I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 17 September 2020

9:30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Margaret Miles, QSM, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Members

Anna Atkinson

 

 

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

 

Nicholas Mayne

 

 

Brian Neeson, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Cindy Lynch

Democracy Advisor

 

8 September 2020

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 4142684

Email: Cindy.Lynch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 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                                                                                                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 20 August 2020 7

12        Albany library service provision                                                                                39

13        Auckland Transport monthly update - September 2020                                         73

14        Project Streetscapes: Weed Management report                                                    81

15        Urgent decision: Local board feedback on the report of the Independent Panel's review of Auckland Council's council-controlled organisations                         121

16        Approval for a road name created by way of a subdivision at 8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights                                                                                                        231

17        Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020                                                                    239

18        Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020                                                                  255

19        Governance forward work calendar - October 2020 to September 2021            279

20        Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 August, and 3 September 2020                                                                                283

21        Board members' reports - September 2020                                                            291  

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               293

18        Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020

b.      Upper Harbour Local Board financial performance as at 30 June 2020    293

C1       Statement of proposal for a new Navigation Safety Bylaw                                  293  

 


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 Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i)          a financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

ii)         a non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request. 

Any questions relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 20 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 20 August 2020

File No.: CP2020/11467

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board ordinary meeting held on Thursday, 20 August 2020, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the board only.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Thursday, 20 August 2020, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the board only and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 20 August 2020

9

b

Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 20 August 2020

23

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 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


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 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


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Albany library service provision

File No.: CP2020/11633

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the indicative business case for new investment in library services in Albany.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A decision needs to be made about library service provision in Albany as the lease of the Albany Village Library is due to expire in 2023.

3.       Staff have completed an indicative business case and recommend investment in a new library facility for Albany as this option shows the strongest strategic and economic case for change.

4.       The business case considered need, expected growth and demographic change, and strategic alignment.

5.       The business case, summarised in Attachment A, confirms there is a need for improved library services based on findings that showed:

·        there is a current under-provision of library space that is expected to increase due to high population growth

·        the existing library is not ideally located for the target catchment, now or into the future

·        there is a need for space that has the flexibility to deliver a range of modern and responsive services to adapt to changing customer needs.

6.       Three options were assessed:

·        Option 1: New facility in Albany metropolitan centre next to Albany Stadium Pool ~1600–2000m2

·        Option 2: New lease in Albany metropolitan centre ~1600–2000m2

·        Option 3: Maintain status quo and renegotiate the current lease at the current location 546m2.

7.       Staff evaluated options for potential to deliver on strategic goals, business objectives and community benefits. Capital and operational costs were also considered.

8.       Option one performed best against assessment criteria, including alignment to growth and future community need, strategic fit and value for money.

9.       Staff recommend the development of a detailed business case based on option one. The detailed business case should also consider new lease options should an opportunity arise that meets size and location requirements.

10.     The recommended option is the most expensive option, but it has the potential to offer the best outcomes to the community.

11.     The potential funding sources, prioritisation of budgets and timing of facility construction will be a key consideration for the detailed business case, given the significant challenge of seeking new investment following the recent adoption of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 and overall reduced financial capacity of council.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      endorse the findings of the indicative business case for a new library in Albany based on:

i)        the Albany Village Library lease expiry in 2023

ii)       the provision of library services aligns with Auckland Plan outcomes

iii)      current under-provision of, and need for improvements to, library services in Albany based on council guidelines

iv)      population projections indicate that in order to provide appropriate service levels for Albany for the next 30 years, there is demand for increased space of ~1600-2000m2

v)      to respond to the projected population growth and demographic change, the optimal location for a new facility in Albany is the metropolitan centre

vi)      the positive social outcomes of providing a new library facility are expected to exceed status quo.

b)      endorse the development of a detailed business case based on:

i)        option one: a new library facility and the potential for option two: new lease options, should an opportunity arise that meets the size and location criteria

ii)       an indicative funding investment of $25 million.

c)      endorse the development of a detailed business case for Albany library service provision be included as a priority action in the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

Background

12.     Albany Village Library is housed in a leased building within old Albany village. The lease includes the library and the local board office, which is adjacent, in a single lease. The lease is due to expire in 2021 with a two-year right of renewal and final lease expiry in October 2023.

13.     The Community Facilities Network Plan (2015) provides a road map for how council will invest in community facilities over the next 20 years with the goal of delivering community facilities in the most strategic and cost-effective way. The lease expiry triggered implementation of priority action 99 of the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan:

·        investigate provision of library facilities in the Upper Harbour area giving consideration to tenure and suitability.

14.     The investigation began in December 2018 and concluded in March 2020 and options were workshopped with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 7 May 2020. 

15.     The aim of the investigation was to:

·        identify service requirements and options for continued library service delivery in Albany

·        understand indicative location of assets required to deliver that service. 

Indicative business cases are a tool to support decision-making

16.     Auckland Council uses a three-stage process to investigate large-scale capital projects and new investment in community services or facilities. This approach is based on the Better Business Case model developed by Treasury.

17.     The first stage is a needs assessment. This entails:

·        research into the profile of the community, including projected growth data

·        a summary of recent social research and any relevant community engagement surveys

·        a community facility stock-take (both council and non-council facilities)

·        a gap analysis which assesses current provision against council policy.

18.     The second stage is an indicative business case. This considers the merits of a proposed investment and helps ensure that there is a robust case for change before resources are committed to a project.

19.     The indicative business case considers strategic alignment with council objectives, including the Auckland Plan and the Community Facilities Network Plan. It also includes an economic case which considers the costs and benefits of various options that may achieve council’s investment goals.

20.     The third stage is a detailed business case which includes a commercial and financial case for a preferred option(s) that delivers community benefits and value for money, as well as detail on how the project will be delivered.

Decision-making

21.     The Upper Harbour Local Board is responsible for decisions regarding the library service and location. Delegation for investment in a new asset sits with the Governing Body. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22.     Staff have completed an indicative business case and recommend investment in a new library facility in Albany as the most appropriate long-term solution for future library service provision.

23.     The study area for the indicative business case was a 2.5km catchment surrounding the metropolitan centre of Albany, identified as the best location for future library services (refer Attachment A for a map of the study area).

Local board

Census area unit (CAU)

Upper Harbour

Fairview, Northcross, Pinehill, Windsor Park, North Harbour East, Albany, North Harbour West

Hibiscus & Bays

Oaktree

24.     The business case considered need, expected growth and demographic change, and strategic alignment.

25.     Staff also looked at how different options might impact on the expected benefits of investment, which are improved service, enhanced community wellbeing and improved social connectedness.

There is a demonstrable community need for improved library services in Albany

26.     The Albany Village Library is the only library in the Upper Harbour Local Board and its lease will expire in 2023. ‘Doing nothing’ will mean there is no library service in the local board area when the lease ends.

27.     Staff assessed local provision based on Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP) guidelines and this exercise demonstrated the need for continued and improved library services in the study area catchment. In summary:

a)      Criteria developed to give spatial effect to the goals of the CFNP show the metropolitan centre of Albany is the optimal location for library services as it is most accessible being located near to retail, other amenities, and main transport routes.

b)      There is a need for better facility design and flexibility to deliver a range of modern library services that can adapt to changing customer needs.

c)      The CFNP identifies catchments for local libraries as 41m2 per 1000 people. Using this guide in relation to the Albany Village Library, which is 546m2, there is a current ~840m2 under-provision of service in the study area.

Services need to be able to meet the demand of future growth

28.     The study area is growing rapidly. The Upper Harbour Local Board area is expected to grow 69 per cent by 2043, compared to the Auckland average of 37 per cent.

29.     The focus of the study area, Albany CAU, has a growth rate of 310 per cent by 2043.

30.     Based on the i11v6 growth model and using CFNP guidelines, by 2046 the provision requirements for library services in the study area will have increased to around 1900m2.

31.     To meet the needs of future growth, staff recommend the scale of options for future services should be 1600m2 to 2000m2.

Figure 1: Indication of provision requirements for the future population (based on i11v6)

Services need to be able to respond to demographic change

32.     Services need to be accessible to everyone and cater for the needs of people from a range of different ethnic backgrounds and age groups.  

33.     Services that are centrally located and that have flexibility of spaces for programmes and events are accessible and enable a range of activities to respond to different customer needs.

34.     Demographic changes expected over the next 20 years are summarised below. It is important to note there are variations across the study area:

·        the proportion of males will grow slightly to create an even gender split

·        the proportion of European people will have the lowest percentage increase, meanwhile the Asian population will increase by 82 per cent to become the ethnic majority in the study area. The Middle Eastern, Latin American, African (MELAA) population will experience the highest growth (174 per cent) but will still be a minority of the population.

·        overall, the population is ageing, with a 120 per cent increase in retirees (over 65 years) to be expected. The population in the ‘early years’ and ‘teen and young adult’ age groups will increase at a lower percentage rate.

35.     Deprivation index rankings vary across the study area:

·        the least deprived CAUs in the study are Oaktree (part of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area), Albany South and Albany Heights which all have a deprivation index ranking of three

·        in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, Albany CAU (which has an index of 7) and North Harbour CAU (which has an index of 6) are the most deprived.

The provision of library services aligns strongly with Auckland Council strategies

36.     The provision of library services aligns with the Auckland Plan 2050, Community Facilities Network Plan 2015, Te Kauroa – Future Directions (the strategic blueprint for Auckland’s libraries), Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 and the Local Government Act as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Strategic alignment

Strategic document

Outcome

Alignment

Auckland Plan 2050

Belonging and participation

Provides accessible community services in a central location and a fit-for-service facility that can adapt to a changing population

Māori identity and wellbeing

Provides collections and programmes for Māori and uses influence as a large public service to lift use and visibility of te reo Māori

Homes and places

Provides a focal point for the community and design can reflect the character of the local area

Opportunity and prosperity

Libraries provide literacy services, which help to build resilience, belonging and wellbeing

Community Facilities Network Plan (2015)

Criteria developed to give spatial effect to the CFNP strategic objectives

Used to assess the metropolitan centre of Albany as the optimal location for library services

Criteria developed to assess ideal facility qualities

Used to assess and make recommendations about spatial requirements

Provision guidelines of 1000 population per 41m2

Used to assess service provision gaps

Te Kauroa – Future Directions

Guides the changes that are required in library services to accommodate a growing and increasingly diverse population

Options that support the operational principles of libraries

Upper Harbour Local Board Plan (2017)

Finding a long-term solution for library services is a key initiative in outcome one of the local board plan

Options that provide the best long-term solution

Local Government Act

Council is obliged to meet current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses

Options that are efficient, effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances

Three options were assessed to provide future library services

37.     Three options were assessed in the indicative business case:

38.     Investment should:

·        deliver greatest value where there is the most need

·        align with the organisation’s goals to enable delivery of Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes in the context of the current operating and financial environment.

39.     Staff evaluated the options against the following criteria:

A

alignment with critical success factors

B

alignment with investment objectives

C

quadruple bottom line analysis

40.     Option one is the strongest based on critical success factors and investment objectives, as shown in Table 2. Option two also shows potential.

Table 2: Alignment with critical success factors and investment objectives

Critical success factors and investment objectives

OPTION ONE

NEW BUILD

OPTION TWO

LEASE

OPTION THREE

STATUS QUO

Strategic fit

Business need

Potential value for money

Supplier capacity and capability

Potential affordability

Potential achievability

Enable our communities

Focus on communities that need us most

Fit-for-purpose

Deliver within our means

 

 

 

 

Key                 strong alignment               medium alignment                   weak alignment

41.     The quadruple bottom line analysis showed option one had the strongest positive social and cultural impacts (refer page 10 of Attachment A).

Option one aligns with investment objectives and delivers community benefit, option two has potential

42.     Option one, a new build between 1600m2 and 2000m2, is the most expensive option, but it is the strongest for these reasons:

·        it has high strategic alignment with council-approved strategies

·        the proposed size will address a service provision gap

·        the proposed location strongly aligns with the guidelines for ideal service provision

·        potential to offer the best social and cultural outcomes (in comparison to the other two options).

43.     Option two, a new lease, would provide better service outcomes than the status quo. However, it is also expensive, and it is uncertain as it relies on:

·        a lease of ~1600–2000m2

·        a building becoming available that fits the facility expectations

·        in a location that meets the site criteria.

44.     Option three, status quo, is too small to accommodate the level of growth predicted for Albany over the next 30 years, and the existing location is not well positioned to serve the target community now or in the future. The building size and layout mean there are limitations on current levels of service, and it does not offer the flexibility to deliver a range of modern and responsive services.

Staff recommend proceeding to a detailed business case with option one, a new facility

45.     The business case confirms option one, has a strong strategic and economic case for change although it is the most expensive. Option two also has potential.

46.     Staff recommend development of a detailed business case stage based on option one. The detailed business case should also consider new lease options (option two) should the opportunity arise.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.     There are no identified climate implications for the delivery of the detailed business case.

48.     The detailed business case will include consideration of climate impacts such as an allowance for environmental initiatives in early cost estimates and sustainability advisors on procurement evaluation panels.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

49.     Development of the indicative business case involved input from across the council group including Local Board Services, Community Facilities, Libraries and Information, Service Strategy and Integration, Financial and Business Performance, Community and Social Policy, Auckland Design Office (ADO), Active Recreation, Parks Services, Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku).

50.     If the necessary approvals are received to proceed to detailed business case, representatives from the same departments will contribute to its development.

51.     The indicative business case supports an increase in library service provision in Albany which is supported by Libraries and Information. The provision of more flexible space will positively impact how library services can be delivered to a growing and changing local population.

52.     Option one, the recommended option, proposes a new build adjacent to Albany Stadium Pool on land leased from RFA and is supported by Active Recreation and RFA.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53.     Options analysis included demographic and growth information for the study area.

54.     The expected demographic changes in the study area have been considered and should inform future service design to recognise different preferences.

55.     The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017 acknowledges the uncertainty of library service provision in Albany due to the current leasing arrangements and includes attaining ‘a long-term solution for a library’ as a key initiative in outcome one of the local board plan (refer pages 16 and 17 of the local board plan). 

56.     Through workshops, the Upper Harbour Local Board signalled support for:

·        current state analysis findings, 5 September 2019

·        options assessment findings and recommended options to be progressed through an indicative business case, 7 May 2020

·        the business case findings and recommendations, 27 August 2020.

57.     It is expected the community impact of a new, larger, centrally located library would be positive. They may be some concern about the library relocating from the current Albany village.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58.     The Māori population in the study area is 3 per cent of the study area population. The population is expected to be stable, staying at 3 per cent until at least 2038.

59.     Mana whānau and mataawaka will be prioritised and included in any engagement through the detailed business case stage and will provide early input into service requirements and design.

60.     The strategic case has considered alignment with two focus areas in the Auckland Plan outcome area ‘Māori identity and well-being’.

·        Focus Area 1 Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whānau

·        Focus Area 6 Celebrate Māori culture and support te reo Māori to flourish

61.     New facilities also offer the potential to deliver on Auckland Plan direction four: Showcase Auckland’s Māori identity and vibrant Māori culture through design and te reo Māori.

62.     Library services can contribute to outcomes under two directions in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau (2017). The plan, published by the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), provides a framework to Auckland Council for implementing desired cultural, economic, environmental and social outcomes for Māori:

Direction – Whanaungatanga: social outcome, Māori communities are connected and safe; action, wellbeing of tamariki through provision of facilities and services such as libraries, community centres, swimming pools

Direction – Manaakitanga: social outcome, Māori enjoy a high quality of life

63.     IMSB’s plan provides the following key performance indicator: ‘per cent of Māori who can access at least three public council facilities, such as a library, pool or sports facility.’ This will be considered through the detailed business case process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

A detailed business case will assess potential funding sources

64.     The impact of COVID-19 and the resulting economic slow-down has had a significant impact on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity. The Emergency Budget 2020-2021 has highlighted the need to reduce capital expenditure across the council family and prioritisation of projects already being delivered. This presents a challenge for progressing a case for significant investment.

65.     A detailed business case will consider potential funding sources and prioritisation of existing budgets as part of the commercial and financial assessment.

66.     Financial assumptions have been applied to ensure consistent options comparison that inform recommendations (as outlined in Attachment B).

67.     The estimated costs over a 30-year period for options one and two are outlined in the following two tables. Please note that the costs per decade are cumulative and include escalation.


 

Option 1, new build 1600-2000m2 metropolitan centre, next to Albany Stadium Pool

10 years, $ millions​

20 years, $ millions​

30 years, $ millions​

OPEX

$12.5 - $14.7

$32.8 - $40.1

$57.6 - $71.1

CAPEX

$30.1 - $37.7

$31.3 - $39.1

$56.7 - $70.9

COMBINED OPEX & CAPEX

$42.6 - $52.3

$64.1 - $79.2

$114.3 - $142

68.     The figures in the orange cell in the table above show the indicative initial funding investment of $25 million with escalation applied to reflect proposed timing of construction.

69.     Option one (recommended option) is the most expensive option but offers the best community facility location and public amenity opportunity and will make a material contribution to the Auckland Plan, Upper Harbour Local Board Plan and CFNP outcomes being sought.

Option 2, lease 1600-2000m2 metropolitan centre location

10 years, $ millions​

20 years, $ millions​

30 years, $ millions​

OPEX

$16.4 - $20

$40.4 - $50

$69.6 - $86.5

CAPEX

$2.1 - $2.6

$2.4 - $3.1

$4.3 - $5.4

COMBINED OPEX & CAPEX

$18.4 - $22.5

$42.8 - $53

$73.9 - $91.9

70.     Option two is less expensive and has the potential to improve services and outcomes but has no certainty. Option two will also be considered through the detailed business case stage should an opportunity arise that meets the location criteria.

71.     Option three does not meet long-term requirements for library provision in Albany. Attachment B also includes cost modelling of the status quo, for comparison.

72.     While option one is likely to deliver the greatest positive social and cultural benefits, the significant cost means it will be a challenge to progress this option in the current environment so the timing of facility construction should be a key consideration for the next stage.

73.     The impacts of option three are neutral as it involves a continuation of current baseline levels of service. However, this option is likely to have the least impact on social and cultural outcomes for the community.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

74.     The following table outlines the risks and mitigation associated with the recommendations for new investment and changed services:

Type of risk

Impact

Level

Mitigation

Political: Negative community perception due to the time it will take to have improved library services

More resource required to work with the community

Low

Detailed programme planning

Communication regarding timeframes and programme

Political: Negative community perception of library location decision

Community opposition could lead to slower delivery and more resource required to work with the community and elected members 

Low

Communication regarding benefits of Albany central location

Opportunities provided for input into design

Delivery: If population growth rates exceed projections

Then demand for additional or larger facilities may result

Low

This risk will be managed by designing adaptable and flexible spaces aimed at serving a changing population

Delivery: Site specific conditions are not favourable e.g. geotechnical constraints, contamination

Cost and time required to remediate may impact overall project budget and timelines

Medium

Preliminary site investigations and geotechnical information suggests sites are suitable for development

Further detailed investigation will be required

Financial: Cost escalations

Available funding is not sufficient to complete project

High

Management through design and project delivery

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75.     The next steps are outlined in figure two below, subject to the decisions of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee and Finance and Performance Committee.

76.     If option one is approved, work will commence on the development of a detailed business case in 2021/2022. This will include the development of the financial, commercial, and management cases.

77.     Operational funding needs to be confirmed for the development of the detailed business case.

78.     The timeframe for delivering the new library facility will depend on a range of factors, including how long it takes to develop and obtain approval for a detailed business case. A new lease may be required at the existing site to cover the period until the new facility is available.

Figure 2: Indication of timeline and next steps if option one is approved

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Albany library services IBC summary

51

b

Financial implications_options for Albany library services

67

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tracey Williams - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Libraries & Information

Justine Haves - General Manager Service Strategy and Integration

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Auckland Transport monthly update - September 2020

File No.: CP2020/12647

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update on the following:

·        traffic-related matters in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

·        the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report highlights Auckland Transport’s (AT’s) activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and contains information about the following:

·        2019-2022 LBTCF and the Community Safety Fund (CSF)

·        2019-2022 LBTCF projects workshopped by the local board

·        public transport recovery under Covid-19

·        AT, KiwiRail and Transdev are informing customers of changes

·        public consultations and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee (TCC) in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the monthly update report from Auckland Transport for September 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

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

4.       This report provides updates on:

·        AT projects and operations in the local board area

·        consultations in the local board area

·        the status of the CSF and the 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 with AT on 27 August 2020 to discuss the new allocated budget for the LBTCF and to provide direction on the projects they would like considered as part of that allocation. A separate report on the LBTCF will be presented at the board’s October 2020 meeting.

What you need to know about public transport under alert level 2

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

8.       Auckland moved to alert level 2 at midnight on Sunday, 30 August 2020. To give enough room for physical distancing, AT will limit the number of people who can travel on each bus, train, and ferry. When on board, please follow the signs showing where you can sit, and avoid sitting next to someone you don’t know. If you are able to travel outside of morning and afternoon peak times, physical distancing will be easier.

Wearing a face covering

9.       To help keep us all safe, the Ministry of Health has now made it mandatory for everyone over the age of 12 to wear a face covering while on public transport. You don’t need to wear a face covering if you have a disability or condition that makes it unsuitable to cover your face.

10.     To learn how to make a face covering or for more information, please visit the Government's COVID-19 website.

Train services

11.     As a reminder, trains are operating on a reduced frequency and will operate at slower speeds while KiwiRail carries out urgent track maintenance. You can use the journey planner feature in the AT Mobile app or Journey Planner on AT’s website to find out new train journey times. Remember:

·        On weekdays during morning and afternoon peaks, trains will operate every 20 minutes (or 30 minutes on the Onehunga Line) instead of every 10 minutes.

·        During the weekend, trains will run every 30 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Trains will be travelling slower, which will increase your journey time. Where possible, trains will have six carriages to accommodate more passengers.

·        If you’re an Eastern Line customer, please remember that buses will replace trains from between Britomart and Otahuhu until Sunday, 21 September 2020. Closing this section of the line will allow KiwiRail to complete the Eastern Line maintenance work faster.

12.     For further information please visit AT’s website.

When travelling on buses

13.     Please use the rear door to get on and off buses, tagging on and off using the AT HOP card reader inside the rear door.

14.     If you use a wheelchair or mobility device, are vision-impaired, or require driver assistance, you can still get on and off using the front door.

15.     Each bus will have a sign showing the number of passengers it can carry.

School buses

16.     AT school bus services will be back to normal during alert level 2. Following the Government’s guidelines, face coverings and physical distancing are not required on school buses. AT will continue to clean school buses in accordance with Government guidance.

17.     AT also recommends that parents wait with their child(ren) at the bus stop until they can see if the bus has enough room for their child(ren).

Ferries

18.     Ferry timetables are back to normal for all AT services.

How do I know if my AT HOP card is registered?

19.     When tagging on or off, listen for the beeps that will indicate if your AT HOP card is registered or not. If you hear three beeps, this means your card is not registered. If you hear one or two beeps, you’ll know your card is already registered. This new feature goes live today.

20.     To register your AT HOP card, follow these simple steps. Watch the video linked below to find out more.

Update your AT HOP card contact details

21.     Your AT HOP card makes contact tracing easier. And having an up-to-date contact phone number will make contact tracing faster.

22.     If you haven’t already, now is a great time to check if your contact details are up to date. Simply go to www.at.govt.nz and log in.

Use of QR Codes

https://engagemedia.azureedge.net/files/file/JDDBbyk4BEq8qwjYS2DOJA

23.     From Friday 4 September 2020, you will find QR codes on all buses, trains, and ferries. To help things go smoothly for everyone, please have the Ministry of Health’s NZ COVID Tracer app open and ready to scan when you are on the bus, train, or ferry.

Real-time updates with AT Mobile

24.     Don’t forget, the AT Mobile app gives you the location of your bus and train updates in real-time. It also gives you an indication of how many passengers are on board, so you know in advance if physical distancing is possible or whether you may need to wait for the next service.

Cleaning our fleet

25.     The safety of our customers and workers is a priority, so we’re making sure all public transport is cleaned regularly. We’ve continued with spot check and antimicrobial cleaning. You’ll find hand sanitiser stations at many locations, and we encourage you to use them.

Out and about in your neighbourhood

26.     It’s incredible to see the number of people who have enjoyed walking and cycling in their neighbourhood. With spring around the corner, why not consider taking it one step further and walk or cycle to work. Our website has all the information you need to plan your commute, view maps, or watch how-to videos.

27.     Aucklanders have embraced the chance to do their bit and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Thanks for your understanding and patience. We look forward to seeing you soon.

28.     For the latest information about COVID-19, visit the Government’s website.

Update on communications for rail network changes

29.     Following the briefing about the impact of the KiwiRail maintenance and track replacement on metro rail services, this is to update you on advice to rail customers.

30.     A new timetable has been in place since Monday, 17th August 2020 because KiwiRail have put in place a speed restriction across the Auckland rail network. This will reduce the frequency of services operating and make most journey times longer. The speed restriction is likely to be in place for around six months until the rectification works are completed.

31.     Recent testing across the Auckland metro network has indicated wear on the tracks is more widespread than originally thought, with repair work required more urgently than previously understood. Rail track becomes worn over time because of usage, in the same way that road surfaces deteriorate. Reducing speed is a means of reducing further track wear until the renewal works can be undertaken.

32.     KiwiRail carried a track mapping survey at various locations across the Auckland train network. As a result of these surveys, KiwiRail have decided to apply a blanket 40kph speed restriction across the Auckland network whilst they carry out important engineering works on the train tracks.

33.     All AT train services will be affected by this speed restriction causing longer journey times and reduced frequency during morning and afternoon peak travel. The Papakura-Pukekohe shuttle service journey duration will double. A new 20-minute timetable will operate for most hours of service from Monday to Sunday on the Eastern, Southern and Western Lines.

34.     A 30-minute timetable operates for most hours of service from Monday to Sunday on the Onehunga and Papakura/Pukekohe shuttle. During weekends, trains will run every 30 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. The new timetable for all lines have been published on the AT website www.at.govt.nz/metro and the AT Journey Planner has also been updated to reflect the new timetables.

·        KiwiRail, AT and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have been working together to ensure the Auckland rail network is fully fit for purpose when the City Rail Link (CRL) is opened and there will be many more trains running on the tracks.

·        That work assisted the government to allocate substantial new funding to the Auckland rail network in its recent announcement of investment in rail.

·        Also, as part of that work KiwiRail has invested in improved technology to assess the condition of the tracks in real time.

·        This work has revealed the need to accelerate maintenance of the tracks ahead of the anticipated CRL programme.

·        Safety is paramount on the network and it has been decided to operate trains at lower speeds in the interim until this work can be completed.

·        KiwiRail, AT, NZTA and Transdev are working closely to minimise the disruption to rail customers over the shortest possible time.

35.     However, this work does mean there will be fewer trains operating through the peak periods and travel times will be longer over the next few months once repairs to the tracks have been commenced. Rail replacement buses will be running in place of some scheduled train services (please see the new timetables for details).

36.     AT, KiwiRail and Transdev are informing customers of the changes by:

·        Temporary timetable was published on the AT on Sunday 16 August 2020. Website and alert messaging will go live on the journey planner.

·        AT Mobile has been updated.

·        Media release has been sent.

·        ‘OneCom’ push messages have been sent to all subscribed customers.

·        Britomart Towers and LCD screen messaging will go-live when available.

·        Scrolling messages is running on the public information displays (PIDs) at stations, and messages sent to customers that subscribe to the OneCom text and email disruption messaging service.

·        Regular PA announcements are being made at all stations.

·        Scrolling PID messaging is being activated on bus, trains and ferries where available.

·        Printed information posters and timetables are displayed at all stations.

·        Staff, including Transport Officers, will be at key train stations during the disruptions, providing guidance to customers.

·        All HOP rail customers have been emailed this information.

37.     For updates and more information, customers can:

·        check www.AT.govt.nz/metrochanges 

·        follow @AKtransport on Twitter

·        follow Auckland Transport on Facebook

·        sign up for OneCom disruption alerts at www.at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/train-services/train-updates-service/.

·        download and register the AT App.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38.     AT engages closely with Auckland 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.

39.     AT’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

40.     The impact of information in this report is confined to AT. Where LBTCF projects are being progressed by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities department, engagement on progress has taken place. Any further 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

Kyle Road: Public transport for students from Kyle Road East / Upper Harbour Primary area

41.     A request for AT to investigate on behalf of the local board for the implementation of new bus services for Kyle Road East.

42.     At this stage, AT are not looking at serving Kyle Road East with public transport. The main issue AT has here is that Kyle Road East and all roads leading off it are cul-de-sacs. This means that AT are unable to run a ‘through’ service as buses using this area would require a turnaround of some description. There is currently a school service that runs along Kyle Road, but this is to serve Upper Harbour Primary School which has a bus bay within the school grounds.

43.     Even if there were somewhere suitable to turn buses around, it would require careful consideration and potential consultation before adding a Kyle Road East section onto route 883. Diversions such as this can be unattractive to those using other sections of the route, particularly when that section of the route is not used.

Scott Point pedestrian safety issues

44.     Outside the proposed new school at 11 Scott Road:

·        works are beginning on the new school and it is expected that a temporary footpath will be provided in front of the school while construction is underway.

45.     Outside the Hobsonville Settlers Church at 1 Scott Road:

·        a letter was sent to the church in June 2020 requesting they relocate their fence

·        a follow-up call to the church has since occurred and AT are awaiting a formal response re their support, or otherwise, in relocating the fence

·        any changes to the church’s fence will not be immediate; however, AT are working with the church to establish an interim temporary footpath by removing a fence panel.

46.     It is important to note that this will not be a straightforward project and AT is awaiting budget confirmation which is expected to be costly.

Local board issues under investigation

47.     The local board has requested the following issue be investigated, and this is still under investigation:

·        Rahui Reserve path safety issues.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

48.     Decisions of the TCC during the month of July 2020 affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed in the following table:

Street (suburb)

Type of report

Nature of restriction

Decision

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

Permanent traffic and parking changes

No stopping at all times / stop control / give-way control / road hump / cycle path / footpath / flush median

CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49.     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. AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines its commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. AT also recognises mataawaka and their representative bodies and its desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the AT website at: https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     The decision to receive this monthly update report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     Auckland Council adopted its Emergency Budget 2020/2021 at the end of July 2020. AT’s capital and operating budgets have been reduced through this process and some projects planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered.

52.     Both the CSF and the LBTCF are impacted by these budget reductions.

53.     AT attended workshops in August 2020 to discuss how to get the best value from their 2020/2021 LBTCF allocation. Community safety projects will continue in design and will be delivered once funds become available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54.     AT will provide a further update report to the Upper Harbour Local Board in October 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Electyed Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Project Streetscapes: Weed Management report

File No.: CP2020/12632

 

  

 

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 Upper Harbour 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 for Upper Harbour

93

b

Local board feedback on weed management impact priorities

111

c

Weed control methodology table

115

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Gargiulo – Principal Environmental Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 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


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Urgent decision: Local board feedback on the report of the Independent Panel's review of Auckland Council's council-controlled organisations

File No.: CP2020/12864

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To notify the board of a decision made using the local board’s urgent decision-making process (resolution number UH/2019/153) in order to provide feedback on the council-controlled organisation (CCO) review for consideration by the Governing Body at its meeting on 27 August 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       An Independent Panel was set up to conduct a review of CCOs which was concluded at the end of July 2020 and the findings have now been submitted (refer Attachment B).

3.       The Governing Body considered the review and provided direction on the package of recommendations from the review at its meeting on 27 August 2020.

4.       Local boards had the opportunity to provide input into the review by 25 August 2020.

5.       As the Upper Harbour Local Board’s next business meeting was not scheduled until 17 September 2020, the local board could not resolve their feedback by the deadline, therefore the agreed urgent decision process was followed. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note the urgent decision made on 25 August 2020, local board feedback on the report of the Independent Panel’s review of Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations, as set out in Attachment A of this agenda report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urgent decision-making memo to provide feedback on the CCO review by 27 August 2020

123

b

Review of Auckland Council's council-controlled organisations - Report of Independent Panel

127

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Approval for a road name created by way of a subdivision at 8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights

File No.: CP2020/12317

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve a name for a new private road and the extension of an existing road being constructed for the residential subdivision at 8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights, by the applicant, Dynamic Enterprise Limited.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The applicant has submitted the following names for consideration by the local board:

Existing road extension

New private road

Baker Street

Pepe Lane (preferred)

Kahukura Lane (alternate)

Okahukura Lane (alternate)

4.       The names are considered suitable and meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the following names for the roads being constructed within the residential subdivision undertaken by Dynamic Enterprise Limited at 8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights:

i)        ‘Baker Street’ – for the extension of Baker Street

ii)       ‘Pepe Lane’ – for the new private road.

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       The 29 residential lot subdivision was approved on 16 April 2019 and is currently under construction. Lots 12-23, 28 and 29 are to be accessed via the private road to be named, with the other lots accessed directly off the extension of Baker Street.

6.       In accordance with the National Addressing Standards, the private road requires a name as it serves more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

·        a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

·        a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature, or

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

9.       The applicant has chosen three Māori names that they consider appropriate for the development. The origin of these names is provided below:

Proposed names

Meaning

Pepe Lane

(preferred)

Māori word for moth or butterfly and reflects the meaning of the Māori name for Albany (Okahukura)

Kahukura Lane

(alternate)

Māori word for rainbow and reflects the meaning of the Māori name for Albany (Okahukura)

Okahukura Lane

(alternate)

Māori name for Albany meaning places of rainbows or places of butterflies

10.     Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) have confirmed the names are suitable and there are no duplications within the wider Auckland region that could cause confusion for emergency services and deliveries.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11.     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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

13.     The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14.     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 include:

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

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

15.     The applicant initiated consultation with all mana whenua for their consideration of the proposed road names.

16.     Ngāti Paoa supported all names and considered them to be appropriate by definition and location. No other mana whenua groups have offered comment on the applicant’s names.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

17.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ and then recorded on its New Zealand-wide land information database, which includes street addresses issued by councils.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights - locality map

235

b

8 Baker Street, Fairview Heights - development plan

237

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020

File No.: CP2020/12314

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board adoption of the 2019/2020 Annual Report for the Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      adopt the draft 2019/2020 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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 has 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

Upper Harbour Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020

243

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mark Purdie - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney - Manager Corporate Performance & Reporting

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020

File No.: CP2020/11565

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the performance report for financial quarter four (1 April to 30 June 2020) and overall performance against the agreed 2019/2020 local board work programme for the financial year ending 30 June 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides a retrospective overview of the progress of the Upper Harbour Local Board work programmes at the end of quarter four (Q4) of the 2019/2020 financial year. It also provides an integrated view of financial performance and delivery against the agreed 2019/2020 Upper Harbour Local Board work programmes.

3.       The COVID-19 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.       Overall, 52 activities within the agreed 2019/2020 work programme were delivered, including multi-year projects that have progressed as expected. Four activities were put on hold, 12 activities were deferred, and 16 activities have not progressed as expected during 2019/2020. Five activities have been cancelled, and one activity was undelivered in this financial year.

5.       Key highlights for quarter four include:

·        physical works awarded for new playspace at Huntington Reserve (ID 2419)

·        renewal of signage across the local board area completed (ID 2513)

·        options analysis and assessment completed for the investigation of library services provision in Upper Harbour (ID 1221)

·        onsite wastewater maintenance was defined as an essential service and continued to be delivered (ID 439 – Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale Phase Two).

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

·        community arts programme – Travelling Apple Cart – delivered (ID 1281)

·        renewal of park toilets at Christmas Beach, Kell Park and Pahiki Reserve (ID 2311)

·        volunteer planting in areas identified for revegetation supported for Hosking Reserve (ID 2416)

·        kauri dieback track mitigation work completed at Three Streams and Lady Phoenix Reserve (ID 2914)

·        upgrade of the electrical facility at Albany Lakes plant completed (ID 3020)

·        Pop-up Business School North delivered successfully before lockdown (ID 1204)

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

·        Upper Harbour one local initiative (OLI) – develop an indoor sports facility (ID 2549)

·        Upper Harbour – northern park improvements (ID 3816)

·        Pest Free Upper Harbour (ID 438)

·        Movies in Parks (ID 305)

·        volunteer recognition awards (ID 1283)

·        equitable access to sport and recreation (ID 702)

·        drinking fountain service assessment (ID 1255).

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

9.       The 2019/2020 financial performance report is attached under confidential separate cover. This is due to restrictions on releasing annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council group results are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX) on or about 30 September 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for financial quarter four (1 April to 30 June 2020) and overall performance against the agreed 2019/2020 local board work programmes for the financial year ending 30 June 2020.

b)      note that COVID-19 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.

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

d)      note the financial performance report in confidential Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council group results for 2019/2020 are released to the New Zealand Exchange which are expected to be made public on or about 30 September 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2019/2020 work programme for the following operating departments:

·        Community Services: Arts, Community and Events; Libraries and Information; Parks, Sport and Recreation; and Service Strategy and Integration (resolution number UH/2019/1)

·        Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew and Community Leases (resolution number UH/2019/2)

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services (resolution number UH/2019/3)

·        Local Economic Development (resolution number UH/2019/4).

11.     The following graph shows how the work programme activities meet 2017 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

12.     The COVID-19 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 s70 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.

13.     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 COVID-19 alert level.

14.     Spending on contracts was restricted to essential services while in alert level 4. These restrictions were reviewed as alert levels changed. There continues to be extra spending approvals in place to ensure prudent spending and delivery of value for money for ratepayers.

15.     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 – Q4

16.     Operating departments have provided the last quarter delivery update against their work programme (refer Attachment A).

Key highlights for quarter four

17.     The key achievements to report from the Q4 period include:

·        physical works awarded for new playspace at Huntington Reserve (ID 2419)

·        renewal of signage across the local board area completed (ID 2513)

·        options analysis and assessment completed for the investigation of library services provision in Upper Harbour (ID 1221)

·        onsite wastewater maintenance was defined as an essential service and continued to be delivered (ID 439 – Industrial Pollution Prevention Rosedale Phase Two).

Overall performance against the Upper Harbour Local Board 2019/2020 work programme

18.     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 as follows:

·        Green: activities delivered as expected (completed by the end of June 2019) or multi-year activities which have progressed as planned

·        Amber: activities in progress but with issues that are being managed

·        Red: activities that are undelivered or have significant issues

·        Grey: activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged.

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

19.     The following graph shows the activity status of activities which shows the stage of the activity in each department’s work programme. 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

20.     Overall, 52 activities within the agreed 2019/2020 work programme were delivered, including multi-year projects that have progressed as expected. Four activities were put on hold, 12 activities were deferred, and 16 activities have not progressed as expected during 2019/2020. Five activities have been cancelled, and one activity was undelivered in this financial year.

Key activity achievements from the 2019/2020 work programme

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

·        delivery of the community arts programme (ID 1281) – named Travelling Apple Cart in recognition of the heritage of orchards in the area; stories from local residents continued to be collected and the project’s website with capacity to hold 300-500 stories went live which helped to continue to gather stories through lockdown

·        completion of renewals of the park toilets at Christmas Beach, Kell Park and Pahiki Reserve (ID 2311)

·        volunteer planting supported in areas identified for revegetation at Hosking Reserve (ID 2416)

·        kauri dieback track mitigation work completed at Three Streams and Lady Phoenix Reserve (ID 2914)

·        the completion of the upgrade of the electrical facility at Albany Lakes Plant (ID 3020)

·        Pop-up Business School North delivered successfully before lockdown (ID 1204).

Overview of work programme performance by department

Arts, Community and Events work programme

22.     The Arts, Community and Events work programme had 19 activities:

·        13 activities were completed by the end of the year (green)

·        1 activity is in progress and expected to be completed by end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021 (amber)

·        1 activity is in progress but will not be completed by the end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021 (red)

·        3 activities have been cancelled (grey)

·        1 activity has been deferred (grey).

23.     Activities with significant impact other than related to COVID-19 are discussed below:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

1171

Māori Responsiveness (Upper Harbour)

Red

In progress

Staff followed up on additional costing information from Ngāti Manuhiri to support a local board decision in June 2020 regarding installation of the sculpture of Te Ha in Albany. Receipt of the additional information is still pending, and the project has been carried forward to the 2020/21 year.

Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme

24.     The Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme had 10 activities:

·        3 activities were completed by the end of the year, including multi-year activities that progressed as expected (green)

·        5 activities are in progress and expected to be completed by end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021 (amber)

·        1 activity was discontinued as the programme was partially delivered and on track in Q1-Q3 but could not be completed due to lockdown restrictions in Q4 and was therefore not delivered in full (amber)

·        1 activity was not delivered (red).

25.     Activities with significant impact other than related to COVID-19 are discussed below:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

702 Equitable Access to Sport and Recreation

Red

Not delivered

As a result of Kainga Ora's offer to purchase the land (including the Wasp Hangar) and due to COVID-19 financial restrictions, this activity did not proceed. This budget was given as savings.

Libraries and Information work programme

26.     The Libraries and Information work programme had a total of six activities that were completed by the end of the year (green). This work programme was delivered in its entirety. 

Service Strategy and Integration work programme

27.     The Service Strategy and Integration work programme had a total of two activities pertaining to multi-year projects which progressed as expected by the end of the year (green).

Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme

28.     The Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme had a total of 48 activities, including activities planned for future years:

·        19 activities were completed by the end of the year, including multi-year activities that progressed as expected (green)

·        5 activities are in progress and expected to be completed by end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021 (amber)

·        4 activities are on hold (amber)

·        11 activities have been deferred (grey)

·        1 activity was cancelled (grey).

29.     Activities with significant impact, other than related to COVID-19, are discussed below:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

3736

Sunderland Lounge - exterior and interior renewal

 

Amber

In progress

This project was completed in May 2019, but subsequently additional works were identified: the Hobsonville Community Trust identified issues with overall acoustic and heating / cooling solutions that require further investigation, design and build during financial year 2021.

2433 Limeburners Reserve – develop esplanade with walkway

Grey

Deferred

Project deferred to future years due to lack of funding for physical works of the boardwalk as per concept plan.

3021 Brookfield stream renewal of walkways and paths

Grey

Cancelled

This standalone project has been bundled with the Upper Harbour – renew walkways and paths 2021/2022.

 

Community Leases work programme

30.     The Community Leases work programme had a total of seven activities, including activities planned for future years:

·        3 activities were completed by the end of the year (green)

·        1 activity is in progress as is expected to be completed by end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021

·        1 activity was cancelled (grey), details of which are provided below:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

1431 New ground lease to Kaipātiki Project Incorporated at Bomb Point Drive, Hobsonville Point

Grey

Cancelled

Prior to a lease/licence being granted to Kaipātiki Project, the land must be vested in council. This lease project cannot be progressed until then.

Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme

31.     The Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme had a total of 6 activities:

·        4 activities were completed by the end of the year (green)

·        1 activity is in progress as is expected to be completed by end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021

·        1 activity is in progress but will not be completed by the end of Q1 of financial year 2020/2021 (red).

Local Economic Development work programme

32.     The Local Economic Development work programme had a total of two activities, both of which were completed by the end of the year (green).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement guidance

33.     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

34.     When developing the work programmes, council group impacts and views are presented to local 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

35.     This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 June 2020 and the performance for the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36.     The Upper Harbour Local Board allocated the balance of its Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) funding to the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust (MKCT) who designed a sculpture for installation in the Albany area in 2018/2019.

37.     The final design was presented to the local board at a workshop in July 2019 where there was also discussion on preferred location.

38.     A decision on location, landowner approval and installation costs was expected in quarter three, however the necessary information was not available by year end and the project has been carried forward into 2020/2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39.     This report is provided to enable the Upper Harbour Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2018/2019 work programmes and to report this to the public. This report is for information only and therefore there are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial performance

40.     Auckland Council currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZX. As a result, council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board and 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 and are expected to be made public on 30 September 2020.

41.     Due to these obligations, the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is under separate confidential cover (Attachment B).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42.     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

43.     Carry-forward of budgets of unfinished activities will be added into 2020/2021 work programmes by quarter one reporting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board non-financial performance as at 30 June 2020

265

b

Upper Harbour Local Board financial performance as at 30 June 2020 - Confidential

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Governance forward work calendar - October 2020 to September 2021

File No.: CP2020/11930

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the updated governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board governance forward work calendar for the period October 2020 to September 2021, as set out in Attachment A to this agenda report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work calendar - October 2020 to September 2021

281

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 August, and 3 September 2020

File No.: CP2020/11933

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Upper Harbour Local Board workshops were held on Thursday 13 and 27 August, and 3 September 2020. Copies of the workshop records are attached (refer to Attachments A, B and C).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 13 and 27 August, and 3 September 2020 (refer to Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 13 August 2020

285

b

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 27 August 2020

287

c

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 3 September 2020

289

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

Board members' reports - September 2020

File No.: CP2020/11937

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal board members’ reports.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

      

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

17 September 2020

 

 

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

That the Upper Harbour 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:

 

18        Auckland Council’s Year End and Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four 2019/2020 - Attachment b - Upper Harbour Local Board financial performance as at 30 June 2020

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.

In particular, the report contains detailed financial information that have an impact on the financial results of the Auckland Council group as at 31 July 2020 that require 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.

In particular, the report contains a working draft of a bylaw yet to be approved for public consultation.

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.

In particular, the report contains a working draft of a bylaw yet to be approved for public consultation.

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.