Agenda of Whau Local Board - 23 September 2020

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

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

The following are declared interests of the Whau Local Board:

Member

Organisation

Position

Kay Thomas

· New Lynn Citizens Advice Bureau

· Friends of Arataki

· Western Quilters

Volunteer

Committee member

Member

Susan Zhu

· Chinese Oral History Foundation

· The Chinese Garden Steering Committee of Auckland

Committee member

Board Member

Fasitua Amosa

· Equity NZ

· Massive Theatre Company

· Avondale Business Association

Vice President

Board member

A family member is the Chair

Catherine Farmer

· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society

· Blockhouse Bay Historical Society

· Portage Licensing Trust

· Blockhouse Bay Bowls

· Forest and Bird organisation

· Grey Power

Member

Trustee

Patron

Member

Te’eva Matafai

· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust

· Miss Samoa NZ

· Malu Measina Samoan Dance Group

· Pasifika Festival Village Coordinators Trust ATEED

· Aspire Events

Co-Founder

Director

Director/Founder

Chairperson

Director

Warren Piper

· New Lynn RSA

· New Lynn Business Association

Associate Member

Member

Jessica Rose

· Women in Urbanism-Aotearoa, Auckland Branch

· Kāinga ora

· Forest & Bird

· Big Feels Club

· Frocks on Bikes

· Bike Auckland

Committee member

Programme manager Sustainability

Member

Patron

Former co-chair

Former committee member

Member appointments

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

External organisation	Leads	Alternate
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Warren Piper	Catherine Farmer
Avondale Business Association	Kay Thomas	Warren Piper
Blockhouse Bay Business Association	Warren Piper	Fasitua Amosa
New Lynn Business Association	Susan Zhu	Kay Thomas Warren Piper
Rosebank Business Association	Fasitua Amosa	Warren Piper
Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Fasitua Amosa	Jessica Rose

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 26 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 Whau 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.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Ward Councillor's Update	9

Whau Local Board

23 September 2020

Auckland Transport Update Report for the Whau Local Board September 2020

File No.: CP2020/13367

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Whau Local Board on Auckland Transport (AT) matters in its area and an update on its Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

· 2020/2021 Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and the Community Safety Fund (CSF)

· Public transport recovery under COVID-19

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

· Public consultations and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee in the Whau Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

5. The Community Safety Fund 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 Local Board Transport Capital Fund 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

7. Attached to this report is the detailed attachment of information.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

8. The Whau Local Board held a workshop on Wednesday 19 August with AT to discuss the new allocated budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and to give direction on what projects it would like considered as part of that allocation. The Local Board at its August meeting approved its 2020/2021 allocation of $220,000 to the Avondale Streetscape Upgrade (reduced option) to allow AT to undertake consultation and delivery of Stage 1.

Community Safety Fund

9. The Community Safety Fund is funded from AT’s safety budget and is dependent on the level of funding AT receives from Council. Current funding means that projects being developed in the programme will not be able to be constructed in this financial year. Public consultation and the design work informed by this consultation, is still progressing, with a view to having projects designed and ready to go, when money becomes available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

11. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local Board Issues Being Investigated

13. The Local Board has requested the following issues be investigated. These investigations will be progressed as resources allow:

· Connaught Street speeding and bus issues

· Request for the barrier/pole repaired on Kinross Street at the Blockhouse Bay roundabout.

BID CCTV Camera Networks

14. Meeting still to be arranged, waiting on date and time from Avondale Business Association Chairperson and/or Manager and need to loop in the Police and Community Empowerment Unit Specialist Advisor.

Pedestrian Crossing - Rosebank / Great North Road Intersection

15. A request came through from the local board on behalf of member of the community requesting that AT look into the light phases at the pedestrian crossing at Rosebank and Great North Road Intersection.

16. AT has investigated this on a number of occasions and the investigation didn’t warrant any improvements. The intersection meets AT’s standards. There are major delays for buses going through this intersection and we are reluctant to make things worse. The pedestrians count is not high enough to justify putting in a Barnes Dance. The only issue is the increase of traffic, which is expected and happening across the city.

Manson Development Site - Carparking issues

17. A request came through from the local board on behalf of a member of the community requesting that AT to look into the vehicles that are using the site and footpath to park for a long period of time and the safety of pedestrians when walking.

18. AT Parking Enforcement team will add this area to their monitoring list and will report back in two weeks once enforcement has been applied. This should mitigate the issue occurring in the future.

Lighting in Blockhouse Bay

19. A number of veranda lights in Blockhouse Bay have been repaired to assist the issues with the power cuts that have been occurring of the late. Once we move out of Level 2 AT will attend the site with an electrical inspector and decide on next steps.

New Lynn to Avondale Shared Path Update – 9 September 2020

20. Work on the Whau Bridge is progressing well on-site, as well as fabrication of off-site precast elements such as pier caps, wing walls and beams. Progress is also being made on the path to the west of the bridge. The cantilevered path adjacent to the New Lynn rail trench is almost complete with the last elements being the fencing and landscaping. Work is on-going to obtain the remaining resource consents for Stages 2A and 2B. Stage 2A (path in Chalmers Reserve and the underpass below the rail corridor) has been publicly notified as part of the limited notified consent process. A pre-start meeting has been held for Stage 1 (Blockhouse Bay Road to Chalmers Street) with Council and they have approved commencement of the physical works. Physical works have also commenced within the Kāinga Ora site which includes enabling works for the underpass which will allow the project to regain some lost time due to COVID-19.

Wolverton Street Culvert Project Update - 9 September 2020

Culvert 1- Whau stream

· Construction of the temporary works retaining wall on the north side to support the carriageway during excavation is complete.

· Underground services relocations are continuing with the watermain diversion complete.

· Preparation of the piling platform to install the culvert piles will get underway this coming month.

· Planning for the stream works retaining walls is complete and piling in the stream will commence this coming month. This work will be done with input from ecological specialists to ensure that we are reducing the environmental impact of the project.

· COVID-19 Level 2.5 - the works are continuing, and the crew is upholding the required protocols, such as social distancing and contact tracing.

· The traffic volumes are rebounding from the alert level 3 to 2.5 shutdown and we are back into tidal flow as the traffic demand increase.

Wolverton Street Culvert 2- Avondale stream

· Installed all of the stage 1 north side piles for the bridge and retaining wall.

· Casting the capping beam for the piles in preparation for excavation between the piles down to the apron slab level.

· COVID-19 Level 2.5 - the works are continuing, and the crew is upholding the required protocols, such as social distancing and contact tracing.

· The traffic volumes are rebounding from the alert level 3 to 2.5 shutdown and are back into tidal flow as the traffic demand increase.

Local Board Workshops

21. The Local Board to note that AT attended the following workshop in August 2020

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund new budget allocation for 2020/2021 financial year.

22. Consultation documents for the following proposal has been provided to the Whau Local Board for its feedback.

· Proposal on change of time limits to existing Bus parking areas, New Lynn

· Proposal on Ambrico Place, New Lynn- Parking Changes.

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

AT Traffic Control Committee report

24. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee during the month of August 2020 affecting the Whau Local Board area are listed below:

Date

Street (Suburb)

Type of Report

Nature of Restriction

Decision

1-Aug-20

Wolverton Street / Taylor Street / Amsterdam Place / St Georges Road, Avondale

Amended Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

Flush Median / No Stopping At All Times / Shared Path / Lanes / Lane Arrow Marking / Stop Control / Traffic Signal

CARRIED

1-Aug-20

Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay

Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Works)

Authorised Vehicle Parking / No Stopping At All Times / Edge Line / Lanes / Angle Parking / P60 Parking / Stop Control

CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications for the Whau Local Board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. The emergency budget means that AT’s operating budgets have been reduced and some projects planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered.

28. Both the Community Safety Fund and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund are impacted by these budget reductions. Community Safety projects will continue in design and will be delivered once funds become available.

29. AT attended workshops in August 2020 to discuss with local boards how to get best value from their 2020/2021 Local Board Transport Capital Fund allocations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. AT will provide another update report to the Whau Local Board in October 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	What you need to know about Public Transport under Alert Level 2	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager (Whau Local Board)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manger

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

Whau Local Board

23 September 2020

Proposal to revoke the Whau Local Board’s decisions (resolution number WHH/2018/4) to revoke the Reserves Act 1977 status of part of Saunders Reserve and to classify part of the reserve under the Reserves Act

File No.: CP2020/13415

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To advise on the recommendation to:

· revoke the decision made to revoke the Reserve Act 1977 status on part of Saunders Reserve; and

· to revoke the decision to classify Saunders Reserve as esplanade reserve and recreation reserve, areas as defined in the attachment A to the 31 October 2018 agenda report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Saunders Reserve located at 26 Saunders Place, Avondale is made up of two land parcels that are held in fee simple by Auckland Council. The land parcels are held as an unclassified local purpose (esplanade) reserve and unclassified recreation reserve and are subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The West End Rowing Club Incorporated’s 15-year community ground lease over part of the reserve for its clubrooms commenced on 19 August 2003 and expired on 18 August 2018. The lease continues to operate under a periodic tenancy on a month by month basis until a final decision on whether to grant a new lease or not is made by the local board.

4. Advice provided by staff to the local board in 2018 was to revoke the Reserves Act status over Saunders Reserve as the activities of the club were not permitted under the act.

5. Following public notification of the proposal both objections to and support for the proposal to revoke were received.

6. Staff reviewed the objections and an alternative was proposed as a compromise. Staff recommended to the local board to retain a larger portion of the reserve as esplanade reserve and revoke the remainder.

7. Following a hearing panel, the local board resolved to approve this alternative option.

8. Concerns were raised by the Tree Council with the staff advice given.

9. Following further review, staff advise that the location of, and activities of the Rowing Club are not prohibited under the Reserves Act. Consequently, it was not necessary for the Reserves Act status to be revoked in order for those activities to continue.

10. Staff recommend that the decision by the Whau Local Board Hearings Panel on 31 October 2018 to revoke the Reserves Act status over a portion of the reserve and to classify another portion, be revoked and that staff commence the process to classify the Saunders Reserve land parcels consistent with their current unclassified status.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) revoke the decision made by the Whau Local Board Hearings Panel on 31 October 2018 (reference number WHH/2018/4) to approve the proposal to revoke the Reserves Act 1977 status of portion ‘A’ as per attachment ‘A’ of the 31 October 2018 agenda report, of Saunders Reserve, 26 Saunders Place Avondale

b) revoke the decision made by the Whau Local Board Hearings Panel on 31 October 2018 (resolution number WHH/2018/4) to approve the classification of portion ‘B’ as per attachment ‘A’ of the 31 October 2018 agenda report, of Saunders Reserve, 26 Saunders Place, Avondale

c) request staff commence the process to classify the Saunders Reserve land parcels, consistent with their current unclassified status.

Horopaki

Context

Background

11. Saunders Reserve located at 26 Saunders Place, Avondale is described as Lots 26 and 27 Deposited Plan 112772, comprising of 5780 and 5008m², respectively. Lot 26 is an unclassified local purpose (esplanade) reserve and Lot 27 is an unclassified recreation reserve. Both lots are held in fee simple by Auckland Council and are subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

12. The Westend Rowing Club Incorporated’s clubroom is located on Saunders Reserve. The former Auckland City Council granted a 15-year community ground lease to the club for its clubrooms. The lease commencement date was 19 August 2003, and the lease expired on 18 August 2018. The lease continues to operate under a periodic tenancy on a month by month basis until a decision is made by the local board whether or not to grant a new lease.

13. Advice provided by staff to the local board in the 18 April 2018 Agenda report (Item 14) noted that:

· “The esplanade reserve status of Lot 26 has a very specialised purpose under the Reserves Act and is solely to protect the adjoining watercourse and provide access along it. The purpose does not contemplate buildings, car park or any commercial activity occupying the land

· The recreation reserve status of Lot 27 does not allow fund raising and other commercial activities such as weddings and parties currently being undertaken by the club…”

14. To address these two points, staff proposed to revoke the Reserves Act status over Saunders Reserve. On 18 April 2018, the Whau Local Board approved the public notification of council’s intention to revoke the Reserves Act status over Saunders Reserve under section 24(1) of the Reserves Act, and if required appointed the full local board as a panel to consider submissions or objections received and for the panel to reach a decision (WH/2018/35).

15. A public notice was placed in the Western Leader on 8 May 2018 and the submission period closed on 15 June 2018. Six objections to the proposal were received with one in support (endorsed by 166 people).

16. Council staff reviewed the objections received and proposed an alternative as a compromise. The alternative was for a larger portion of the reserve to be retained as esplanade reserve that wrapped around the Whau River side of the sealed areas of the reserve (Attachment A). It was proposed that the sealed areas being the driveway and car park together with the clubrooms would be revoked so that this portion of the reserve would be held under the Local Government Act 2002.

17. On 31 October 2018, the Whau Local Board resolved to approve a proposal to revoke the Reserves Act status over portion ‘A’ of Saunders Reserve and approved the classification of portion ‘B’ of Saunders Reserve as local purpose (esplanade) reserve under the Reserves Act (resolution number WHH/2018/4).

18. Following correspondence from the Tree Council concerns were raised regarding the staff advice and a review of that advice commenced.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. Following that review, staff advise in relation to esplanade reserves that section 23(2)(a) of the Reserves Act creates a (qualified) prohibition on activities that would impede the right of the public freely to pass and repass over the esplanade reserve on foot. This purpose does not (in itself) prevent a building being constructed on such a reserve, or commercial activities occurring on the reserve. It is open to the administering body to permit appropriate commercial activities provided that the reserve’s purpose and values are taken into account and that proper statutory process has been undertaken to arrive at that decision.

20. In respect of recreation reserves, if fundraising activities can support a voluntary organisation and the community outcomes as contained in the community lease or licence then there is no absolute restriction relating to community lessees’ fundraising activities under the Reserves Act. It will be a question whether the activity is appropriate, including in terms of the scale, duration and frequency. Any breach of the lease terms is to be managed under the terms of the lease.

21. Based on the advice received, it is considered that the location of, and activities of the Rowing Club are not prohibited under the Reserves Act. Consequently, it was not necessary for the Reserves Act status to be revoked in order for those activities to continue.

22. Further, the starting point for any decision to revoke the Reserves Act status should be whether revocation would not result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity. This is assessed by reference to section 3 of the Reserves Act and the characteristics or features of the land which warrants protection for the relevant purposes in that section and the relevant classification of the land. The existence of buildings and activities and whether they are permitted under the Reserves Act or not are not matters considered relevant to the test for revocation as outlined above.

23. Based on this subsequent advice, the local board needs to consider its options with regards to Saunders Reserve.

Options

24. Based on the advice received, there are two options available to the local board. Given the staff advice, we do not consider that the first option below is a reasonably practicable option that is available to the local board. We have, however, included it in the table for completeness.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Progress with the reserve revocation as proposed in resolution (WHH/2018/4)		· Council risks legal challenge if it proceeds to revoke the reserves status of the land. This also gives rise to associated financial costs. · If there was to be a legal challenge, there would be delays in considering the Westend Rowing Club’s lease · We consider requesting revocation in this case may damage the council’s reputation given the concerns raised regarding the test for revocation. · The ultimate decision on revocation is taken by the Minister of Conservation or her delegate. There is a risk that the Minister will not revoke the Reserves Act status · The long-term preservation of the conservation values of the esplanade reserve area as it is comprised today is not guaranteed if parts of it loses its reserve status and future uses of those non-reserve areas change over time.
Revoke the resolution (WHH/2018/4) and consult with iwi on proposed classifications	· The land currently held for esplanade purposes is maintained for those purposes for future generations · The process to consider lease renewal for the rowing club can commence once the reserve classification is completed.	· The building’s lease area will continue to lie across two different reserve classifications. Whilst not ideal, practically it means a lease needs be granted under both the recreation (s 54) and local purpose (s 61) leasing sections of the Act in accordance with those statutory decision-making processes.
Revoke resolution (WHH/2018/4) and seek further advice on changing the proposed classification areas for Saunders Reserve	· Consideration of alternative parcels boundaries for the unclassified recreation and esplanade reserve areas could be undertaken if advice on retaining and classifying the current unclassified reserve areas was not accepted by the local board.	· Any changes in the current parcel boundaries would require resurveying the site. · Further consultation on any new reserve boundary proposal would be required. · The process to consider lease renewal for the rowing club will be delayed until the review on proposed classifications for Saunders Reserve are completed.

25. Staff recommend that the local board revoke their previous decision (WHH/2018/4) and commence classification of the reserve in accordance with their current unclassified status (Attachment B: Lot 26 DP 112772 local purpose (esplanade) reserve and Lot 27 DP 112772 unclassified recreation reserve).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. A resolution to revoke decisions relating to land classification has no climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. Further analysis by staff has been completed on reserve revocation matters. This advice has been shared with the land advisory team and will inform future advice to local boards on these matters.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The proposal to revoke Saunders Reserve’s reserve status was reported to the Whau Local Board on 18 April 2018 (resolution number WH/2018/35) and they approved the public notification of the intention to revoke the Reserves Act 1977 status over the reserve.

29. On 31 October 2018 the Whau Local Board Hearings Panel approved the proposal to revoke the Reserves Act 1977 status over portion ‘A’ of Saunders Reserve as per attachment A of the agenda report so it is held under the Local Government Act 2002. They also approved the classification of portion ‘B’ of Saunders Reserve as local purpose (esplanade) reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (Resolution number WHH/2018/4).

30. Following public notification in May 2018, six objections to the proposal were received with one in support (West End Rowing Club Incorporated) endorsed by 166 people.

31. Reasons for objections to the proposal included the relevance of the decision making considerations, perception of loss of green space amenity and future risks to public access, loss of protections afforded by the Reserves Act including potential loss of conservation values, and subsequent impacts on management of current flora and fauna.

32. Staff presented this information to the local board at a workshop held on 9 September 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. The report to Whau Local Board on 18 April 2018 outlined that engagement was undertaken from December 2017 through to March 2018 with 13 iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the Whau Local Board area.

34. Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust confirmed they had no further interest in this application. Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust commented that this was outside the area of cultural interest and deferred to other Iwi Mana Whenua who have interest. Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara deferred to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Te Kawerau a maki for comments. Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau Marae Māori Trust noted that they would support any submissions from Te Kawerau a Maki for this particular project.

35. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust supported the reserve revocation. This support was premised on the previous advice that revocation was necessary in the circumstances.

36. Further consultation will occur with iwi as one of the steps in the process of reserve classification.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. There is no cost associated with the recommendations in this report to revoke the decisions made by the Whau Local Board Hearings Panel on 31 October 2018.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. If the Whau Local Board decides to continue with reserve revocation, there is risk of legal challenge. Revoking these resolutions mitigates that legal risk.

39. The advice in this case has been shared with the land advisory and community leasing teams and will inform future advice to local boards on these matters.

40. Advice on reserve classification and permitted fundraising / commercial activities on reserves is being drafted to clarify these issues and will include the guidance that came out of the various court decisions in the Opua case.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. If the local board chooses to revoke the 13 October 2018 decision (reference number WHH/2018/4) and classify the reserve as consistent with their unclassified status, staff will commence reserve classification.

42. Staff will provide an update to all those who submitted on council’s intention to revoke the Reserves Act status over Saunders Reserve.

43. The process to consider lease renewal for the rowing club can commence once the reserve classification is completed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan of Saunders Reserve, Avondale of areas proposed to be revoked and classified, as reported at a Whau Local Board meeting on 31 October 2018	29
b ⇩	Lot 26 DP 112772 local purpose (esplanade) reserve and Lot 27 DP 112772 unclassified recreation reserve	31

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Donna Cooper - Community Lease Advisor

Frances Ting - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

Whau Local Board

23 September 2020

Whau Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020

File No.: CP2020/12052

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. The annual report contains the following sections:

Section	Description
Mihi	The mihi relates to the local board area
Message from the chairperson	An overall message introducing the report, highlighting achievements and challenges, including both financial and non-financial performance
Local board members	A group photo of the local board members
Our area	A visual layout of the local board area, summarising key demographic information and showing key projects and facilities in the area
Performance report	Provides performance measure results for each activity, providing explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved
Funding information	Financial performance results compared to long-term plan and annual plan budgets, together with explanations about variances
Local flavour	A profile of either an outstanding resident, grant, project or facility that benefits the local community

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

· Audit NZ review during August and September 2020

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft 2019/2020 Whau Local Board Annual Report - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Rose - Financial Lead Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney - Manager Corporate and Local Board Performance

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

Whau Local Board

23 September 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/11351

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Lockdown level 4 in response to COVID-19 occurred in quarter three and the impacts continue to evolve. No report was presented to the local board for quarter three.

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

4. 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.

5. Out of the 135 identified activities on the local board’s work programme, 56 were completed and 28 are in progress, including multi-year projects that have progressed as expected. Another 21 have been approved or are approved in principle; the remaining 30 activities were undelivered, cancelled, put on hold or deferred.

Key activity from the 2019/2020 work programme

6. Key events that had to be cancelled included the Citizenship Ceremonies, Anzac Day commemoration events, Movie in Brains Park along with other community led events planned in local parks.

7. Physical works had to be deferred, including improvements to walkways, sports fields, parks, car parks, furniture, bins, signage, etc.

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

· Avondale Shared Facility – while still being progressed, the planned timelines have been pushed out

· Whau Aquatic and Recreation Centre – due to this being a high value, regionally-funded project in the Long Term Plan and the subsequent squeeze on Auckland Council’s budget, this project will now be pushed out until the economy has sufficiently recovered.

9. There were a number of projects completed, and others delayed:

· Archibald Park playground ̶ physical works were interrupted, pushing completion out to September.

· Diverse Participation – Pacific and Ethnic Voices. Both the Pasifika Komiti and the Whau Ethnic Collective have gone from strength to strength, forming coherent groups that have provided valuable insights from a diverse perspective into board activity, not least being public feedback on the Local Board Plan 2020 and the Emergency Budget.

· Environmental initiatives – the sustainability hub ensured the community nursery plants were cared for during lockdown and distribution of plants to support community planting initiatives in the Whau hit the target of a minimum 2,500 plants. Aiming for better water qualilty in the Whau, an Industrial Pollution Prevention programme engaged with 119 business sites in the Rosebank area, providing advice on storage and disposal of hazardous material. The funds allocated to Whau Enviromental Assistance programme was fully paid out to community groups and schools engaging in pest free and waterways clean-up activities. At the Bike Hub, visitor numbers continue to grow as the joys of riding were rediscoverd, making the most of the shared pathways that are quick and enjoyable connections between neighbourhoods and also to our parks, open spaces, town centres and services.

· New Lynn Community Centre Renewal – rather than push renewal of this highly prized centre out indefinitely, the board prioritised this project due to growing demand for increased and more versitile spaces from a rapidly intensifying population. The project has moved to a tendering process.

· Park Improvements – La Rosa Gardens and Taramea Reserve have revamped play spaces; drinking fountains were added at Northall Park, Green Bay Domain and Olympic Park by the velodrome; Olympic Park sports fields have undergone significant renewal with added athletic infrastructure; Gittos Domain had historic signs refreshed, gained a new footbridge and parts of the track upgraded (with more work due).

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

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

12. The Work Programme 2019/2020 Q4 update is attached as Attachment B.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

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

b) note the financial performance report in Attachment A of the report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group results for 2019/2020 are released to the New Zealand’s Exchange (NZX) which are expected to be made public 30 September 2020

c) 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

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

Horopaki

Context

13. The Whau Local Board has an approved 2019/2020 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew

· Community Facilities: Community Leases

· Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Libraries

· Parks, Sport and Recreation.

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

Graph 1: work programme activities by outcome

15. 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.

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

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

18. Reporting on quarter three 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

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

Graph 2: Work Programme by RAG status

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

Graph 3: work programme activity by activity status and department

Overview of work programme performance by department

Arts, Community and Events work programme

21. In the Arts, Community and Events work programme, there are 19 activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green); three activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber). Two events have been cancelled/deferred (grey). There were no significant issues identified (red).

Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme

22. In the Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme, there are 35 activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green), three activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), four activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red) and 23 activities that have been cancelled and deferred in quarter four (grey).

Community Leases work programme

23. The lease of space in the New Lynn Community Centre to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust was cancelled in quarter three. This is due to the imminent refurbishment of the New Lynn Community Centre. All other leases remain on track.

Community Services: Service Strategy and Integration work programme

24. In the Service Strategy and Integration work programme, the Whau Local Board’s One Local Initiative (OLI) Whau Aquatic and Recreation Centre has been put on hold due to Emergency Budget constraints. It is anticipated that this project will proceed to design stage in financial year 2021/2022 if the evolving COVID-19 situation stabilises.

Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme

25. In the Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme, there are eight activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green), four activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber), two activities that are significantly delayed, on hold or not delivered (red).

Libraries work programme

26. In the Libraries work programme, there are seven activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green), one activity that is in progress but is delayed (amber).

Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme

27. In the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme, there are six activities that were completed by the end of the year or will be by end of July 2019 (green) and three activities that are in progress but are delayed (amber).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. 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

29. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. The Whau Local Board work programme recognises Māori as tangata whenua and actively seeks opportunities to positively impact the lives of Māori in the Whau. Initiatives within the work programme aim to promote Māori culture and language to the point where it is embraced as a natural part of our communities. Some activations in the Whau in the 2019/2020 financial year:

· The board’s E Tu programme responds to the key aspirations and priorities for Māori in the Whau Local Board area. Initiatives include Te Kura Kaupapa graduates’ celebrations; raranga weaving programmes; formation of a Te Pou Whau networking group involving Ruaumoko Marae amongst other community groups. It is noted that during this period, Kelston Deaf Education Centre changed its name to Ko Taku Reo Deaf Education.

· The work programmes accommodate funding and resourcing support for the Matariki Festival at Hoani Waititi Marae as well as for several smaller events at locations across the Whau.

· The Youth Capacity Building programme looks to develop social and economic innovation with Māori, Pacific and other diversely cultured youth.

· Where there is opportunity, Māori perspective, design or story telling is incorporated into newly assigned projects – for example, development of the shared facility in Avondale, design detail in the Craig Avon Park playground.

· The three Whau libraries continue to deliver programmes which share Māori heritage stories of the Whau as well as promote the language.

· Te Kete Rukuruku has been the platform on which mana whenua across Tamaki Makaurau have gifted Māori names to the board which will enable meaningful dual naming or story telling in our parks and places, thereby allowing shared cultural stories to be passed on to future generations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Financial performance

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. 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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A 2019-2020 Financial Performance report - Confidential
b ⇩	Attachment B Work Programme 2019-2020 Q4 update	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Antonina Georgetti - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

23 September 2020

Project Streetscapes: Weed Management report

File No.: CP2020/12738

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 Whau 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 ⇩	People's Panel - Whau Local Board	75
b ⇩	Local board feedback on weed management impact priorities	93
c ⇩	Weed control methodology table	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Gargiulo - Principal Environmental Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

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

[1] Waitākere Ranges Strategic Weed Management Plan 2015

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

[4] Streetscapes Specifications - 19 March 2019_

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

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

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

[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).

[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.

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

[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.

Chairperson	Kay Thomas
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Fasitua Amosa
	Catherine Farmer
	Ulalemamae Te'eva Matafai
	Warren Piper
	Jessica Rose

Author	Rodica Chelaru - Democracy Advisor - Whau
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges, Whau