an hour with associated carbon emissions of 24kg.[20] Thermal technology is more expensive than herbicide. A two-person team is required, and the application rate is slower as it requires a prolonged application to cover the foliage. Application speeds are approximately 1.1km/hr[21] for thermal compared to 1.8km/hr for herbicide.[22] Like plant-based herbicide, thermal weed management needs to be applied more frequently, approximately 12 times a year, to meet weed management service levels.

42.     Local boards that use thermal technology include Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, parts of Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays. There is some use of spot spraying of glyphosate to address persistent weeds. All methodologies include some mechanical removal of weeds.

 

 

Thermal – hot foam

43.     A product called Foamstream has been trialled in Auckland in 2020. Foamstream is a soluble concentrate which is added to hot water to create a foam and has been used in the United Kingdom for weed management. [23] The foam acts as an insulator to keep the heat higher for longer. The manufacturer claims that the use of foam could reduce the frequency of treatment cycles compared to using steam/hot water alone. A review of the trial is currently underway and, if the product proves suitable, staff will seek approval from Auckland Transport and Healthy Waters for its use in the road corridor.

Combination of synthetic and plant-based herbicide

44.     This approach uses a combination of both glyphosate and plant-based herbicide. Plant-based herbicide is applied throughout the year to manage weeds, with the use of glyphosate by spot spraying at peak weed growing times on difficult to control weeds.

45.     An integrated approach results in a reduction of both products and provides more effective control of persistent weeds than by using plant-based herbicide alone. This methodology is used in the Auckland Botanic Gardens to reduce the use of glyphosate. The use of herbicide with a different mode of action in combination with glyphosate is one of the main strategies to avoid glyphosate resistance.[24]

46.     Local boards that use a combined approach include Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Ōrākei (except for Ellerslie where only plant-based herbicide is applied). All methodologies include some mechanical removal of weeds.

Methodology comparison

47.     In 2015, a comparison of methodologies was completed (see Attachment C). The data in the table was reviewed by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) and the effectiveness, environmental and human health information was independently peer-reviewed by the firm AECOM.

48.     For the current review, further analysis was completed to estimate quantities of water, herbicide and operational carbon emissions per methodology. This reflects the council’s commitments within Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan[25], the Auckland water efficiency strategy and the Weed Management Policy. The data on herbicide volumes has come from contractor reporting for the urban road corridor (as the data includes pest plant control, the use for edging and hard surfaces is expected to be lower). Water usage and fuel consumption are from product specification sheets and supplier data. These are estimates only, with volumes of herbicide and water varying by area, season and weed levels.

49.     For the purpose of this review, updated supplier costings for a regionally consistent approach were requested. The difference in pricing for alternative methodologies compared to glyphosate was expected, reflecting the different frequencies and volume of product needed. For plant-based weed control to achieve similar outcomes, more frequent treatments are required than glyphosate, thereby increasing the costs of materials, labour and fuel. Thermal technology is applied at the same frequency as plant-based herbicide, 12 times a year, with a slower application rate requiring a two-person team. These are estimates only and may not include costs for change implementation e.g. purchase of machinery etc.


 

Table 1: Comparison of estimated operational carbon emissions, volume of water, herbicide and cost per km per year for each weed management approach

Methodology

Carbon emissions[26]

Water usage

Herbicide

Active Ingredient

(kg)

Application rate

Cost

Glyphosate

(6x per year)

1.1kg

180L

1.8L

0.9kg glyphosate

 

1.8km per hour (single operator)

$783

Combination of plant-based/ glyphosate

(10x per year)

1.9kg

870L

0.7L of glyphosate & 8L of plant-based

0.4kg glyphosate

5.6kg fatty acid

1.8km per hour (single operator)

 

$1293


Plant-based herbicide

(12x per year)

2.3kg

1350L[27]

13.5L

9.5kg

fatty acid

1.8km per hour (single operator)

$2265

Thermal technologies – steam and hot water

(12x per year)

264kg

6545L

Approx. 0.5L of glyphosate

0.25kg

glyphosate

1.1km per hour (two operators)

$3485

 Auckland Council – People’s Panel survey

50.     In October 2019, a People’s Panel survey was conducted as one mechanism to gauge how Aucklanders view management of weeds on footpaths and kerbs. The survey was sent to 39,789 members of the People’s Panel. They were provided with the information on the council website on the different methodologies[28]. However, at the time of the survey, estimated emissions, volume of herbicide, and cost were not available.

51.     Of the 5686 respondents, 66 per cent stated that they ‘care’ about the weeds on our footpaths and kerbs. The results showed that 43 per cent of residents use synthetic herbicide (e.g. glyphosate) for weed management on their own property. Synthetic herbicide (e.g. glyphosate) was the least preferred method for weed management in the road corridor by 52 per cent of respondents.

52.     Nineteen per cent were willing to pay higher rates for the council to use alternatives to synthetic herbicide, 42 per cent were not willing to pay extra, and 36 per cent indicated they may be willing to pay more[29]. There were differences in responses by local board area as detailed in Attachment A (People’s Panel results by local board).

53.     There are members of the community that believe glyphosate should not be used by Auckland Council.

Regional review recommendation

54.     The review of methodologies to manage weeds in the urban road corridor takes into consideration the Auckland Weed Management Policy, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and community input.


 

Table 2: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the different weed management methodologies

Methodology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Synthetic herbicide – glyphosate

Low cost, low frequency of application, effective weed control

Reduced carbon emissions

Risk of community objection to the use of glyphosate

Restricted weather conditions for application

Herbicide resistance in some species

Plant-based herbicide

Reduction in glyphosate used by council for weed control

Immediate effect on weeds

Increased frequency and therefore a greater volume of herbicide compared to glyphosate

Plant-based herbicide is two to three times more expensive than glyphosate

The product is corrosive and has a strong odour

Restricted weather conditions for application

Thermal technology steam/hot water/hot water with a foam additive

Thermal technology does not use herbicide

Can be applied in any weather

Immediate effect on weeds

 

High water usage and carbon emissions

Spot spraying glyphosate is still required on high volume roads and to address persistent weeds

Thermal technology is more expensive than glyphosate

Combination of plant-based and synthetic herbicide, e.g. glyphosate

An estimated region-wide reduction in the use of glyphosate, carbon emissions and water use

Minimising the volume of agrichemical use across the region

Reduction in risk of plants developing glyphosate resistance

An increase in herbicide use in some local board areas

55.     The recommendation for a standardised methodology is a combination of plant-based herbicide with spot spraying of glyphosate for difficult weeds. This is estimated to lead to a reduction in glyphosate, carbon emissions and water usage across the region. There would be an increase in the use of plant-based herbicide. This approach is estimated to be achievable within current operational budgets.

56.     Thermal methodologies, including hot foam, could be used for sensitive areas but are not recommended for a region-wide approach due to their high emissions, water usage and cost. The exclusive use of plant-based herbicide is not recommended due to the additional volume of herbicide required and its cost.


 

57.     Local board feedback is sought on the standardised regional recommendation and on local priorities for weed control on footpath and kerb and channel (see Attachment B). Local board priorities will be included for consideration by the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 12 November 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

58.     Climate change adaptation – changes in Auckland’s climate may alter the prevalence and spread of weeds within the road corridor. In the future, different methodologies and products may need to be considered depending on weed species.

59.     Climate change mitigation – Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020, which includes the reduction target for council to halve its carbon emissions by 2030 and reach zero net emissions by 2050.

60.     The choice of weed management methodologies has an impact on the council’s carbon emissions. The region-wide adoption of thermal would lead to an increase in carbon emissions at an estimated 1335 tons[30] or approximately 5 per cent of the council’s operational emissions for 2018/2019. This reflects the energy required to heat large volumes of water to 98 degrees with diesel boilers. The increase for the regional adoption of this methodology would impact on the council’s ability to meet the reduction targets of the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

61.     Community Facilities undertakes the maintenance of green spaces within the road corridor under contract to and on behalf of Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport “manages and controls” the Auckland transport system as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

62.     Auckland Council adopted a Weed Management Policy for parks and open spaces in August 2013 (resolution number RDO/2013/137). The Weed Management Policy is to guide the management of weeds in Auckland’s parks and open spaces, including the road corridor.

63.     The recommendation for a standardised approach has been provided in consultation with Auckland Transport and with consideration of the objectives of the Weed Management Policy.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64.     The recommendations of this report will have differing impacts on local boards (except the Hauraki Gulf local boards which are excluded from the regional approach) given the different approaches currently in place. This report is to request feedback from local boards regarding their priorities for an effective, efficient, and sustainable standardised regional weed management methodology (see Attachment B).

65.     Should a local board choose to utilise alternative methodologies to those adopted as the region-wide approach, they are able to use locally-driven initiative (LDI) funding to cover the cost difference between the agreed regional weed management method and their preferred alternative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66.     The recommendations of the review take into consideration the Weed Management Policy, with the objective to minimise agrichemicals, and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework which were developed in consultation with mana whenua.

67.     An overview of the current methodologies and the priorities of the review were presented at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua hui. The analysis and recommendations of the review will be presented to mana whenua for feedback in September 2020.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68.     Different methodologies to manage weeds have different financial implications. This reflects the associated costs of the methodologies to achieve weed management outcomes.

Table 3: Estimated cost of weed management methodologies per km per annum[31]

Methodology

Estimated cost per km (per annum)

Estimated cost (per annum) across 5055km

Synthetic herbicide, e.g. glyphosate

$783

$3,958,000

Combination of plant-based and synthetic herbicide

$1293

 

$6,536,115

Plant-based herbicide, e.g. biosafe

$2265

$11,499,575

Thermal technology steam/hot water

$3485

$17,616,675

69.     The recommended approach, a combination of plant-based herbicide and spot spraying of glyphosate for difficult weeds, is estimated to be able to be delivered within the existing operational budgets.

70.     To standardise thermal and plant-based methodologies across the region would require an increase in budget to meet weed management service levels. As there is no additional operational budget for streetscape maintenance, methodologies requiring additional expenditure could impact on other Full Facilities services delivered to local boards e.g. town centre and park maintenance, replanting of gardens, and ability to respond to a request for service.

71.     Should a local board choose to utilise alternate methodologies to those adopted as the region-wide approach, they could use LDI funding to cover the cost difference between the agreed regional weed management method and their preferred alternative.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

72.     The outcomes of this project have the following risks:

Options

Risk

Mitigation

No change

Continuing with legacy arrangements, with inconsistent funding

Communication on the rationale for any decision to continue with legacy weed management methodologies

Standardising a regional weed methodology

Depending on the choice of the methodology, there would be different environmental and social impacts, including community concern

Local board decision-making enables the prioritisation of funding for local priorities and the services that their communities most value

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73.     Local boards provide feedback on the recommended approach to weed management in the kerb and channel and footpaths and rank their priorities for weed management in the road corridor.

74.     Once the feedback is received, it will be collated and included in a report to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 12 November 2020.

75.     At the meeting of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, a decision will be made on the methodology to be applied across the Auckland region for weed management.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Results of October 2019 People's Panel survey

63

b

Local board feedback on weed management impact priorities

81

c

Weed control methodology table

85

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Gargiulo, Principal Environmental Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator



Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Henderson-Massey Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020

File No.: CP2020/11574

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter four, 1 April – 30 June 2020, and the overall performance for the financial year, against the agreed 2019/2020 local board work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides an integrated view of performance for the Henderson-Massey Local Board and includes financial performance and delivery against work programmes for the 2019/2020 financial year.

3.       The COVID19 pandemic has resulted in significant pressure on council’s financial position. In response to the Ministry of Health’s orders and to ensure prudent financial management council’s focus and expenditure shifted to essential services. A pause on spending on non-essential services has had a significant impact on the delivery of work programme activities.

4.       92 activities within the agreed 2019/2020 work programmes were delivered including multi-year projects that have progressed as expected. 19 activities were undelivered, cancelled, put on hold or deferred.

5.       Key activity achievements from the 2019/2020 work programme include:

·    The Inclusive Play Space Strategic Assessment for an all accessible play space in the Henderson-Massey local board area was completed.

·    The Kaiwhakaawe (Māori Broker) for all three west local boards (Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges and Whau) was appointed in 2019 as part of the Waitākere ki tua document mahi for local Māori responsiveness.

·    The community facility at 399 Don Buck Road was re-opened following extensive renewals work.

·    The upgrade of Riverpark Reserve playground and Jack Pringle Sports Park skate park and basketball court was undertaken.

6.       Key activities not delivered / not progressed as expected include:

·    The physical works for the renewal of the coastal structures at Harbourview/Orangihina, Kelvin Strand and Spinnaker Strand in Te Atatū Peninsula progressed in 2019/2020. Delays due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions means this will continue and be completed in the 2020/2021 year.

·    The comprehensive renewal of Te Pae o Kura Community Centre was placed on hold during the Covid-19 pandemic. Short term remedial works to keep the facility operational were completed prior to this and draft scope of work has been prepared. This will now be finalised, and a quote requested from the consultant for professional services.

7.       Budgets of unfinished activities have been carried forward into 2020/2021 work programmes.

8.       The 2019/2020 financial performance report is attached but is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on releasing annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX – on or about 30 September.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for the financial quarter four and year ending 30 June 2020.

b)      note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group results for 2019/2020 are released to the NZX which are expected to be made public 30 September 2020.

c)      note that COVID19 has resulted in significant pressure on council’s financial position and ability to deliver agreed 2019/2020 work programme activities because:

i)        asset based services were significantly impacted. Regional and community facilities were either fully or partially closed.

ii)       spending on contracts was restricted to essential services only.

d)      note that quarter three reporting was not supplied to the local board as there was limited capacity to access information.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       The Henderson-Massey Local Board has an approved 2019/2020 work programme for the following operating departments:

·        Arts, Community and Events

·        Parks, Sport and Recreation

·        Libraries

·        Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration

·        Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew

·        Community Leases

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services

·        ATEED

·        The West Initiative.

10.     The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.


 

Graph 1: work programme activities by outcome

11.     The COVID19 pandemic has resulted in significant pressure on council’s financial position and ability to deliver agreed 2019/2020 work programme activities. In response to the orders made by Director General of Health on 25 March 2020 under s 70 of the Health Act 1956 council’s focus and expenditure shifted to essential services only. Physical distancing requirements and measures to ensure prudent financial management meant that only essential activities and services could continue.

12.     Asset based services were significantly impacted as all regional and community facilities were either fully or partially closed depending on the Ministry of Health’s guidelines for each COVID19 alert level.

13.     Spending on contracts was restricted to essential services while in Alert Level 4.  These restrictions were reviewed as alert levels changed.  There are currently no restrictions, however, there continues to be extra spending approvals in place to ensure prudent spending and delivery of value for money for ratepayers.

14.     Reporting on quarter three reporting was not supplied to the local board as council staff working from home during the lockdown had limited capacity to access information and systems which affected their ability to deliver reports in a robust and meaningful way.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

15.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that have been delivered as expected (completed by the end of July 2019) or multi-year activities which have progressed as planned (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), and activities that are undelivered or have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).


 

Graph 2: Work Programme by RAG status

16.     The graph below shows the activity status of activities which shows the stage of the activity in each departments the work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

Graph 3: work programme activity by activity status and department

Key activity achievements from the 2019/2020 work programme

17.     The key achievements in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2019/2020 include:

·    The Inclusive Play Space Strategic Assessment for an all accessible play space in the Henderson-Massey local board area was completed. A Project Reference Group of key stakeholders was set up to discuss the proposal and outcomes.  Following a workshop overview of the Reference Groups ideas, the local board supported the desire for a large play space to showcase inclusive design. The assessment has been provided to Community Facilities for inclusion in a future work programme.

·    The Kaiwhakaawe (Māori Broker) for all three west local boards (Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges and Whau) was appointed as part of the Waitākere ki tua Māori responsiveness document. The Broker met with the elected members and the western Strategic Brokers. The role and its interrelations with local boards, the Hoani Waititi Marae and the local Māori community is now clarified with strong relationships being built across the west.

·    The community facility at 399 Don Buck Road was re-opened following extensive renewals work and leased, through an extensive expressions of interest process, to Waitakere Indian Association for a term of five years commencing 16 June 2020 with one five year right of renewal. 

·    The renewal and upgrade of the playground at Riverpark Reserve in Henderson to appeal to all ages with a more challenging and unique element incorporating natural play was completed in August 2019. The upgrade of Jack Pringle Park skate park with additional skate items, doubling the size of the basketball court installing a second hoop was completed in June 2020.

Overview of work programme performance by department

Arts, Community and Events work programme

18.     In the Arts, Community and Events work programme, there are 32 activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green), three activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and one activity that has been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). There were no activities with significant impact other than those impacted by COVID-19

Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme

19.     In the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme, there are seven activities that were completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), six activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) or have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). There were no activities with significant impact other than those impacted by COVID-19.

Libraries work programme

20.     In the Libraries work programme, there are nine activities that were completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), no activities that are in progress but were delayed (amber), significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) or that have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). 

Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme

21.     In the Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme, there are 68 activities that were completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), six activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), 19 activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and nine activities that have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey).  Activities with significant impact other than COVID-19 are discussed below:

Table 5: Community Facilities activities with significant impact other than COVID-19

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

Te Pae o Kura Community Centre - comprehensive renewal

Red

In progress

Short term remedial works to keep the facility operational have been completed.

Scope of work will be finalised, and a quote requested from the consultant for professional services in 2020/2021.

Budget constraints mean the budget is likely to be deferred to financial year 2022 for physical work.

 

Community Leases work programme

22.     In the Community Leases work programme, there are two activities that were completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), no activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and four activities that have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). 

Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme

In the Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme, there are 12 activities that were completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), two activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and no activities that have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). 

ATEED work programme

In the ATEED work programme, there is one activity that was completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), no activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and no activities that have been cancelled and cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey).

The West Initiative work programme

In The Western Initiative work programme, there is one activities that was completed by the end of the year or are in progress (green), no activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), no activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and no activities that have been cancelled, deferred or merged in quarter four (grey). 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the boards. As this is an information only report there are no further impacts identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     This report informs the Henderson-Massey Local Board of the performance for quarter ending 30 June 2019 and the performance for the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26.     Through the application of councils empowered approach, two new Māori focused programmes got underway in 2019/2020. Te Mana Motuhake Māori Mentoring Programme for girls run by Ranui 135, which is strongly supported by Te Kawerau a Maki, and the Tumoana Dive programme, a youth leadership programme for Māori with a focus on learning how to dive safely to get kai moana. 

27.     The Kaiwhakaawe (Māori Broker) for all three west local boards (Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges and Whau) was appointed in 2019/2020 as part of the Waitākere ki tua Māori responsiveness document.

28.     Under Te Kete Rukuruku Māori Naming Project, a new name was adopted for Te Pae o Kura Kelston Community Centre.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     This report is provided to enable the Henderson-Massey Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2019/2020 work programmes. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial performance

30.     Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the Council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX – on or about 30 September. Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.     Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Overview of work programme performance by department’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32.     The Emergency Budget was adopted on 30 July. Work programmes for 2020/2021 were approved at the board’s business meeting in August.

33.     Delivery of the activities in the 2020/2021 work programme has commenced. There is a reduced timeframe to deliver these work programmes (10 months).

34.     As the delivery timeframe for the 2020/2021 work programmes is reduced, the reporting timeframe is likely to change.

35.     Resourcing of the 2020/2021 work programmes was based on the current staff capacity within departments. If changes to staff capacity have an impact on work programme delivery, this will be signalled to the local board at the earliest opportunity.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Henderson-Massey Local Board Q4 work programme update 2019-2020

99

b

Henderson-Massey Local Board Q4 financial performance update 2019-2020 CONFIDENTIAL

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tracey  Wisnewski - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020

File No.: CP2020/11959

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board adoption of the 2019/2020 Annual Report for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, prior to it being adopted by the Governing Body on 29 October 2020

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Annual Report 2019/2020 is being prepared and needs to be adopted by the Governing Body by 29 October 2020. As part of the overall report package, individual reports for each local board are prepared.

3.       Auckland Council currently has a series of bonds quoted on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) Debt Market maintained by NZX Limited. As council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board and Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA), local boards may not release annual financial results in any form. Therefore, the attached annual report is being presented as confidential.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      adopt the 2019/2020 Henderson-Massey Local Board Annual Report as set out in Attachment A.

b)      note that any proposed changes after the adoption will be clearly communicated and agreed with the chairperson before the report is submitted for adoption by the Governing Body by 29 October 2020.

c)      note that the draft 2019/2020 Henderson-Massey Local Board Annual Report (refer to Attachment A to the agenda report) will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council group results for 2019/2020 are released to the New Zealand Stock Exchange which are expected to be made public by 30 October 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       In accordance with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the Local Government Act 2002, each local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its Local Board Agreement. This includes reporting on the performance measures for local activities, and the overall Financial Impact Statement for the local board.

5.       In addition to the compliance purpose, local board annual reports are an opportunity to tell the wider performance story with a strong local flavour, including how the local board is working towards the outcomes of their local board plan.

6.       This story is particularly important this year in light of the impacts Covid-19 had on communities and the council in the third quarter of 2019/2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7.       The annual report contains the following sections:

Section

Description

Mihi

The mihi relates to the local board area.

Message from the chairperson

An overall message introducing the report, highlighting achievements and challenges, including both financial and non-financial performance.

Local board members

A group photo of the local board members.

Our area

A visual layout of the local board area, summarising key demographic information and showing key projects and facilities in the area.

Performance report

Provides performance measure results for each activity, providing explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved.

Funding information

Financial performance results compared to long-term plan and annual plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

Local flavour

A profile of either an outstanding resident, grant, project or facility that benefits the local community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

8.       The Council’s Climate Change disclosures are covered in Volume four of the Annual Report and sections within the Summary Annual Report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

9.       Council departments and council-controlled organisations comments and views have been considered and included in the annual report in relation to activities they are responsible for delivering on behalf of local boards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

10.     Local board feedback will be included where possible. Any changes to the content of the final annual report will be discussed with the chairperson.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

11.     The annual report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 over the past 12 months. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

12.     The annual report reports on both the financial and service performance in each local board area.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

13.     The annual report is a legislatively required document. It is audited by Audit New Zealand who assess if the report represents information fairly and consistently, and that the financial statements comply with accounting standard PBE FRS-43: Summary Financial Statements. Failure to demonstrate this could result in a qualified audit opinion.

14.     The annual report is a key communication to residents. It is important to tell a clear and balanced performance story, in plain English, and in a form that is accessible, to ensure that council meets its obligations to be open with the public it serves.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

15.     The next steps for the draft 2019/2020 Annual Report for the local board are:

·     Audit NZ review during August and September 2020

·     report to the Governing Body for adoption on 29 October 2020

·     release to stock exchanges and publication online on 30 October 2020

·     physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft 2019/2020 Henderson-Massey Local Board Annual Report  - Confidential

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney - Manager Corporate & Local Board Performance

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Urgent Decision request to provide feedback on the Council's Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Review

File No.: CP2020/12245

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To inform the Henderson-Massey Local Board (the Board) of a decision made under the local board’s urgent decision-making process to provide feedback on the Proposed Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) to the Governing Body on the Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations(CCO) review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.      At the Board’s meeting on 3 December 2019, the Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting the board considered the urgent decisions process and passed Resolution HM/3029/282 as follows:

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      adopt the urgent decision-making process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirements of a quorum.

b)      delegate authority to the chair and deputy chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board.

c)      agree that the relationship manager, chair and deputy chair (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the urgent decision-making process by signing off an authorisation memo.

d)      note that all urgent decisions will be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

3.      The case for an urgent decision was made due to local board feedback being required by midday 26 August 2020 and the Governing Body seeking a decision on the proposed merger of Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development (ATEED) and outlining an implementation process for that work by 27 August 2020.  The Henderson-Massey Local Board’s next scheduled business meeting will be held on 15 September 2020 which means that the Board cannot wait until then to resolve on their feedback.

4.      The recommendation contained in this report falls within the local board’s delegated authority.  Details of the signed urgent decision memo dated 24/8/20 is included as Attachment A and the CCO review report as Attachment B to this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      welcome the findings and recommendations in the review of CCOs by the independent panel and support the implementation of recommendations as a package

b)      support the specific resolutions with regards to all CCOs needing to improve in delivering on Treaty of Waitangi legislation and intents.

c)      consider that CCO's need to give greater consideration to the cultural diversity of Auckland and develop and implement more inclusive communication and engagement methodologies

d)      support recommendation 43 that CCO boards need to become more diverse, and request that the recommendation is implemented more broadly to encompass that board members should have experience working with local communities.

e)      request that the implementation programme looks at the planning cycles for Auckland Council, local boards and CCOs and how they can be better aligned.

Local Board Specific Recommendations

f)       welcome the proposal in recommendation 34 on how to address CCO-local board engagement and request that this work be started as soon as possible

g)      support the notion that recommendations 6, 34 and 53 will require more detailed input from local boards.

h)      request involvement of local boards in discussions around developing guidance to CCOs on how to balance public and commercial interests

i)        support the recommendation for CCOs to develop joint engagement strategies with local boards to streamline their approach to local activities by developing joint engagement strategies

j)        support the notion of a reduced number of CCOs that local boards and their communities need to interact with provided that key liaison points of contact have sufficient influence to effect meaningful change

k)      note that local boards will be able to provide input on the other relevant CCO review recommendations as they are further developed for implementation

l)        note recommendation 23 regarding the creation of a set of common key performance measures and request that local boards be able to provide input into how these are developed.

Merger of ATEED and RFA

m)     support the recommendation to approve a merger of two CCOs (namely Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and Regional Facilities Auckland Limited)

n)      consider that Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s role in supporting local economic development must not be compromised but rather strengthened in the new merged structure

o)      welcomes discussion on how a merged RFA/ATEED will enhance the role of BIDs

p)      support recommendations concerning the development of the stadia strategy and look forward to providing local board input into this

Panuku

q)      confirm the positive role of Panuku Development Auckland with the Unlock Henderson project and seek to ensure that the relationship is progressed and not unsettled by any responsive changes to recommendations.

r)       support recommendation 11 that council assumes responsibility from Panuku for identifying non-service properties to sell (excluding those in the CCO’s own unlock-and-transform areas)

s)       support the need for a property strategy as outlined in recommendation 14.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Signed Urgent Decision Memo dated 24 August 2020

139

b

CCO Review Report

145

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board extraordinary business meeting scheduled for 10 November 2020

File No.: CP2020/11968

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To propose a change to the 2019-2022 electoral term meeting schedule of the Henderson-Massey Local Board (the Board) to include an extraordinary business meeting to be held on 10 November 2020 at 10.00am.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting held on 3 December 2019, the Board adopted its meeting schedule for the 2019-2022 electoral term (resolution number HM/2019/1).

3.       Further, at its meeting held on 16 June 2020, the Board resolved to hold an extraordinary business meeting during the weeks of 26 October to 13 November 2020 to adopt the Henderson-Massey Local board Plan 2020 (resolution number HM/2020/2)

3.       Due to Covid-19 restrictions and the need identified by Auckland Council to undertake further consultation on its 2020/2021 Annual Plan, an extraordinary business meeting will be held on 10 November 2020 at 10am to adopt the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan.

4.       The meetings will take place in the Council Chamber, Level 2, 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson to the end of 2020, subject to any further Covid restrictions, as follows:

·    Tuesday 20 October 2020, 4pm

·    Tuesday 10 November 2020, 10am (extraordinary meeting)

·    Tuesday 17 November 2020, 4pm

·    Tuesday 8 December 2020, 4pm

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      note the 2019-2022 electoral term meeting schedule has been amended to include an extraordinary business meeting to be held on 10 November 2020 to adopt the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2020/11337

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Henderson-Massey Local Board with a Governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Governance forward work calendar (the calendar) for the Henderson-Massey Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

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

·    ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is expected and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      receive the Governance forward work calendar for September 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work calendar - September 2020

155

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Confirmation of Workshop Records

 

File No.: CP2020/11338

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present records of workshops held by the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Briefings/presentations provided at the workshop held are as follows:

          4 August 2020

1.    Workshop 8 - Finalise outstanding items/further information:

a)    Community Places

b)    Youth Connections

c)    Te Manawa

d)    Events

2.    Annual progress report on CEU Funding Agreements 2019-2020:

a)    MPHS Community Trust - annual progress report

b)    Massey Matters

c)    Waitakere WEA Inc/ operating as West Auckland Enterprise Skills and Training – WEST

d)    Ranui 135 Youth Trust

e)    Ranui Action Plan (RAP)

f)     Community Waitakere Charitable Trust

g)    Kakano

3.   Local Board Plan Engagement check-in.

11 August 2020

1.   Kai Whakaawe update

2.   2020/2021 Henderson-Massey Quick Response Round One

3.   Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) update

4.   Indicative Business Case for an aquatic centre in northwest Auckland

Member update and informal board member discussion.

            25 August 2020

Member update and informal discussion session

1.   Community Facilities monthly update

2.   Weed Management on footpaths, berms, the kerb and channel in the urban road corridor

3.   Draft proposal for new Navigation Safety Bylaw for public consultation

4.   AT Local Board Transport Fund – Where to from Here, Funding Allocation, Explain

5.   Process Te Atatu Marae.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for 4, 11 and 25 August 2020.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Workshop records  4, 11 and 25 August 2020

159

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor - Henderson-Massey

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

     

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 September 2020

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

19        Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020 - Attachment a - Draft 2019/2020 Henderson-Massey Local Board Annual Report

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

Reason: In particular, the report contains detailed financial adjustments, assumptions and judgements that have impact on the financial results of the Auckland Council group as at 30 June 2020 that require final Audit New Zealand sign-off and release to the New Zealand Stock Exchange..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C1       Statement of proposal for a new Navigation Safety Bylaw

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(f)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such members, officers, employees and persons from improper pressure or harassment.

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   



[1] Waitākere Ranges Strategic Weed Management Plan 2015

[2] Auckland Council Weed Management Policy

[3] E34 Agrichemicals and vertebrate toxic agents - Unitary Plan

[4] Streetscapes Specifications - 19 March 2019_

[5] Transport Authorities - Glyphosate use

[6] Novachem Manual - Glyphosate 510

[7] https://www.epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/latest-news/use-of-glyphosate-in-new-zealand/

[8] Novachem Manual - Glyphosate 510

[9] Product Label Green Glyphosate 510

[10] Supplementary material glyphosate

[11] http://resistance.nzpps.org/index.php?p=herbicides/glyphosate

[12] Vegetation management Trial 2002

[13] Review PwC Weed Management Cost

[14] Novachem – Bio Safe

[15] Information provided by Kiwicare

[16] Back to the future - electrothermal, systemic, weedkiller

[17] Water use from Weedtechnics A4-SW900-Product-Specifications and Foamstream M1200 – Weedingtech spec sheet.

[18] Watercare - Drought response

[19] Weedtechnics A4-SW900-Product-Specifications

[20] Measuring Emissions: a guide for organisations – Emission factors for stationary combustion fuels Diesel 1 litre = 2.66 kg CO2/unit

[21] Linear km covers both side of the road e.g 2.2km. (average walking speed of between 2.9 kilometres per hour (km/h) and 6.5 km/h).

[22] Review PwC Weed Management Cost 15092015

[23] Best Practice Guidance - Notes for Integrated and Non-chemical Amenity Hard Surface Weed

[24] http://resistance.nzpps.org/index.php?p=herbicides/glyphosate

[25] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment/Pages/auckland-climate-action-plan.aspx

[26] Emissions from direct/production and electricity use, but not including “embodied” or “life cycle emissions”. These emissions do not include fuel for the boiler pump or motorized sprayer.

[27] Water use -Bio Blast

[28] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment/plants-animals/pests-weeds/Documents/weedcontrolmethods.pdf

[29] People Survey - 2019

[30] 264 kg x 5,055km road corridor. This could be mitigated by the use of battery power, there are no options currently available in New Zealand

 

 

[31] Costings should not be treated a final pricing but as an indication of pricing differences between methodology.