Agenda of Howick Local Board - 16 November 2020

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Howick Local Grants Round Two and Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 grant allocations

File No.: CP2020/15568

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Howick Local Board with information on applications in Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 and Quick Response Round One 2020/2021; to enable a decision to fund, part fund or decline each application.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 (Attachment B), and Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 (Attachment C).

3. The Howick Local Board adopted the Howick Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 18 May 2020 (Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $644,779 for the 2020/2021 financial year. There will be a total of three local grant and two quick response rounds in the 2020/2021 financial year. In local grants round one, a total of $184,617.14 was allocated, leaving a total of $460,161.86 to be allocated in the remaining grant rounds.

5. Ten applications were received for Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 requesting a total of $94,532.78. Twenty applications were received through Howick Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 requesting a total of $61,590.53. The total amount requested in the two rounds is $156,123.31.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund, or decline each application in Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 listed in the following table:

Table One: Howick Local Grants Round One 2020/2021 grant applications

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2107-201	Bucklands Beach Intermediate School	Sport and recreation	Towards an upgrade of the fitness trail in the Bucklands Beach School grounds	$15,000.00	Eligible
LG2107-205	Howick Sea Scout Group The Scout Association of New Zealand	Community	Towards the replacement of three doors on the sea scout building, including the emergency access door, boatshed door and equipment storage door	$11,285.78	Eligible
LG2107-206	The Uxbridge Community Projects Incorporated	Arts and culture, Community	Towards the purchase of 36 new chairs for use in the Uxbridge Centre	$3333.00	Eligible
LG2107-208	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Community	Towards the teaching of Life Education's health and well-being programme in Howick schools from 2 December 2020 to 16 April 2021	$14,000.00	Eligible
LG2107-211	Cockle Bay School	Community	Towards the maintenance and swimming programmes of the Cockle Bay School pool from 1 December 2020 to 31 March 2021	$8832.00	Eligible
LG2107-213	Howick Softball Club (Fencibles) Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the women's and men's softball tournaments, specifically the live streaming, portaloos and umpire fees costs from 4 December to 6 December 2020	$5382.00	Eligible
LG2107-214	Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards costs to access a bore in Lloyd Elsmore Park	$20,000.00	Eligible
LG2107-216	Pakuranga Athletic Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the Pakuranga Junior Track and Field Open Day for children two to 14 years at Lloyd Elsmore Park in Pakuranga on 14 February 2021	$4200.00	Eligible
LG2107-218	NAAD Charitable Trust (NZ)	Arts and culture	Towards the costs for the "Future Maestros" programme including sound hire, professional fees, instrument hire and venue hire from 7 to 13 December 2020	$9,500.00	Eligible
LG2107-219	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the Youthline Helpline costs including supervision for volunteer counsellors and telecommunication costs, for the Howick Local Board area from 1 December 2020 to 30 September 2021	$3000.00	Eligible
Total				$94,532.78

b) agree to fund, part-fund, or decline each application in Howick Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 listed in the following table:

Table Two: Howick Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 grant applications

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for		Amount requested	Eligibility
QR2107-101	LifeGrowth Community Trust	Events		Towards the annual Father’s Day event "Blokes and Cars/Bikes" on 5 September 2021, including bouncy castle, remote control cars, and advertising	$1500.00	Eligible
QR2107-102	Bucklands Beach Yacht Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation		Towards the replacement of 35 buoyancy aids for Bucklands Beach Yacht Club including life jackets and ski vests	$1278.26	Eligible
QR2107-103	The Uxbridge Community Projects Incorporated	Arts and culture		Towards blackout blinds for Te Whare Ora at Uxbridge Centre	$2260.87	Eligible
QR2107-104	Bellyful New Zealand Trust	Community		Towards the cost of cooked meals for families with new-born babies, including containers, labels, delivery bags and volunteer support	$1530.61	Eligible
QR2107-106	Mellons Bay Board of Trustees	Sport and recreation		Towards the running costs and maintenance for the Mellon’s Bay School pool, including power, water and chemical management from 1 December 2020 to 26 March 2021	$2000.00	Eligible
QR2107-108	Howick Art Group Incorporated	Arts and culture		Towards artist’s fees for the monthly demonstrations and workshops for the Howick Art Group at Uxbridge from 24 February to 22 September 2021	$4000.00	Eligible
QR2107-109	Howick Golf Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation		Towards safety and way-finding signage for the golf club	$3000.00	Eligible
QR2107-112	Howick Tourism Inc trading as East Auckland Tourism	Community		Towards office rental at Cleave House, Uxbridge and Te Tuhi from 2 December 2020 to 1 December 2021	$4830.00	Eligible
QR2107-115	Howick 175th Celebration Committee The Howick and Districts Historical Society Incorporated	Events		Towards the Howick 175th celebration event in 2022	$5000.00	Eligible
QR2107-116	Cockle Bay Tennis Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation		Towards the supply and installation if a filtered water fountain for the tennis club	$1500.00
QR2107-117	Fencibles United Association Football Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation		Towards the Clubhub software service fee for the membership database	$3000.00	Eligible
QR2107-118	Sunnyhills Primary School	Sport and recreation		Towards the installation of bike racks for student and teacher bikes for the Sunnyhill School	$2780.00	Eligible
QR2107-120	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community		Towards the Youthline Helpline, including clinical triage support for the volunteer counsellors, from 1 December 2020 to 30 September 2021	$5000.00	Eligible
QR2107-121	Youth Arts New Zealand	Arts and culture		Towards the “Youth at Art” in Botany to showcase young people’s art on a temporary structure as part of Americas Cup events	$5000.00	Eligible
QR2107-122	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Community		Towards the teaching of Life Education's Health and wellbeing programme, specifically workbooks at Howick schools from 2 December 2020 to 18 June 2021	$3000.00	Eligible
QR2107-123	Blue Light Ventures Incorporated	Community		Towards the "Street Smart" handbook for 853 Year 13 students in Howick schools, including Edgewater College, Pakuranga College, Sancta Maria College, and Ormiston Senior College	$2985.50	Eligible
QR2107-125	Howick Tourism Inc trading as East Auckland Tourism	Community		Towards the newspaper and ferry summer promotion for east Auckland from 2 December 2020 to 30 April 2021	$4700.00	Eligible
QR2107-127	Highland Park Community Creche	Community		Towards a replacement shade sail for the outdoor play area for the creche	$4165.94	Eligible
QR2107-128	Pakuranga Athletics Club	Sport and recreation		Towards the purchase of a lawn mower and brush cutter for the club	$1329.00	Eligible
QR2107-130	Harlequin Music Theatre Incorporated	Arts and culture		Towards seven microphone headsets for the theatre	$2730.35	Eligible
Total					$61,590.53

Horopaki

Context

6. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7. Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Howick Local Board adopted the Howick Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 18 May 2020 (Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

9. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the Howick Local Board Plan 2017. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

11. As outlined in the Howick Grants Programme 2020/2021, staff have also assessed each application according to which applications demonstrate a clear commitment to one or more of the following objectives in support of the recovery from COVID-19:

a) strengthens business resilience and economic benefits

b) produces local benefits, caters for local participation and increased visitors to the area

c) show collaboration, the pooling of resources and benefits to multiple community groups and audiences

d) encourages and fosters increased resilience, connectedness and wellbeing in our communities and environment.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

14. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

16. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

19. The Howick Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $644,779 for the 2020/2021 financial year.

20. There will be a total of three local grant, and two quick response rounds in the 2020/2021 financial year. In local grants round one, a total of $184,617.14 was allocated, leaving a total of $460,161.86 to be allocated in the remaining grant rounds.

21. Ten applications were received for Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 requesting a total of $94,532.78. Twenty applications were received through Howick Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 requesting a total of $61,590.53. The total requested for the two rounds is $156,123.31.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. Following the Howick Local Board allocation of funding for the Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 and Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021, staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Grants Programme 2020/2021	19
b ⇩	Howick Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 grant applications	23
c ⇩	Howick Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 grant applications	71

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Authorisers

Rhonwen Heath - Head of Rates Valuations & Data Management

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Auckland Transport October 2020 monthly update to Howick Local Board

File No.: CP2020/15987

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Howick Local Board on transport related matters in their local board area, including strategic initiatives, matters raised by the Board and progress on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides an opportunity to highlight Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the Howick Local Board area and contains information about the following:

a) the wider context involving a summary of the strategic projects delivered in the Howick Local Board area

b) updates on local transport projects in the Howick Local Board area

c) an update on the LBTCF.

3. This report does not require a decision.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport November 2020 monthly update report.

Horopaki

Context

4. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. Auckland Transport reports monthly to local boards, as set out in the Local Board Engagement Plan.

5. Monthly reporting acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities.

6. Auckland Transport is currently delivering three key strategic projects in the Howick Local Board area and these are discussed within this report.

7. Recently, the strategic environment has changed because of the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic. Information on Auckland Transport’s response is provided below.

Airport to Botany – Rapid Transport Network (RTN)

8. The Airport to Botany – Rapid Transport Network (RTN) projects aim is to create a RTN linking the Airport and Botany. Auckland Council’s long-term goal for public transport is to have rapid transit networks region wide with services that run at least every 15 minutes and more frequently during peak hours. Some examples of RTNs are the rail network and the Northern Busway. Auckland Transport’s role is delivering this vision.

9. In the October 2020 update to Howick Local Board, Auckland Transport reported on the public summary report for the second round of public consultation for the Southwest Gateway Programme / Airport to Botany RTN, which took place from November to December 2019. This report is now available on the Auckland Transport website via the following links:

a) full version: https://at.govt.nz/media/1983567/southwest-gateway-public-summary-report-sept-2020.pdf

b) summary: https://at.govt.nz/media/1983566/southwest-gateway-two-page-report-sept-2020

10. Within the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area of the project, construction of the Puhinui Station Interchange continues and in October 2020, a new walking bridge was completed that will allow people to access the station. Early improvements on SH20B are progressing and other improvements planned along Puhinui Road and Lambie Drive started construction in September 2020.

11. Auckland Transport expects the final Second Stage Business Case will be submitted to Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency boards in late 2020 and endorsement will be sought to progress the Airport to Botany - RTN and 20 Connect projects into the next phase of development.

12. Howick Local Board will be briefed in an upcoming workshop on the projects current progress.

AMETI - Eastern Busway

13. The AMETI - Eastern Busway is New Zealand’s first urban busway. The $1.4 billion busway will provide congestion free, bus only lanes for commuters from Botany to Panmure.

14. In September 2020, the Auckland Transport project team briefed the Howick Local Board on the projects progress and discussed the formation of a new project alliance. In addition to reporting on the planning of the project is progressing well the next stages of the project.

15. During the next few months board members will notice a few changes as the new Alliance starts to take shape. Auckland Transport will remain the key agency providing information on Stage 1 (Panmure to Pakuranga: Preliminary construction) of the project however, over time the Alliance, as opposed to Auckland Transport, will start to engage with the local board for the remainder of the project.

16. Locally, over Labour weekend in October 2020 works were carried out at the intersection of Pakuranga Road and Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga. In particular, the control of access in and out of Ti Rakau Drive near the intersection with Pakuranga Road has now been completed with minimal disruption and complaints.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. This section of the report contains information about local projects, issues and initiatives. It also provides summaries of the detailed advice and analysis provided to the local board during workshops and briefings.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

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

a) be safe

b) not impede network efficiency

c) be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks may be considered if they support a transport outcome).

19. The fund allows local boards to build transport focused local improvements in their areas.

20. Auckland Transport assessed the financial impacts realised from the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 and provided advice to Howick Local Board on re-structuring their LBTCF programmes to meet the reduction in funding from the budget.

21. In the revised indicative budget, Howick Local Board has been allocated approximately $1.6 million. This funding is subject to be reviewed again in 2021 as Auckland Council develops their 10-year Plan / Long-term Plan post COVID-19.

22. Prior to confirming a new programme of work at the Howick Local Board’s meeting in September 2020, Auckland Transport workshopped this with the board.

23. The table below summarises the proposed programme.

Table One: Howick Local Board Transport Capital Fund summary

General overview
Project	Current Status	Discussion
Howick Village Centre Plan		A project to develop detailed plans for upgrading the Howick Village Centre Estimated Cost: $550,000
Howick Walking and Cycling Network Plan – Cascades Pathway		Delivery of a key route in the Howick Walking and Cycling Network Plan Estimated Cost: $570,000
Point View Drive Electronic Warning Signs		Installing electronic speed warning signs on Point View Drive to reduce speeds Estimated Cost: $83,000
Information Plinth at Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal		Building an information plinth at the Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal so arriving visitors can orientate themselves and access local attractions more easily Estimated Cost: $37,000
Total Estimated Cost		$1.2 million
Note: Project activity is by RAG status (red, amber, green) which measures the progress of the project: Red – A major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and on budget
Detailed project progress report
Howick Village Centre Plan An Auckland Transport project manager is now part of the Steering Group. The Steering Group are meeting regularly, and the project scope is being developed that will confirm the group’s requirements for the design work which will include: · Objectives: What does the board want to achieve? · boundaries of the project: What are the physical limits of the study? · key stakeholders: Who does the study need to work with to achieve the objectives? · rough project plan: When and at what stages will the study report back and seek further guidance? The first draft has been circulated to officials and will be circulated to the Steering Group at the groups next meeting in November
Howick Walking and Cycling Network Plan – Cascades Pathway Auckland Council is leading this project and Auckland Transport has created a funding agreement and transferred the funding to Auckland Council.
Point View Drive Electronic Warning Signs The initial step is to establish a project mandate and allocate resources to this project. This mandate is currently being drafted.
Half Moon Bay Information Plinth The first step is establishing a project mandate and allocating resources to this project. The mandate is currently being drafted. Input from East Auckland Tourism has been requested and this will be considered during development of the project’s mandate

Flatbush School Road Pedestrian Bridge

24. This project started as a Community Safety Fund project. The Community Safety Fund planned to deliver a total of $20 million distributed across all 21 local boards for road safety initiatives identified by local boards and ward councilors.

25. The Community Safety Fund is not included in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 therefore, Auckland Transport is funding construction of a pedestrian bridge to allow safer pedestrian use of Flatbush School Road.

26. The completion date has been pushed to February or March 2021, this was previously planned to be completed for either December 2020 or January 2021. This delay is in relation to lodging the resource consent for the pedestrian bridge.

27. Completion of this bridge will allow the current local traffic controls in place that enable pedestrians to cross safely to be removed.

Innovating Streets for People pilot support for the Howick Local Board area

28. The Innovating Streets for People pilot is a national fund that assists local authorities to create more people-friendly spaces in towns and cities. It started as a response to COVID-19 and involves Waka-Kotahi NZ Transport Agency funding projects across New Zealand.

29. Sunnyhills School is in the Safe School Streets pilot programme. This programme’s aim is improving safety perceptions at the school gate and increasing the number of children walking and cycling to school. Auckland Transport has worked closely with the school using a co-design approach to understand the specific issues and design of potential solutions.

30. The potential designs were tested at a pop-up event in November 2019. Treatments included, crossing locations, traffic calming, parking removal for pick up and drop off and speed reduction on Fordyce Ave, The Boulevard and The Crest, Pakuranga. Feedback was collected on the day with surveys and observations.

31. With this information, Auckland Transport drafted plans and the Innovating Streets for People pilot accepted this for funding. The aim is to use an idea known as ‘tactical urbanism’ (or testing ideas before building them) to further refine the ideas and designs for making the area safer.

32. This process will be the interim phase and will continue until design ideas are tested and funded. We are required to deliver this project by March 2021 in order to be able to monitor and evaluate the outcomes to meet the Innovating Streets for People pilot funding deadlines.

33. The maps below provide a concept of the planned test area and the proposals for interventions in the area. It is important to note that these ideas were tested earlier this year, therefore, will not be new to either the school or local community.

Figure One: Concept Plans for the Innovating Streets for People pilot

34. Auckland Transport is pleased this project has been funded through the Innovating Streets project as it allows the project to continue and for AT to invest more time testing and adjusting ideas before a final plan is adopted. The local board’s support is crucial and Auckland Transport will be providing more information as it becomes available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Auckland Transport’s relationship with Community Facilities to deliver sections of the Howick Walking and Cycling Network Plan continues and is expected to be finalised once LBTCF funding is transferred to Community Facilities as they will become responsible for delivering this piece of work.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Auckland Transport consultations

38. Over the last reporting period, Auckland Transport liaised with the local board on two local projects, a summary is included as Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. Receiving this report has no direct financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. The proposed decision to receive the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for all of its projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of consultation sent to Howick Local Board	151

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct

File No.: CP2020/16327

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Howick Local Board to provide its views on Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct, a council-initiated plan change.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[1]}

4. Auckland Council notified proposed Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct on 24 September 2020. Submissions closed on 20 October 2020. The plan change proposes to change the Auckland Unitary Plan by enabling an increase in the number of temporary activities able to be undertaken as permitted activities in the following manner.

a) requiring a traffic management plan (as a permitted activity standard) for an event in a rural or Future Urban zone where more than 500 vehicle movements per day on adjacent roads are generated

b) increasing the duration of those temporary activities that are defined as noise events (i.e. they exceed the noise standards for the zone) from six to eight hours

c) aligning Anzac Day in the Pukekohe Park precinct to the definition under the Anzac Day Act 1966.

5. Two additional minor changes are proposed to address anomalies - a gap in the coastal temporary activities and a minor wording change to the temporary activities Activity Table.

6. The Auckland Unitary Plan objectives and policies seek to enable temporary activities so that they can contribute to a vibrant city and enhance the well-being of communities. At the same time, it seeks to mitigate adverse effects on amenity values, communities, the natural environment, historic heritage and sites and places of significance to mana whenua. The proposed plan change does not alter these objectives and policies.

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

a) removing the lighting of fireworks as a permitted activity from Pukekohe Park precinct

b) treating Sundays the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards)

c) adding the New Zealand Transport Authority to the authorisers of the Transport and Traffic Management Plan (alongside Auckland Transport) where there is potential impact on the state highway network

d) support for the plan change in respect of temporary military training activities.

8. No iwi authority has made a submission in support or opposition to the plan change.

9. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on Plan Change 53 should it wish to do so. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) provide local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park precinct.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on Plan Change 53.

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[2]}

11. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the plan change, along with submissions.

12. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the plan change.

13. This report provides an overview of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

14. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board conveys its views on plan change 53. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

15. The temporary activities plan change applies to the Auckland region and one specific change applies to the Pukekohe Park precinct.

16. The purpose of proposed Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct is to:

a) reduce some of the compliance costs associated with temporary activities. This is in respect of the duration of noise events, the requirement for a resource consent to address traffic management issues for events in rural areas and the interpretation of Anzac Day in relation to the Pukekohe Park precinct

b) address two discrepancies in the temporary activity standards – one in the Activity Table (E40.4.1) and a gap in the coastal temporary activity provisions (E25.6.14).

17. The Section 32 Report and details of the plan change are available from the council’s website at PlanChange53. The council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

a) the Section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

b) submissions

c) the views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

Themes from submissions received

18. Key submission themes are listed below.

· removing the lighting of fireworks as a permitted activity from Pukekohe Park

· treating Sundays, the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards)

· adding NZTA (New Zealand Transport Authority) to the authorisers of the Transport and Traffic Management Plan (alongside Auckland Transport) where there is potential impact on the state highway network, and

· support for the plan change in respect of temporary military training activities.

19. Submissions were made by four people/organisations:

Table One: Submissions received on plan change 53

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	1
In support but requesting change(s)	3
In opposition	0
Neutral	0
Total	4

20. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from the council’s website: PlanChange53.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. There were no submissions that raised specific climate concerns.

22. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

a) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

b) to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

23. The local board could consider if the plan change:

a) will reduce, increase or have no effect on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form)

b) prepares the region for the adverse impacts of climate change; that is, does the proposed plan change elevate or alleviate climate risks (e.g. flooding, coastal and storm inundation, urban heat effect, stress on infrastructure).

24. The propose changes to the temporary activity standards and the Pukekohe Park precinct are neutral in terms of climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport and ATEED will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

26. ATEED made a submission and the key matter raised is the need to treat Sundays the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards).

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The plan change affects Auckland-wide provisions and will therefore affect all local boards.

28. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents, such as the local board plan or the local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

29. On 17 July 2020, a memo was sent to all local boards outlining the proposed changes, the rationale for them and the likely plan change timeframes.^{^[3]}

30. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it may also comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

32. Plans and Places consulted with all iwi authorities when it prepared the plan change. On 14 July 2020, a memorandum outlining the draft proposed plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities as required under the Resource Management Act. Consultation has also been undertaken with the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Responses were received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki.

33. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had no concerns with the proposed changes and did not need to engage further. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki advised that a potential concern is the Marine and Coastal Area Act – Takutai Moana claims and legal processes. The proposed changes however do not impact on the activities able to be undertaken in the coastal marine area. They address a gap in the noise standards for the coastal marine area.

34. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

35. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[4]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[5]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The proposed plan change involves changes to some of the standards for temporary activities and the Pukekohe Park precinct in the AUP. This will make it easier and less expensive for event organisers from a resource management perspective – i.e. they may not need a resource consent.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

a) the mechanism for the Howick Local Board to express its views and preferences if it so wishes; and

b) the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

38. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the Section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

41. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager, Plans and Places

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Local board delegations to allow local views to be provided on matters relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act

File No.: CP2020/16326

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Howick Local Board appoints a local board member to:

a) provide formal local board feedback on applications proposed and being processed under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

b) represent the local board at the Planning Committee Political Working Party on the Urban Development Act, as required.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The government has recently enacted two new pieces of legislation: the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020.

3. The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 provides an alternative resource consenting process to the usual process under the Resource Management Act 1991. This process is designed to ‘fast-track’ resource consent processes to enable development and infrastructure projects to commence more quickly, to help support the economic recovery and create jobs. Resource consent applications will be lodged directly with central government’s Environmental Protection Authority.

4. The Urban Development Act 2020 gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers and the ability to establish specified development projects. Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in ‘business as usual’ developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development.

5. The Planning Committee has delegated to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, the power to establish a Political Working Group to provide political direction on the execution of powers and functions under the Urban Development Act 2020. Each political working group established will comprise of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of relevant local board(s).

6. The council can provide feedback on applications processed under both the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020; however, the timeframes are very short. To ensure that local boards can provide feedback, it is proposed that each local board appoint one local board member to provide formal local board views (feedback) on applications proposed and being processed under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and to represent the local board on any relevant Political Working Party established to give political direction on the execution of the council’s powers under the Urban Development Act 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) delegate to a member, with an alternate, the authority to provide the local board views in respect of matters under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, noting that given the timeframes under the Act, it is not practicable for the matters to come before the full local board

b) appoint a member, with an alternate, as the Howick Local Board representative as required, on any Political Working Group established (in accordance with the Planning Committee’s resolution PLA/2020/79 on 1 October 2020), to give political direction on the execution of the council’s powers under the Urban Development Act 2020.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

7. In May 2020, the Government enacted the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 to fast-track the consenting of eligible development and infrastructure projects as a major element of its COVID-19 rebuild plan. This legislation commenced in July 2020 and will be repealed in July 2022.

8. The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 provides an alternative to the usual resource consenting process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This process is designed to ‘fast-track’ resource consenting processes to enable development and infrastructure projects to commence more quickly, help support the economic recovery and create jobs.

9. Some infrastructure and development projects are listed in the COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. In Auckland, the six listed projects are:

a) Unitec Residential Development

b) Papakainga development in Point Chevalier

c) Britomart Station Eastern End Upgrade

d) Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

e) Northern Pathway – Westhaven to Akoranga shared pathway

f) Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 Improvements.

10. Resource consent applications for these listed projects are lodged directly with central government’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). An expert panel is formed for each application, to assess it and decide whether to approve or decline it.

11. Additionally, an applicant can request the Minister for the Environment to refer an application to an expert panel, utilising the fast-track process. The COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 specifies a range of considerations for the Minister, including:

a) the public good aspects of the application

b) its potential contribution to job creation and economic activity

c) the potential significance of any environmental effects

d) whether the consenting process under the COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 is likely to be significantly faster than a usual RMA resource consent process.

12. The expert panel must include one member who is nominated by Auckland Council. This will be considered on a case by case basis, with the nominated member potentially being a councillor, local board member, or council staff member. Decisions on the nomination of the panel member will be made by the General Manager Resource Consents, or the General Manager Plans and Places where a Notice of Requirement (designation) is involved. Discussion, including with the relevant local board(s), will inform this decision.

13. There are two opportunities for local boards to provide feedback in relation to resource consents following the fast-track process. In both cases, the council has 10 working days to provide feedback.

14. The first opportunity is where the Minister for the Environment must consult with Auckland Council when there are new applications proposed for the fast-track process.

15. The second opportunity occurs when the panel invites comment on the application.

16. Staff will seek formal feedback from the local board, and the local board will have four working days to provide this feedback to the council’s project lead. The feedback will be included as part of Auckland Council’s comment.

Urban Development Act 2020

17. The Urban Development Act 2020 commenced on 7 August 2020. The Urban Development Act 2020 provides for functions, powers, rights and duties of the Crown entity Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, to enable it to undertake its urban development functions.

18. This Act gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers and the ability to establish specified development projects (Attachment A). Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in ‘business as usual’ developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development. Not all powers will be needed by every project.

19. This Act confers powers and functions on Auckland Council such as indicating support for the establishment of a specified development area and nominating a representative to sit on an independent hearings panel for a specified development project. The timeframes for carrying out these powers and functions is tight, only 20 working days in some instances.

20. At its 1 October 2020 meeting, the Planning Committee (PLA/2020/79) delegated to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, the power to establish a Political Working Group to provide political direction on the execution of powers and functions where staff advise that one or more of the following criterial are met.

a) the development plan is inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan and/or not aligned with the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050

b) the specified development area is out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

c) there is insufficient infrastructure to support the development plan and/or significant public infrastructure spend is required to support the project

d) there are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location

e) there is a significant impact on Auckland Council/Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) and/or third-party infrastructure

f) there is the potential for significant adverse environmental effects to occur.

21. Each political working party will comprise of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of relevant local board(s).

22. Attachment B sets out the steps involved in setting up a specified development project. At the time of writing this local board report, no specified development project areas have been proposed within Auckland. Local boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on proposals administered under the Urban Development Act 2020, but it is likely that any opportunities will have short timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 – options considered

23. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings (option two in Table One), however, the timeframes under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 make this mostly impossible to achieve. As local boards will only have four working days to provide their views, it is recommended that a delegation is provided to one local board member and one alternate (option three in Table 1).

24. At the start of the electoral term, local boards selected delegates to provide local board views on resource consent notification and local board views on notified resource consents. They may wish to delegate these responsibilities to the same local board delegates and alternates.

Table One: Options for local boards to provide their formal views on applications proposed and administered under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

Options	Pros	Cons
1. No formal local board views are provided		· local board views will not be considered on applications made under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.
2. Formal local board views are provided at a business meeting	· all local board members contribute to the local board view · provides transparent decision making.	· local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process.
3. Formal local board views are provided by way of delegation to one local board member for all applications (preferred option)	· nominated local board member is able to develop expertise on the subject on behalf of the local board · local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines · nominated local board member may informally obtain and consider the views of other local board members · any feedback can be reported back to the local board.	· decisions are not made by the full local board · decisions made under delegation are not made at a public meeting (decisions are made public once submitted via the planning process).

Urban Development Act 2020

25. Due to the tight timeframes provided for under the Urban Development Act 2020, the Planning Committee authorised a delegation to promptly establish a Political Working Group for proposed specified development projects. Because establishment of each group will likely be required at pace, it is unlikely that local boards will have time to select a representative at a business meeting. It is therefore recommended, that the local board appoints one local board member (and an alternate) to sit as the local board representative on any relevant political working group convened to consider the council’s position on Urban Development Act 2020 matters.

26. At the start of the electoral term local boards selected delegates to provide local board views on resource consent notification and local board views on notified resource consents. They may wish to delegate these responsibilities to the same local board delegates and alternates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The matters raised in this report do not have any impact on climate change as they address procedural matters.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. This report recommends the delegation to and appointment of local board members to ensure that the council can undertake its operational and statutory duties in a timely manner, while receiving local board input on matters that are of local importance.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. This report seeks to appoint nominated board members to perform particular functions.

30. Any local board member who is appointed as a nominated board member should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. If local boards choose not to delegate authority/appoint a representative to provide views on matters relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views within statutory timeframes and will miss the opportunity to have their feedback considered.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Training for local board members will be offered on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Powers available to Kāinga Ora	167
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	169

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Acting Policy and Planning Manager

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16673

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal local board feedback on the Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard (the Standard) and proposed regional policy (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sustainable Asset Standard is a Community Facilities business improvement project consisting of the following three key deliverables to act on climate change in the built environment:

a) a policy to define minimum thresholds for Community Facilities assets to achieve sustainability or ‘green’ certifications. This policy is currently an internal staff guidance document, proposed to Governing Body to adopt formally as a regional policy and is provided as Attachment A

b) energy transition accelerator plans to align renewal works to reduce emissions at targeted, high-emissions sites

c) the change management required to support staff and suppliers to deliver green certified assets meeting the standard set out by the policy.

3. Sustainable asset certification tools are recognised as best practice to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts resulting from the development and operations of council assets, managed by Community Facilities.

4. The Standard is coupled with a funding package through the Long-term Plan as part of the council’s response to climate change. Additional costs to certify those assets identified in the work programme are estimated at a 4.4 per cent premium calculated against existing budgets.

5. The Governing Body’s adoption of the current internal policy as a regional policy would have two impacts on local board decision-making:

a) all growth projects over five million dollars and renewal projects over two million dollars would obtain green building certification at no less than a Green Star five-star rating (or equivalent certification), with net zero energy operations, and

b) as a fundamental principle of these rating tools, any design options provided to local boards for asset decision-making, would be required to provide whole-of-life considerations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) support the Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Standard as an action of the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri (Auckland’s Climate Plan)

b) provide any feedback to support the Governing Body’s consideration of the Standard as regional policy.

Horopaki

Context

6. In 2019 Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and in July 2020 the Environment and Climate Change Committee adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. The plan sets a 2030 target to reduce emissions by 50 per cent.

7. Developing a Sustainable Asset Standard is an action under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. This will enable Auckland Council to align asset management practices with the comprehensive frameworks of green building certification tools (e.g. Green Star, Living Building Challenge, Passive House, Infrastructure Sustainability).

8. Buildings and open spaces managed by Community Facilities (CF) accounted for roughly 68 per cent of the council’s carbon footprint in 2019, as can be seen in Figure One below.

Figure One: 2019/2020 Auckland Council greenhouse gas emissions by department

9. As the source of such a large proportion of the council’s emissions, Community Facilities needs to urgently address climate change through the management of public assets.

10. The Standard (orange in Figure Two, below) is one of eight key programmes identified in the Auckland Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction plan to reduce the organisation’s emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 (dashed line below).

Figure Two: Greenhouse gas emission reduction actions

11. Adopting the Standard as part of this cycle of Long-term Plan funding positions the council to meet compliance changes to New Zealand’s building regulations expected in October 2021, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Building for Climate Change programme. If adopted, Auckland Council would be the first local government in the country to commit to using green building and sustainable infrastructure certifications.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Staff explored two other options to provide a comprehensive asset-focussed response to climate change:

a) green building certification for existing assets (Green Star Performance)

b) organisational certification under (ISO 14001 Environmental Management System).

13. The Green Star Performance ‘proof of case’ pilot certified the council’s three-building crematorium portfolio in 2018. It was the first in the country to receive a Green Star rating on operational assets.

14. The pilot proved to be a valuable exercise in developing a performance improvement plan. It also proved that certification across the CF portfolio would be cost prohibitive, as the “Performance” rating required tri-annual, on-going recertification.

15. Another option explored was a different type of certification, ISO 14001, which applies an environmental management system. Through investigation with the Chief Sustainability Office, Corporate Property and Corporate Health and Safety, it was determined that this certification is more suitable to a corporate application throughout the organisation, as opposed to only CF assets.

16. This initial investigation also found that the certification did not address the cultural and social aspects to sustainable performance in a building or asset application. These comprehensive measures are essential in green building and sustainable infrastructure rating tools.

17. Sixty-one per cent of C40 cities^{^[6]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For CF to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, our practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align CF asset management with international best practice to deliver better asset value and outcomes for Aucklanders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The Standard addresses climate mitigation by committing to carbon neutral growth and evidencing it using an independent assessment framework. The proposal’s primary benefit is to support Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri’s implementation. This will be achieved by mandating climate action in the built environment and making it transparent and accountable through Green Star (and other sustainable asset) certification processes.

19. Climate adaptation is also supported through the use of these sustainable asset certification processes. These frameworks encourage sustainable design features to promote resilience to climate change’s extreme weather events. Features like rainwater harvesting, living roofs and walls, and potable water use avoidance through design, all support network-scale resilience to drought, floods, and heavy storms.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The Standard aligns with the Auckland Council Group Green Building Framework, drafted in 2018 with input from Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport, and the former Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).

21. Out of these Council-controlled Organisations, the Standard supports Panuku’s community-scale developments seeking Green Star Community certifications and the former RFA”s 2019 Green Building Standards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. If the Standard is adopted, the two main impacts on local boards are:

a) capital decisions on all growth projects over five million dollars, and renewal projects over two million dollars, would require green building certification at no less than a Green Star five-star rating (or equivalent certification). Growth projects will need to be net zero energy (energy use is generated on-site or through investment in renewable energy at other council facilities, any energy consumed from the grid is offset by exports to the grid)

b) as a fundamental principle of these rating tools, any design options provided to local boards for asset decision-making would be required to provide whole-of-life considerations, making climate impact statements and life cycle assessments more quantified for improved advice.

23. Staff attended local board workshops in October and November 2020. At the time of this report being drafted, informal feedback has been generally supportive, however, there is also a general concern that the costs to deliver certifications to this standard will exceed allocated budgets. This report seeks the formal views of local boards.

24. The Standard directly addresses local board input as part to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri engagement in 2018, highlighting the need for council buildings to demonstrate best practice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The Standard supports Māori wellbeing by providing the operational tools required to action two key Māori outcomes strategies:

a) The Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

b) Te Aranga Design Principles.

26. Community Facilities’ early commitment to green building and infrastructure tools, within the Aotearoa New Zealand context, also benefits Māori aspirations of visible and embedded Māori identity and culture in the building industry. Māori will have increasing influence over the tools’ applications and the definition of sustainable assets in the country.

27. By becoming the first local government in the country to commit to green ratings, the council can leverage this leadership with applicable organisations to further emphasise the cultural significance of the frameworks.

28. Input will be sought from mana whenua on this proposal at the next available kaitiaki forum (date yet to be confirmed).

Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

29. The Standard supports Ngā Whāinga Mahi three to 10 of the Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework:

3.0 Mārae Development

The Mārae development Programme’s primary objective is to provide healthy, safe and warm Mārae with longevity longevity for future generations, supported by the Standard’s indoor environmental quality metrics.

4.0 Te Reo Maori

Te reo Māori to be more visible, heard, and spoken in Tāmaki Makaurau.

5.0 Māori Identity and Culture

Embed Te Aranga Design Principles into staff procedures and templates and ensure consistent application for all CF capital design work.

6.0 Māori Business, Tourism and Employment

Enable staff to apply the Auckland Council Group Sustainable Procurement Framework consistently across all asset management procurement from capital works to full facility operational tenders.

7.0 Realising Rangatahi Potential

Rangatahi potential included via two pathways:

1. by normalising sustainable procurement to deliver social outcomes (including those for youth) and

2. by shifting asset decisions away from short-term project costs (which benefit current Aucklanders disproportionately over rangatahi), towards total-cost-of-life evaluation of assets, which support providing assets with lower operating costs and avoiding carbon emissions locked in by design.

8.0 Kaitiakitanga

Supports kaitiakitanga outcomes in two ways:

1. by enabling built environment activities to improve environmental reporting and contribute to mātauranga Māori and

2. by more effective Māori engagement to apply this mātauranga through social, equity, and innovation categories of certification frameworks.

9.0 Effective Māori Participation

Equity, social and innovation categories built into sustainable asset ratings incentivises increased engagement with Māori alongside Te Aranga Design Principles.

10.0 An Empowered Organisation

Climate change is affecting the cultural landscape in a way which makes natural resources less accessible to Māori in Tamaki Makaurau. The Standard approach acknowledges the relationship between te Tiriti and improving the sustainability of public assets to enable our workforce to deliver the Māori outcome of protecting natural taonga for future generations of Tamaki Makaurau.

Te Aranga Design Principles

30. Measuring CF’s assets’ environmental performance supports the Te Aranga Design principle of Mauri Tu to protect, maintain and enhance the environment. Tools with a particular emphasis on place and the cultural relationships with land underscore the principles of Tohu and Ahi Kā, where cultural landmarks and heritage are designed into projects and enhance sense of place relationships.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A four per cent^{^[7]} cost increase is forecast for 30 capital projects to be certified under the Standard over the next ten years. This increase totals $14.5 million on top of the existing allocated budgets for these 30 projects. Funding will be sought through the Long-term Plan climate lane corporate emissions package, at a future Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

32. The proposal makes provision for an additional $180,000 of asset-based service operational expense for tools development. This cost will be met by existing Operational Expenditure (OpEx) as part of the continuous improvement of CF business performance over the next three years, subject to change and approval as part of the Long-term Plan approval process and finalisation of the Capital Expenditure (CapEx) and OpEx budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. As the earliest adopter of green buildings and sustainable infrastructure at scale in Aotearoa, Auckland Council will face higher risks to implementation than those organisations which follow.

34. Mitigation of these risks has been embedded in the delivery plan of the Standard by investing in change management to address industry maturity and staff capability.

35. Major risks have been identified and addressed during the strategic assessment phase of the Standard’s project governance, including risks of inaction should the Standard not be implemented. Through this assessment, the reputational, financial, legal, and business risks were found to outweigh the risks of early adoption.

36. Because the Standard is using project governance to deliver the change management, further risk management is iterative and will be further defined through the business case phase with the project team’s risk management plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Formal local board feedback will be included in the proposal to the Governing Body when requesting the adoption of the Standard as regional policy. The report will be put to the Governing Body in the first week of December 2020. For those business meetings occurring after the reporting deadline, this feedback will be made available to Governing Body separate to the report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Policy	179

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toto Vu-Duc - Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Specialist, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy – Acting General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Panuku Development Auckland six-monthly update to Howick Local Board 1 March to 31 August 2020

File No.: CP2020/14203

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Howick Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area and the region for the six months from 1 March to 31 August 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report is a record of events for the Howick Local Board area during the stated time period. Council-controlled Organisation’s (CCOs) are legally required to prepare six-monthly and annual reports containing financial and other information about their performance. This report enables the council, and Panuku, to meet its legislative reporting obligations and also satisfy New Zealand Stock Exchange obligations. No decisions are to be made from this report.

3. The Auckland Plan sets out, among other things, reporting requirements (statutory or otherwise), audit and risk reporting requirements, attendance at council meetings, and the process for buying, managing and selling assets.

4. Panuku collaborates with other CCOs, government and non-governmental organisations as appropriate to obtain positive outcomes for Auckland.

5. Panuku is charged with balancing our obligation to deliver returns for council with ensuring our regeneration projects are good quality, strategic and better for the environment.

6. The activities of Panuku cover four broad areas:

a) urban regeneration of particular neighbourhoods, as determined by Auckland Council

b) review of, and where appropriate, redevelopment of council non-service property

c) management of council property assets including commercial, residential, and marina infrastructure

d) other property related services such as service property optimisation (such as redevelopment incorporating a service delivery function), strategic property advice, acquisitions and disposals.

7. The Auckland Council Group (‘the council group’) is made up of Auckland Council, and five substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs) of which Panuku is one. Panuku delivers core activities and plays a major role in achieving the council group’s strategic outcomes for Tāmaki Makaurau. The Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs sets out the council’s expectations for CCOs including Panuku, and the key policies that guide our activities.

8. Panuku has supported Auckland Council throughout its response to COVID-19 and continues to do so.

9. Throughout the Alert Level 4 lockdown, our primary focus was to support our tenants and find savings across our organisation.

10. Our capital programme delivery was impacted by the Alert Level 4 lockdown, however, this resumed on the return to Alert Level 3, with only minor delays across our capital programme as a result.

11. Like Auckland Council, Panuku has made savings, with the majority of our people earning over $100,000, our executive leaders and our board taking voluntary salary reductions.

12. To respond to the changing property market and the impacts of COVID-19 on the Auckland Council group we confirmed a new organisational structure to deliver our programme.

13. We have supported Auckland Council through the Emergency Budget 2020/2021. Our capital envelope for this financial year will allow us to deliver a credible urban regeneration programme in our neighbourhoods across the region.

14. Panuku currently manages the Unlock Ormiston programme, which falls within the Howick Local Board area.

15. Panuku currently manages 228 commercial and residential interests in the Howick Local Board area.

16. One property was purchased in the Howick Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

17. No properties were sold in the Howick Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

18. Eighteen properties in the Howick Local Board area are currently under review as part of our rationalisation process. No new properties were approved for disposal during this reporting period. Several were approved by the Governing Body in the next six-monthly reporting period (commencing September 2020) under the COVID-19 Emergency Budget 2020/2021 measures.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the update from Panuku Development Auckland for the period 1 March to 31 August 2020.

Horopaki

Context

19. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

20. The Auckland Plan is the roadmap to deliver on Auckland’s vision to be a world-class city, Panuku plays a significant role in achieving the ‘Homes and Places’ and ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcomes.

21. Panuku leads urban redevelopment in Manukau, Onehunga, Wynyard Quarter, Waterfront, Northcote, Avondale, Takapuna, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Ormiston, Panmure, Pukekohe, the City Centre and redevelopment of the Haumaru Portfolio.

22. Panuku manages around $3 billion of council’s non-service property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others. ‘Non-service properties’ are council-owned properties that are not used to deliver council, or CCO, services.

23. As of 31 August 2020, the Panuku-managed non-service property portfolio comprises 1674 properties, containing 998 leases. This includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately fifty region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

25. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery, to achieve high value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

26. Below is a high-level update on activities in the Howick Local Board area:

Unlock Ormiston

27. As at March 2020 the construction and leasing of the Todd Property Town Centre Blocks (E, F and J) in the Ormiston Town Centre is progressing to programme.

28. Auckland Council’s Community Facilities confirmed that Block B2 is surplus to its requirements. The site had previously been allocated for an aquatic centre, which will now be located in Barry Curtis Park (subject to funding).

29. Panuku will progress council approvals to dispose of Block B2 following confirmation that it is surplus to requirements.

30. The Community Facilities team commenced design work on the library/ community centre (Block K) in March, however, funding priorities have been impacted by COVID-19, resulting in the design phase for this project being delayed and the project has been put on hold. Given this delay, council development of this land will not take place for some time. Initially due for completion by end of 2020, this is now due for completion December 2023.

31. With the delay to construction of the library/ community centre, Todd Property has requested assistance from Panuku. Until project funding is available, Panuku will work with Todd Property to explore the possibility of interim placemaking on this site to support and coincide with the opening of the town centre.

32. The scope of the programme has been expanded to include two sites from the Ormiston programme, being Lots 3, 4 & 5, 187 Flat Bush School Road. The associated budgets, benefits and milestones for this programme will be re-forecast to take into account the impact of COVID-19 once it is fully understood.

187 Flat Bush School Road Lots 3, 4 and 5:

33. Lot 3 was previously sold (December 2019) to facilitate residential housing development. The agreement provided for the completion of the development by December 2024.

34. Negotiations are continuing regarding the requirement for an esplanade reserve which was not identified when the subdivision was completed.

35. Lot 4 & 5 sale terms have been agreed with Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) for these sites, the Board approved this transaction at its April 2020 meeting.

36. Development on these sites will be delivered by Fletcher Living, in line with the development agreement with MHUD. On 22 July 2020, the Minister of Finance and Minister of Housing signed off on the site.

37. Auckland Council’s Parks Team has commenced design work on the adjacent ‘ostrich farm site’ (159 Murphys Road and 231 Flat Bush School Road), which will be developed as playing fields. Panuku will coordinate the development of Lot 5. To ensure outcomes achieved are in line with the council’s resolution.

Business Interests

38. Panuku manage the commercial return for active sites with business interests on the council’s behalf. This currently includes the management of agreements over the following sites: one forestry, two landfills and two quarries.

39. There is currently one managed business interest in the Howick Local Board area, Green Mount Landfill.

Properties managed in the Howick Local Board area

40. Panuku currently manages 19 commercial and 209 residential interests within the Howick Local Board area.

Strategic Asset Optimisation

Service Property Optimisation

41. Service Property Optimisation is a self-funding development approach targeting sub-optimal service assets, approved in 2015. The process involves an agreement between Community Services, Panuku and local boards and is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing or urban regeneration, with no impact on existing rate assumptions.

42. Using service property optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased utility and efficiency, lower maintenance and operating costs, as well as improved service delivery benefiting from the co-location of other complementary services or commercial activities. Optimisation will free up a range of undercapitalised development opportunities such as air space, full sites, or part sites.

43. Using service property optimisation as a redevelopment and funding tool, the local board can maximise efficiencies from service assets while maintaining levels of service through the release of some or all of that property for sale or development.

44. Local boards are allocated decision making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds under the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

45. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets, including the identification of properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. This contributes towards Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget asset recycling target, as well as outcomes identified in the Long-term Plan, by providing the council with efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

46. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes for properties no longer required for a council service use. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades.

Process

47. Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and CCOs, the local board, mana whenua and the relevant ward councillor. The Finance and Performance Committee has the delegation to approve recommendations for disposal. Panuku works closely with Auckland Council business units, Auckland Council’s Finance team and Auckland Transport to identify and progress potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

Acquisitions and disposals

48. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other services. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

49. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Acquisitions

50. Panuku undertakes acquisitions for Auckland Council’s Parks team and Healthy Waters under delegation from council’s Chief Executive. Panuku does not unilaterally decide which properties to buy and when, but rather follows a directive to manage the commercial transactions following committee approval to purchase a particular property. A prerequisite of the committee resolution is reporting to the local board.

51. Panuku has purchased one property for open space across Auckland, in Flat Bush between March 2020 and August 2020 at a cost of $3.3 million.

52. One property has been purchased in the Howick Local Board area during the reporting period for open space.

Table One: Acquisitions in Howick Local Board area

Property	Details
Lot 406, 84 Thomas Road, Flat Bush	Purchased for creation of four recreational parks in the Flat Bush Stage 3 SHA.

Disposals

53. In the current reporting period from March 2020 to August 2020, the Panuku disposals team has entered into four sale and purchase agreements, with an estimated value of $5.4 million of unconditional net sales proceeds.

54. Panuku 2020/2021 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

55. Due to COVID-19, Auckland Council has set an Emergency Budget 2020/2021 and have made alterations to the disposals process to allow for funds to be released from assets held. The new process, which was adopted 30 July 2020 by the Governing Body means that property is approved for sale, unless there are reasons for it not to be, such as a requirement to retain for stormwater management.

56. No property has been sold in the Howick Local Board area during the reporting period.

Under review

57. Properties currently under review in the Howick Local Board area are listed below.

58. Subsequently, the Finance and Performance Committee has approved the sale of properties on 17 September 2020.

Table Two: Properties currently under review

Property	Details
65 Haddington Drive, Flatbush	This 7200m2 vacant site was originally intended for the proposed Flat Bush Aquatic and Leisure Centre. Council no longer requires it for this purpose as an alternative site (in Barry Curtis Park) has been selected. The site has subsequently been included in the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme schedule B. The local board supports disposal and has requested that sales proceeds be re-invested into the new aquatic centre. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
2R (part) Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach	An undeveloped 940m2 site subject to encroachments by an adjoining landowner. It is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The council will retain a six-metre wide strip of the site totalling approximately 370m2 in order to increase an adjacent access way to an eight-metre width. The remaining 570m2 area not required for open space network purposes is proposed for disposal as part of the council’s Emergency budget asset recycling programme Schedule B. The local board supports the disposal of the subject area. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
9R Fortyfoot Lane, Sunnyhills	This 2,426m2 site is not required as part of the open space network. It is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board does not support the disposal of the site, as it views it to be in the interests of the wider community. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
31 Aspiring Avenue & 17R Hilltop Road, Clover Park	This vacant site consists of three parts: 31 Aspiring Avenue; 17R Hilltop Road; and approximately 1600m2 of legal road. The combined total area of approximately 4,716m2 is not required for open space or transport infrastructure purposes. 17R Hilltop Road, Clover Park is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board does not support the disposal of the site, as it views it to be in the interests of the wider community. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
76R Aberfeldy Avenue, Highland Park	This 3,185m² site is not required as part of the open space network. It is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board does not support the disposal of the site, as it views it to be in the interests of the wider community. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
111R Golfland Drive, Howick	This 4634m² site is not required as part of the open space network. It is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board does not support the disposal of the site, as it views it to be in the interests of the wider community. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
80 Vincent Street, Howick	This 362m² at-grade car park was acquired by the former Howick Borough Council in 1965. The site is used primarily by neighbouring businesses for customer and staff car parking. No public work requirement has been identified for the site. In December 2017, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to retain the site after consideration of a Panuku disposal recommendation report. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board supports disposal subject to consideration of vehicle access to the site from the adjacent service lane. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
116R Reeves Road, Pakuranga Heights	The subject area recommended for disposal is approximately 551m². It is formed and utilised as car parking by the adjoining businesses and is not required for open space purposes. The balance of 116R Reeves Road located on the corner of Gossamer Drive and Reeves Road is being retained for open space purposes. 116R Reeves Road is a reserve for utility purposes and is subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board supports disposal subject to council departments being consulted regarding reduced parking. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
2R Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga	Two parcels totalling approximately 701m² that are part of a larger a 2.5192 hectare site. The parcels are located on either side of the privately-owned service station site at 141 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga. The parcels are local purpose utility reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The two subject parcels are formed as car parking and a service station forecourt. They do not provide council service use. The service station has built assets (fuel tanks) under both parcels, restricting potential future council development. This site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board supports disposal. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
20 (part) Uxbridge Road, Howick	A parcel of approximately 485m² of a larger 3,696m² site consisting of vacant land and car parking. Auckland Transport has advised that this parcel is not required for its transport or infrastructure requirements. The former Manukau City Council sold the airspace immediately above the subject parcel of land comprising 17.2 metres in height (being an area above 45.50 metres and below 59.70 metres) to an adjoining landowner and it was amalgamated into the adjoining owner’s title. Restrictive height covenants in place prevent any council service use of the subject approximately 485m2 area as the adjacent owner can proceed with its development in the airspace above the subject 485m2 area with appropriate supports going into the council-owned land. This would result in the council retaining a highly compromised portion of land. The site is included in Schedule B of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. The local board supports the disposal of the subject area. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.

59. The following properties were reviewed but disposal is not progressing

Table Three: Reviewed properties not progressing with disposal

Property	Details
107R Uxbridge Road, Cockle Bay	Reviewed but disposal is not progressing as the council's Healthy Waters department require retention for stormwater management purposes.
213R Fisher Parade, Sunnyhills	A disposal is not progressing as the size and configuration of this site requires purchaser interest from the adjoining landowners.
100R Uxbridge Road, Howick	Reviewed but disposal is not progressing as the council's Healthy Waters department require retention for stormwater management purposes.
1R Hutchinsons Road, Highland Park	This site was reviewed but potential disposal is not progressing as the council's Healthy Waters department require retention for stormwater management purposes.
28R Simon Owen Place, Howick	This 483m² triangular-shaped site is not required as part of the open space network. It is a reserve subject to Reserves Act 1977. The site was included in Schedule A of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme before local board engagement by Panuku. At its 16 July 2020 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the property. Panuku is undertaking a reserve revocation and plan change process before taking the site to market.
54R McCahill Views, Highland Park	A disposal is not progressing to allow the local board to explore options to better utilise this site.
16 Fencible Drive, Howick	A two-storey commercial property acquired by the former Howick Borough Council in 1975 for use as a public hall and library. The property was sold in 2001 and subsequently repurchased by the former Manukau City Council in 2008. This structurally unsound property is not available for leasing purposes. The rationalisation process commenced in early 2011. No public work requirement has been identified for the property. The property was included in Schedule A of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. At its 16 July 2020 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the property. The local board has previously provided informal advice that it supports disposal subject to suitable development outcomes in accordance with the Howick Village Centre Plan. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.
34 Moore Street, Howick	A vacant commercial property located on a 3754m² site. The property was acquired in the 1970s to accommodate the former Howick Borough Council offices. In 1995 the property was no longer required for this purpose and was leased out on a commercial basis. It has been vacant since 2016 and due to its age and condition requires extensive refurbishment. The building has significant structural and water tightness issues and due to its condition, it is not available for leasing purposes. No public work requirement has been identified for the property. The property was included in Schedule A of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. At its 16 July 2020 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the property. The local board has continued to oppose disposal since 2013. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of this property on 17 September 2020.

Housing for Older People - Haumaru Housing

60. The council owns 1452 units located in 63 villages across Auckland, which provide rental housing to low income older people in Auckland.

61. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involved Auckland Council partnering with a third-party organisation, The Selwyn Foundation, to deliver social rental housing services for older people across Auckland.

62. The joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing, took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

63. Haumaru Housing was granted community housing provider (CHP) status in April 2017. Having CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

64. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a new multi-year residential development programme.

65. The following Haumaru Housing villages are located within the Howick Local Board area:

Table Four: Haumaru Housing villages local within the Howick Local Board area

Village	Address	Number of units
Dale Court	33 Dale Crescent, Pakuranga	26
Marriott Court	3-5 Marriott Road, Pakuranga	8
Mattson Court	22 Mattson Road, Pakuranga	10
Minerva Court	3 Gibraltar Street, Howick	27

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66. The Panuku urban regeneration programmes support the regeneration of existing town centres while also addressing climate mitigation and adaptation.

67. Mitigation of climate change involves reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Our neighbourhoods are transport-oriented communities that utilise existing infrastructure and transport links and we seek to make local walking and cycling safe and viable alternatives to the private vehicle. Panuku has also adopted a Homestar-6 minimum standard to ensure we can reduce energy, water and landfill waste. We are working to adopt similar standards for our public realm and commercial developments, whilst also taking guidance from precinct sustainability rating tools like Green Star Communities.

68. Adaptation to climate change involves planning for the changes to our climate and associated impacts that are already happening or are projected to happen, including sea-level rise, hotter temperatures, extreme weather events, flooding and droughts. Climate change is likely to subject the Howick Local Board Area to hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding and drought. Panuku seeks to future-proof our communities by:

a) specifying that infrastructure and developments are designed to cope with warmer temperatures and extreme weather events

b) the use of green infrastructure and water sensitive design to increase flood resilience and provide ecological and biodiversity benefits

c) the provision of increased shade and shelter for storm events and hotter days

d) initiatives to build community resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

69. The views of the council group are incorporated on a project by project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

70. Any local or sub-regional impacts related to local activities are considered on a project by project basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

71. Panuku works collaboratively with mana whenua on a range of projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

72. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

74. There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75. The next six-month update is scheduled for March 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Perin Gerrand - Engagement Coordinator

Authorisers

Helga Sonier - Senior Engagement Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Panuku Development Auckland six-monthly update to Howick Local Board 1 September 2019 to 29 February 2020

File No.: CP2020/07985

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Howick Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area and the region for the six months from 1 September to 29 February 2020

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report is a record only, of events for the Howick Local Board area during the stated time period. Due to impacts of COVID-19 and related issues, the delivery of this report was delayed. Council-controlled Organisation’s (CCO) are legally required to prepare six-monthly and annual reports containing financial and other information about their performance. This report enables the council, and Panuku, to meet its legislative reporting obligations noting that as stated, the information is now outdated and a more recent report is also being tabled. No decisions are to be made from this report.

3. Panuku is charged with balancing financial and non-financial outcomes in order to create and manage sustainable and resilient places where people want to live, work, invest, learn and visit. The activities of Panuku cover four broad areas:

a) redevelopment of urban locations, leveraging off council owned land assets, mostly within existing suburbs

b) review of, and where appropriate, redevelopment of council non-service property

c) management of council property assets including commercial, residential, and marina infrastructure

d) other property related services such as redevelopment incorporating a service delivery function, strategic property advice, acquisitions and disposals.

4. Panuku Development Auckland currently manages 206 commercial and residential interests in the Howick Local Board area.

5. One property was purchased, in the Howick Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

6. One property was sold in the Howick Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

7. Four properties are currently under review as part of our rationalisation process.

8. Panuku leads a multi-year redevelopment programme of the council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) portfolio (Haumaru). There are four Haumaru villages in the Howick Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive the update from Panuku Development Auckland for the period 1 September 2019 to 29 February 2020.

Horopaki

Context

9. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

10. The Auckland Plan is the roadmap to deliver on Auckland’s vision to be a world class city, Panuku plays a significant role in achieving the ‘Homes and Places’ and ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcomes.

11. Panuku leads urban redevelopment in Manukau, Onehunga, Wynyard Quarter, Waterfront, Northcote, Avondale, Takapuna, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Ormiston and Flat Bush, Panmure, Pukekohe, City Centre and redevelopment of the Haumaru Portfolio.

12. Panuku manages around $3 billion of council’s non-service property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others. “Non-service properties” are council owned properties that are not used to deliver council, or Council-controlled Organisation (CCO), services.

13. As at 31 December 2019, the Panuku managed regional property portfolio comprises of 1674 properties, containing 1035 leases. This includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately fifty region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

15. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery, to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

16. Below is a high-level update on activities in the Howick Local Board area:

Unlock Ormiston

17. Ormiston Town Centre - The construction and leasing of the Todd Property Town Centre is progressing, due for completion at the end of this year- 2020.

18. Community Facilities have commenced design work on the Library / Community Centre, due for completion in December 2023. The Aquatic Centre has been confirmed to be located in Barry Curtis Park, subject to funding.

Howick’s old Library Building

19. Plans for the future of Howick’s old library building are being worked through with Auckland Transport currently. If the site is required for a bus layby as part of the Airport to Botany route, to address the concerns raised by the RSA, Panuku will arrange the careful removal of the plaque and its return to the RSA.

Properties managed in the Howick Local Board Area

20. Panuku currently manages 34 commercial and 172 residential interests within the local board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

21. Optimisation is a self-funding development approach targeting sub-optimal service assets approved in 2015. The process involves an agreement between Community Facilities, Panuku and local boards and is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing or urban regeneration with no impact on existing rate assumptions.

22. Using optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased utility and efficiency, lower maintenance and operating costs, as well as improved service delivery benefiting from co-location of other complimentary services or commercial activities. Optimisation will free up a range of undercapitalised development opportunities such as air space, full sites, or part sites.

23. Using optimisation as a redevelopment and funding tool, the Local Board can maximise efficiencies from service assets while maintaining levels of service through the release of some or all of that property for sale or development.

24. Local boards are allocated decision making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds in accordance with the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

25. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes.

26. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

27. Panuku works closely with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to identify potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

Table One: Target for July 2018 to June 2019

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$30 million disposal ‘recommendations’	$30.4 million disposal recommendations

Table Two: July 2019 to June 2021 Target

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$45 million disposal recommendations	$20 million disposal recommendations as at 23 February 2020

Process

28. Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with the local ward councillors, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Acquisitions and disposals

29. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other services. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

30. Panuku does not decide which properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of the council.

31. Panuku has purchased eight properties for open space across Auckland in the time period between October 2019 and April 2020 at a cost of $31.5 million.

32. One property has been purchased in the Howick Local Board area during the reporting period for open space.

33. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Disposals

34. In the reporting period between October 2019 and April 2020, the Panuku disposals team has entered into seven sale and purchase agreements, with an estimated value of $7.5 million of unconditional net sales proceeds.

35. Panuku 2019/2020 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

36. One property has been sold in the Howick Local Board area during the reporting period (187 Flat Bush School Road- Lot 51, Flat Bush).

Under review

37. Properties currently under review in the Howick Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body.

Table Three: Properties under review

Property	Details
16 Fencible Drive, Howick	The rationalisation process commenced in early 2011. Through the internal consultation undertaken, Auckland Transport (AT) advised it required time to assess the property in conjunction with the adjoining AT managed off street car parks for future transport infrastructure requirements. The process was then put on hold in 2014 until completion of the Howick Village Centre Plan. Auckland Council’s Plans and Places team completed the Howick Village Centre Plan, which was adopted by the Howick Local Board in June 2017. AT subsequently completed its assessment of the property and advised Panuku in December 2019 that it is not required for part of the future local bus network. The internal consultation was undertaken in April 2020. No public work requirements for the property were identified. Local board engagement is scheduled to occur in the later part of 2020. This structurally unsound property is not available for leasing purposes.
34 Moore Street, Howick	In response to the Howick Local Board’s presentation, the council’s Finance and Performance Committee resolved at its November 2018 meeting to retain the property for 12 months to allow further future use investigations. Panuku is continuing to work with the council’s departments and engage with the board as part of the rationalisation process. The property is not available for leasing purposes.
2R (part) Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga	Two parcels beside the service station site at 141 Pakuranga Road. The subject parcels were vested with the former Manukau City Council in 1965 for the purpose of servicing of the Pakuranga Mall. The subject parcels are utility reserves, subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953. The internal consultation was undertaken in 2018. An expression of interest was received from council’s Chief Planning Office and Development Programme Office (DPO) requesting time to investigate the impacts of a disposal on the planned Pakuranga Plaza redevelopment, AMETI or council planning for the area (i.e. the town centre master plan). In late 2019, the DPO advised that the ongoing work should not prevent any disposal of the subject parcels. Local board engagement is scheduled to occur in the later part of 2020.
20 (part) Uxbridge Road, Howick	20 Uxbridge Road consists of car parking and a vacant land. A parcel of land of approximately 420-485m² area is proposed for disposal. Previously the former Manukau County Council sold an area of airspace above the subject area to an adjoining landowner and the airspace was amalgamated into the adjoining owner’s title. Consequently, any alternative use of the subject area, or development potential, is subject to restrictive covenants above the subject parcel of land. The internal consultation process commenced in March 2020. Local board engagement is scheduled to occur later in 2020.

Housing for Older People-Haumaru Housing

38. The council owns 1452 units located in 63 villages across Auckland, which provide rental housing to low income older people in Auckland.

39. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involved the council partnering with a third-party organisation, The Selwyn Foundation, to deliver social rental housing services for older people across Auckland.

40. The joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing, took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

41. Haumaru Housing was granted community housing provider (CHP) status in April 2017. Having CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

42. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a new multi-year residential development programme.

43. The following Haumaru Housing villages are located within the Howick Local Board area:

Table Four: Haumaru Housing villages

Village	Address	Number of units
Dale Court	33 Dale Crescent	26
Marriott Court	3R Marriott Road	8
Mattson Court	22 Mattson Road	10
Minerva Court	3 Gibraltar Street	27

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The Panuku Priority Location programmes support regeneration of existing town centres, developing underutilised sites within the urban area, close to transport links. Increasing the density of housing results in reduced carbon emissions through improved utilisation of existing infrastructure and transit-oriented development. The provision of easy, safe and attractive walking and cycling routes reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and enables low carbon lifestyles. Panuku has adopted a minimum standard of a Homestar 6 rating for all homes, resulting in warmer, drier and more energy efficient buildings.

45. Climate change increases the probability of hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding and drought in the Howick Local Board Area. Panuku seeks to future-proof our communities by:

a) specifying adaptation and resilience in the design of buildings and spaces.

b) specifying that infrastructure and developments are designed to cope with warmer temperatures and extreme weather events.

c) use of green infrastructure and water sensitive design for increased flood resilience, ecological and biodiversity benefits

d) provision of increased shade and shelter for storm events and hotter days.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46. The views of the council group are incorporated on a project by project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

47. Any local or sub-regional impacts related to local activities are considered on a project by project basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. Panuku work collaboratively with mana whenua on a range of projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

49. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. The next six-monthly update is scheduled for October 2020, this has been delayed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Perin Gerrand - Engagement Coordinator

Authorisers

Helga Sonier - Senior Engagement Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Approval for a new private road name at 19-25 Gracechurch Drive, Flat Bush, and a road name extension for Hermitage Street, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2020/16267

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Howick Local Board to:

a) name a new private road, being a right of way, created by way of a subdivision at 19-25 Gracechurch Drive, Flat Bush, and

b) extend the existing road name ‘Hermitage Street’ onto a new section of that road.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Gracechurch Drive:

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

3. The development at 19-25 Gracechurch Drive, Flat Bush, was originally three lots that have now been subdivided into six lots. Each lot will contain a single dwelling. The new right of way serving the six lots does not trigger the requirement for a road name, however, the resource consent holder (applicant Susan Jiao) wishes to request a road name for this development.

4. These are two separate roads being completed by consultants McKenzie & Co Ltd on behalf of applicants Susan Jiao (Gracechurch Drive) and Murphys Development Ltd (Hermitage Street).

5. On behalf of the applicant, consultant Anuj Chaswal of McKenzie & Co Ltd has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board:

· Skyview Place

· Skyline Place

· Middlehill Lane

· Highett Lane.

6. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region. Engagement with mana whenua was also undertaken.

Hermitage Street:

7. The existing road named Hermitage Street has been extended by way of subdivision resource consent (references BUN60336501 and SUB60335802). Formal approval is required from the local board in order to extend the existing road name onto the newly created section of road.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) approve the name Skyview Place (applicant’s preferred name) for the new private road, being a right of way, created by way of subdivision at 19-25 Gracechurch Drive, Flat Bush, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference SUB60299790, MC_46682).

b) approve the road name extension for Hermitage Street, for the new section of public road extended by way of subdivision (resource consent references BUN60336501 and SUB60335802) in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

8. In relation to Gracechurch Drive, Resource consent reference SUB60299790 (MC_46682) and variation LUC60288842-A were issued in August 2018, to split three large existing lots into six lots, each to contain a single dwelling. A right of way was setup to serve these dwellings.

9. The National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard) does not require this right of way have a new road name, however the applicant would prefer to have a new road name for their development, and this does still require approval from the local board.

10. In relation to Hermitage Street, the extension of this road was approved by way of subdivision resource consent reference SUB60335802. Formal approval is required from the local board in order to extend the existing road name onto the newly created section of road, shown as Lot 100 on the approved plans.

11. Site and location plans of the two developments can be found in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Gracechurch Drive:

12. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 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.

13. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names try to reflect one of the following local themes:

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

· a local historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area; or

· an existing or introduced thematic identity in the area.

14. The applicant has proposed names that reflect the local landscape, specifically the topography of the development site and the surrounding area, as set out in the table below:

Table One: Proposed names and meanings

Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Skyview Place (Applicant preferred)	The development site is located at an elevation which provides beautiful views of the sky as you head up the driveway (right of way).
Skyline Place (First alternative)	At the top of the driveway (right of way) are beautiful views of the horizon and skyline.
Middlehill Lane (Second alternative)	A reference to the topography of the site and surrounds.
Highett Lane (Third alternative)	A reference to the topography of the site.

15. All the name options listed in this report have been assessed by the Auckland Council Subdivision team to ensure that they meet the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met, and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region, therefore it is up to the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context.

16. As the right of way does not technically require a road name but the applicant would like to use one anyway, and subject ‘road’ land will remain in private ownership, the proposed names are considered satisfactory in terms of the guideline requirements.

17. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use and not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

18. Road Types ‘Place’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable, suiting the form and layout of the private right of way, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

19. Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. The Guideline provides a process to enable mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications. Commentary on the feedback received in this situation is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Hermitage Street:

20. The extension of the road name Hermitage Street did not require any further assessment or consultation, as there are no other options other than to formally approve the road name extension.

21. The National Addressing Standards for road naming require that a continuous stretch of navigable road be given only one road name. As the extension of Hermitage Street extends the existing section of road into a longer continuous stretch of the same road, that will eventually connect onto Hodges Road, no other name can be applied to the newly extended section.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

Gracechurch Drive:

25. To aid local board decision making, the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines include a process to enable mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications. Depending on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

26. On 7 October 2020 mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process. Representatives of the following mana whenua groups with an interest in the local area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust)

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Tamaterā (Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Ngāti Whanaunga (Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated)

· Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua (Makaurau Marae Māori Trust)

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Te Patukirikiri (Te Patukirikiri Incorporated)

· Waikato – Tainui (Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated).

27. By the end of the agreed timeframe no responses, comments, or feedback were received. This is likely because the subject ‘road’ land will remain in private ownership, being a right of way over private land akin to a driveway that will only be used by residents and their visitors, as opposed to a public road or otherwise more accessible private road. Also, there are technically only three new lots here, so again the right of way does not require a road name although the applicant would like one.

28. Mana whenua only have limited resources to provide input into the resource consent and road naming process. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua and no Te Reo Māori names are proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

30. 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

31. There are no significant risks to the 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site and Location Plans	207

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Approval to correct the layout of McQuoids Road, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2020/16279

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Howick Local Board to rename a portion of McQuoids Road, Flat Bush in order to avoid the road having two branches at a new intersection with Ballinabreen Road, Flat Bush.

2. This change requires the Howick Local Board to rescind resolutions HW/2019/162 and HW/2020/59 in order for the approved name ‘Longhorn Drive’ to be moved from the south branch of McQuoids Road to the east branch instead, extending into the ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision to the east, so that McQuoids Road will continue straight at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Extensive new subdivisions in the Flat Bush area has resulted in numerous upgrades and redesigns along McQuoids Road. At a new intersection with Ballinabreen Road, McQuoids Road has been extended in two directions; the original road that curved east now takes a right-angle turn at the intersection connecting all the way into the neighbouring ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision, and an original driveway that ran south off McQuoids Road has been upgraded into a new straight section of public road.

4. One of the two newly extended branches of McQuoids Road must now be renamed to avoid navigation and addressing issues. The most logical solution would be to rename the east branch that takes a right-angle turn at the intersection, so that McQuoids Road will continue straight through the intersection to the south. This would be in accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (AS/NZS 4819-2011), which do not permit roads to have a right-angle turn unless the road name changes to demarcate the turn.

5. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (Guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the council for road names. The guidelines state that the renaming of roads is strongly discouraged unless there are compelling issues or reasons to support a change including redesigns of roads, changes in traffic flow, and mail or service delivery issues. The redesign and changes to McQuoids Road meet the criteria for renaming the east branch.

6. Most of the existing properties along the east branch of McQuoids Road have been, or are to be, replaced by new subdivisions. However, five properties were identified as being affected by this proposed road name change, and so those property owners were contacted. The impacts on those five owners versus the hundreds of new owners gradually purchasing newly subdivided lots along the affected roads needs to be weighted and considered, to prevent the addressing and layout issues getting worse.

7. Rather than find an entirely new name for the east branch of McQuoids Road, it is proposed to relocate the already approved name ‘Longhorn Drive’ (resolution HW/2019/162) from its paper-only location further south along McQuoids Road, because leaving that road name in that location will only exacerbate addressing issues once new dwellings are built there.

8. Relocating ‘Longhorn Drive’ would require the recission of resolutions HW/2019/162 and HW/2020/59, so that the name can extend all the way along the east branch of McQuoids Road into the neighbouring ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision. No ‘Bremner Ridge’ properties would be affected by this change as none have been constructed there yet, but construction will commence soon and addresses will need to be allocated for service provision.

9. Renaming the east branch of McQuoids Road as ‘Longhorn Drive’ is the preferred option because it will resolve the current road layout issues across several subdivision areas in accordance with the National Addressing Standards in the most time and cost-efficient way.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) rescind resolutions HW/2019/162 for the road name ‘Longhorn Drive’ and HW/2020/59 for the extension of McQuoids Road into the ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision, so that the name ‘Longhorn Drive’ can be relocated in order to improve the layout of McQuoids Road at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road.

b) approve a change in location for the road name ‘Longhorn Drive’, moving it from the south branch of McQuoids Road (under resolution HW/2019/162) to the east branch instead and thus replacing the name McQuoids Road in this location, so that McQuoids Road will continue straight at the new intersection with Ballinabreen Road heading south.

i) note the name ‘Longhorn Drive’ will not need to be replaced because McQuoids Road will be able to continue all the way south as a continuous stretch of road.

c) approve extension of the road name ‘Longhorn Drive’ into the ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision, where it was previously an extension of McQuoids Road (under resolution HW/2020/59), so that McQuoids Road no longer contains a right-angle turn at the new intersection with Ballinabreen Road.

Horopaki

Context

10. McQuoids Road was originally a rural road with a sharp bend to the east and a small shared driveway turning off the bend to the south serving three properties.

11. Due to extensive new development and subdivision along McQuoids Road, the old bend in the road has been converted into a new intersection and both the old eastern part of the road, and the shared driveway off the bend to the south, have been upgraded into public roads serving multiple new subdivision lots.

12. This upgrade and redesign of McQuoids Road has resulted in the road technically having two branches at the new intersection, one to the east and one to the south, therefore one branch requires renaming.

13. The most logical road layout is for McQuoids Road to continue straight at the new intersection, which would mean renaming the east branch, being the original part of McQuoids Road as opposed to the former driveway branch to the south.

14. Renaming the east branch is the preferred option because it currently requires a right-angle turn at the intersection, which is not in accordance with the National Addressing Standards.

15. In order to avoid the costly and lengthy new road naming process, the recission of resolutions HW/2019/162 and HW/2020/59 would allow for the already approved name ‘Longhorn Drive’ to be moved from a lower section on the south branch of McQuoids Road to the east branch instead, where it makes more logical sense and can extend into the ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision to the east, so that McQuoids Road can continue straight at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road heading south and not turn east at a right-angle.

16. The name ‘Longhorn Drive’ will not need to be replaced because McQuoids Road will be able to continue all the way south as a continuous stretch of road.

17. Site and location plans of the roads and development area can be found in Attachment A. Examples of the consultation letters sent out to affected property owners are also attached.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Policy

18. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (Guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that the renaming of roads is strongly discouraged unless there are compelling issues or reasons to support a change including redesigns of roads, changes in traffic flow, and mail or service delivery issues.

19. The redesign and changes to McQuoids Road meet the criteria for renaming because continuing to have two branches of McQuoids Road at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road is likely to cause future addressing issues, navigation issues and potential mail and service delivery issues.

20. Furthermore, the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standards) generally require that road names continue straight through intersections and that right-angle turns are not permitted. Therefore, McQuoids Road should not have a right-angle turn at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road and should instead continue straight through to the south.

21. The National Addressing Standards further support the relocation of ‘Longhorn Drive’, which will not need to be replaced because the McQuoids Road name will be able to continue south as a continuous stretch of road.

22. Land Information New Zealand, the administrators of the National Addressing Standards, were supportive of the proposed changes to improve the layout of the road, traffic flow, navigation, and wayfinding, and to avoid potential issues with future property address allocation.

23. As no new road names are proposed, consultation with the wider community and mana whenua was not required, only consultation with affected property owners as detailed below.

Logistics

24. As per the National Addressing Standards, it is more logical for McQuoids Road to continue south at the intersection with Ballinabreen Road, so the formerly approved name ‘Longhorn Drive’ should not be used in this location and could instead be moved to the east portion of McQuoids Road so that the right-angled intersection turn is clearly demarcated with a change in road name.

25. Relocating the already approved name ‘Longhorn Drive’ in this manner would also avoid the local board, property owners, and developers having to go through the road naming process again to rectify the right-angle turn of the McQuoids Road layout. It is more efficient to resolve the conflict now, considering that many of the new subdivisions leading onto the affected roads are nearing completion and will require new addresses to be allocated soon.

26. Both the south and the east branches of McQuoids Road have existing properties with McQuoids Road addresses, so some addresses will need to be changed with either solution.

Renaming process and consultation

27. The Guidelines state that for the renaming or alteration of an existing road name, evidence is required to show that 100 per cent of the owners of all properties that take their current addresses from that road have been consulted.

28. Most of the existing properties along the east branch of McQuoids Road have been, or are to be, replaced by new subdivisions. However, five properties were identified as being affected by this proposed road name change, as there were currently no approved plans on council records for redevelopment on these sites - although that does not preclude them from being replaced by future subdivision, and one of those properties was a vacant lot.

29. The five affected property owners were contacted by council staff twice, on 3 September and 6 October 2020, and sent letters via their registered addresses, as well as emails where email addresses were listed. No phone numbers were listed and only one ratepayer’s postal address was listed as the physical site address. After an open submission period of two months, no responses were received.

30. The owners of the surrounding subdivisions still under development are supportive of the proposed change because their developments are nearing completion and they will need accurate new addresses allocated soon. They would prefer clear and concise addresses rather than dealing with the potential confusion caused by the current arrangement of the McQuoids Road intersection.

Evaluation

31. The consultation letters and emails sent out to the five affected property owners clearly set out the situation; the reason for the proposed change, the problem with the current layout of the roads, potential issues in not proceeding with the change, and steps required in order to complete the proposed change, as well as clearly stating a submission period and full contact details for further enquiries (Attachment B).

32. While affected owners could still respond, the longer the current situation continues and the more the surrounding subdivisions are completed, the more likely it is that further addressing issues will arise if the current arrangement is not corrected. The dual road branch issue already affects three large subdivision areas.

33. With only one ratepayer’s address being listed as the physical site address, this indicates that the majority of the affected property owners do not reside on this section of McQuoids Road, so the impacts on those five owners versus the hundreds of potential new owners gradually purchasing newly subdivided lots needs to be considered.

34. One of the five affected properties was a vacant lot, so only four existing dwellings would need to have revised addresses if the proposed renaming is approved.

35. The extensive subdivision of the surrounding sites suggests that the affected properties will soon be developed, although it is unclear when, this might happen.

36. Undertaking a road name change once more new lots are sold to new owners will require significantly more addressing changes in the near future, particularly once the new ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision connection to the east is completed.

37. For the above reasons it is recommended that the proposed road renaming proceed now, so that the situation is not exacerbated.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. As no new road names are proposed, consultation with mana whenua was not undertaken in this instance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. The road renaming process does not raise any financial implications for the council, other than the cost of undertaking the consultation with the affected property owners and the affected subdivision development owners, which has already been absorbed by the resource consents department as part of the road renaming process.

43. Appropriate signage will be installed accordingly in collaboration with the affected owners and surrounding subdivision owners once approval is obtained for the revised road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The risk associated with any road renaming process is that affected property owners will object to the road name change. In this instance, five property owners have been identified along the east branch of McQuoids Road and they have been contacted. No comment has been received from those persons.

45. Notwithstanding, the longer the current situation continues and the more the surrounding subdivisions are completed the more likely it is that further addressing issues will arise if the McQuoids Road layout is not corrected. The dual road branch issue already affects three large subdivision areas.

46. That fact that only one ratepayer’s address was listed as the physical site address implies that the majority of the affected property owners do not reside on McQuoids Road themselves, so the impacts on those owners versus the hundreds of potential new owners gradually buying the newly subdivided lots needs to be weighted and considered.

47. The extensive subdivision of the surrounding sites suggests that the five affected properties may also be sold to developers soon, to connect the surrounding new subdivisions, although it is unclear if, and when, this might happen.

48. Nevertheless, undertaking this proposed road name change any later once more new lots are sold to new owners will mean that even more addressees will require changing in the near future, potentially affecting hundreds of addresses once the new ‘Bremner Ridge’ subdivision connecting to the east is also completed.

49. As one of the five affected properties was a vacant lot, currently only four existing dwellings would need to have revised addresses if the proposed renaming is approved now.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by local councils. All NZ maps are updated based on the information in this database.

51. The five affected property owners will also be contacted again, as well as the existing subdivision development owners and agents who are aware of this process, so that all parties will be informed of the changes.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site & Location Plans	215
b ⇩	Example of Letter sent to affected parties	219

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrea Muhme - Planner

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Approval for three new public road names at 259-271 Murphys Road, Flat Bush

File No.: CP2020/16369

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Howick Local Board to name three new public roads, created by way of a subdivision development at 259-271 Murphys Road, Flat Bush.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines 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. On behalf of the developer and applicant, Mayall Property Group, agent CKL Surveys Limited have proposed the names presented in the tables below for consideration by the Howick Local Board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met, and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region. Mana Whenua have also been consulted in accordance with the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

5. The proposed names for the new public roads at 259-271 Murphys Road, Flat Bush are:

Table One: The Applicant’s proposed names

Referance	Preferred by Applicant	First alternative	Second alternative
ROAD 1	Pigeonwood Place	Pararahi Drive	Da Silva Drive
ROAD 2	Shortfin Place	Omihi Way	Shorthorn Lane
ROAD 3	Wynnestead Drive	Pihi Avenue	Longfin Drive

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) approve three names for the following new roads at 259-271 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60333468 and SUB60333469):

i) ROAD 1: Pigeonwood Place (applicant preferred name)

ii) ROAD 2: Shortfin Place (applicant preferred name)

iii) ROAD 3: Wynnestead Drive (applicant preferred name).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60333468 (subdivision reference number SUB60333469) was issued in August 2018 for the construction of 198 units, three public roads, and 10 private roads.

7. As all the private roads will only serve as rear vehicle accessways, they do not require any road names and are therefore excluded from this report.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

· a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area;

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

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

11. The applicant engaged with the Howick Historical Village to help come up with themes and names that best reflected the site and local area. The themes are: the local landscape and environment, such as local flora and fauna; the history of the Flat Bush area; as well as names that have significant meaning to the applicant. Two names suggested by the Howick Historical Village have also been included.

12. It is noted that ‘Da Silva Drive’ is named after the applicant who is still living. Although the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines do not prohibit the names of living people, it does state that they should be avoided as community attitudes and opinions can change over time. Notwithstanding, the applicant wishes to proceed with this name as an alternative.

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

Table Two: The Applicant’s proposed names and meanings

Road number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

ROAD 1

Pigeonwood Place

(Applicant preferred)

A New Zealand native tree species found on the site. A favourite fruit of the native pigeon, kereru

Pararahi Drive

(First alternative)

Māori word meaning flat

This not only relates to the Flat Bush area, but to the relatively flat topography of the site

Da Silva Drive

(Second alternative)

Developer’s surname

ROAD 2

Shortfin Place

(Applicant preferred)

The shortfin eel is commonly found in Auckland’s streams and creeks, including the Otara Stream, which runs through the site

Omihi Way

(First alternative)

Māori word meaning place of greeting

The development will be a welcoming and homely place for the community to live

Shorthorn Lane

(Second alternative)

The name of the common cow used in the area in the 1800s that was used to pull equipment and that gave milk with good cream content

Name suggested by the Howick Historical Village

ROAD 3

Wynnestead Drive

(Applicant preferred)

Refers to the Wynnestead farm which was where the most well-known commercial product from this area, the ‘Highlander’ condensed milk, was produced. Production was eventually moved to Invercargill after outgrowing Wynnestead Farm

Name suggested by the Howick Historical Village

Pihi Avenue

(First alternative)

Māori word meaning ‘to spring up, begin to grow’

Applicable to the fast-growing development throughout the Flat Bush area

Longfin Drive

(Second alternative)

The longfin eel is one of the largest eels in the world and commonly found in Auckland’s streams and creeks, including the Otara Stream, which runs through the site

14. All the name options listed in this report have been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming.

15. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use and not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

16. The proposed road types are acceptable for the new public roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

17. Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. Road naming is an opportunity to recognise Maori cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land. The Guideline provides a process to enable mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications. Commentary on the feedback received in this situation is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. 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

21. To aid local board decision making, the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, as well as a process to enable mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications. Depending on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

22. Mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process. Representatives of the following mana whenua groups with an interest in the local area were contacted: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngāti Paoa Trust Board, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Te Ahiwaru - Waiohua, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Patukirikiri, and Waikato - Tainui.

23. Te Ahiwaru Waiohua deferred to Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, who in turn did not respond.

24. No other iwi provided responses or comments or suggested any other road name options.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

26. 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

27. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan	225
b ⇩	Location map	227

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Stockade Hill and Christmas Lights Event 2020

File No.: CP2020/16300

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the allocation of additional funds to the Stockade Hill Christmas Lights event budget.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have identified a discrepancy in the current allocated 2020/2021 work programme for the Stockade Hill Christmas Lights event budget against the total costs of delivering the event.

3. The event is included in the arts, community and events work programme 2020/2021 with an allocated budget of $17,500.

4. This budget includes the delivery operations for the Stockade Hill Christmas Lights event and the Mainstreet Christmas lights, which are for another event delivered by the Howick Village Business Association that occurs on the same day.

5. The Howick Village Business Association (HVBA) have advised that they do not require the mainstreet lights this year for their event.

6. In the 2019/2020 financial year, Community Facilities was allocated $10,000 for the Christmas tree lights, which is the main focus of the Stockade Hill Christmas Lights event. This allocation has not been included in the Community Facilities work programme 2020-2023.

7. Therefore, the budget required for the Christmas tree lights will need to be taken from the existing budget for the event. This means that there will not be enough remaining budget to deliver the event at previous service levels.

8. Staff recommend that the local board allocate additional budget to the events work programme to maintain previous service delivery levels.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of $2000 to the Stockade Hill and Mainstreet Lights Event activity from the Community Response Fund activity in the work programme 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Stockade Hill Lights event (the event) is held annually and delivered by council’s events team for the community to celebrate the start of the Christmas season, including entertainment and lighting of a Christmas tree.

10. The event is scheduled to be delivered on 20 November 2020 and in previous years has been attended by approximately 2500 to 3000 people.

11. In the 2019/2020 financial year, a budget of $10,000 for the lights to be installed on the Christmas tree for the event was held by Community Facilities. The event delivery allocation of $12,000 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget was held by the events work programme.

12. In September 2019, the local board resolved to add an additional $5500 to the event budget to cover the cost of installing 13 Christmas lights in the Mainstreet (HW/2019/129). This occurred because there was an additional event delivered by the Howick Village Business Association (HVBA), Midnight Madness, which was held on the same evening.

13. In 2019, the two events were delivered on the same evening and were designed to complement each other. After attending the Stockade Hill Lights event, attendees then walked to the neighbouring town centre for Midnight Madness, where they could enjoy the Mainstreet lights and the local shops stayed open until midnight.

14. This year, the HVBA have advised that they are holding the Midnight Madness event earlier in the day and calling it Howick Village Christmas Fair. Therefore, they want banners to be installed instead of lights in Mainstreet and already have a budget for the banners.

15. The event is included in the arts, community and events work programme 2020/2021 with an allocated events budget of $17,500, which includes the event delivery operations and the mainstreet Christmas lights.

16. An agreement has been reached between the local board and the HVBA that there will be a combination of banners and lights. This means that there will be ten lights installed this year, rather than 13 which have been installed in previous years. This will result in a reduction of budget required for the mainstreet lights.

17. The Community Facilities work programme 2020-2023 does not include an allocated budget for the Christmas tree lights. Therefore, staff have identified a discrepancy in the current allocated budget against the total costs of delivering the event.

18. Table One shows the previous 2019/2020 event budget allocations.

Table One: 2019/2020 event budget allocations

Activity	Budget	Budget holder
Event delivery	$12,000	Events
Christmas tree lights	$10,000	Community Facilities
Mainstreet lights (13 lights)	$5500	Events

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. Staff have identified three options of how to address the current budget discrepancy for the event.

20. Staff recommend that any additional budget can be allocated from the local board’s Community Response Fund, which is intended to respond to community needs as they occur throughout the financial year.

21. Option one requires no additional budget.

22. Table Two shows the budget and implications of option one.

Table Two: Budget and implications of option one

Activity	Total budget	Additional budget required	Implications
Event delivery	$7500	$0	Event is delivered at reduced levels to previous years because some of the delivery budget is required for the installation of the Christmas tree lights, which is a fixed cost. The reduced budget would impact the stage programming
Christmas tree lights	$10,000	$0	The Christmas tree would be illuminated as previous years. This is the main focus of the event
Mainstreet lights	$0	$0	There would be no lights on Mainstreet. However, there will be banners. This is the preference of the HVBA.

23. Option two requires an additional budget of $2000 towards event delivery (recommended).

24. Table Three shows the budget and implications of option two.

Table Three: Budget and implications of option two

Activity	Total budget	Additional budget required	Implications
Event delivery	$9500	$2000	Event is delivered at previous levels including full stage programming
Christmas tree lights	$10,000	$0	The Christmas tree would be illuminated as previous years. This is the main focus of the event.
Mainstreet lights	$0	$0	There would be no lights on Mainstreet. However, there will be banners. This is the preference of the HVBA.

25. Option three requires an additional budget of $7000 towards event delivery and the Mainstreet lights.

26. Table Four shows the budget and implications of option three.

Table Four: Budget and implications of option three

Activity	Total budget	Additional budget required	Implications
Event delivery	$9500	$2000	Event is delivered at previous levels including full stage programming
Christmas tree lights	$10,000	$0	The Christmas tree would be illuminated as previous years. This is the main focus of the event.
Mainstreet lights	$5000	$5000	There will be 10 lights installed on Mainstreet, which will respond to the agreement between the local board and the HVBA that there will be a combination of banners and lights. This is not the HVBA’s preferred option.

27. Staff recommend option two because it allows the Christmas tree to be illuminated, which is the main focus of the event, whilst the stage programming can also be delivered at the same levels as previous years and therefore meeting community expectations.

28. Staff recommend an option which does not include allocating additional budget for Mainstreet lighting because the event held in Mainstreet has changed from a night to daytime event and the organisers have advised that banners would be more appropriate than lights. This option also retains more Community Response Fund budget for the local board to respond to community needs through the remainder of the financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. Option two, which is recommended by staff, would result in not installing lights in Mainstreet this year, which would reduce the carbon footprint of the event because of the power required to illuminate the lights and the travel required by the contractor to install them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. In the 2019/2020 financial year, Community Facilities held the budget for the Christmas tree lights. This activity is not included in the Community Facilities work programme 2020-2023, therefore, responsibility for the budget has moved to Events which sits within the community services work programme.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. The event responds to outcome one of the 2020 Local Board Plan – People in our communities feel safe, engaged and connected.

32. The event is funded by the local board and is attended annually by 2500 to 3000 people from the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Auckland Council’s Events Policy provides the framework for all local board funded events. This includes supporting the following guiding principle in the policy:

· Valuing Matauranga Māori means building and maintaining respectful relationships with Māori when we design, plan and deliver events.

34. In the local board area, 5.7 per cent of the population identify as Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. The community response fund has a balance of $105,000 as at the end of October 2020. A $2000 allocation will reduce this fund to $103,000.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. If the local board does not allocate any additional budget to the event then there is a risk that it will be delivered at a reduced service level, which will not meet the community expectations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. The event will be delivered on 20 November 2020 and staff will present an event debrief with the local board on 10 December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kaiya Irvine – Senior Event Organiser

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

16 November 2020

Addition to the 2019-2022 Howick Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2020/16325

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for three meeting dates to be added and/or replaced to the 2019-2022 Howick Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the 10-Year Budget 2021 - 2031 timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Howick Local Board adopted the 2016-2019 meeting schedule on 9 December 2019.

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 were unknown.

4. The local board is being asked to approve three meeting dates as an addition and/or replacement to the Howick Local Board meeting schedule so that the modified 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) approve the replacement and/or addition of three meeting dates to the 2019-2022 Howick Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes as follows:

i) Thursday, 3 December 2020 at 5.00pm to replace the scheduled meeting that was to be held on 7 December 2020

ii) Thursday, 6 May 2021 at 4.00pm

iii) Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 4.00pm to replace the scheduled meeting that was to be held on 21 June 2021.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

a) clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

b) sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7. The Howick Local Board adopted its 2019-2022 business meeting schedule at its 9 December 2019 meeting.

8. The timeframes for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement which is part of the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early-December, early-May and mid-June to feed into the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The local board has two choices:

i) add the meetings as additions or replacements to the meeting schedule or;

iv) add the meetings as extraordinary meetings.

11. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled anyway.

12. For option two, only the specific topic 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process could be considered at this meeting.

13. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option one, approving this meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule, as it allows more flexibility for the local board to consider a range of issues. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. If the local board decides not to add this meeting to their schedule this will cause a delay to the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process, which would result in the input of this local board not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration and inclusion in the Budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Corlett - Advisor Plans & Programmes

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

[1] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 15(2)(c)

[2] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss15-16.

[3] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Part 1A, clause 36D.

[5] Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017, Independent Māori Statutory Board

[6] 2014 C40 Green Building City Market Briefs Compendium. C40 is a global network of leadership cities taking action to address climate change. Auckland is a member of this network.

[7] A 4.44 per cent premium was applied to those projects meeting certification thresholds for delivery between 2021-2029. This percentage was based on findings from a 2005 study by the Ministry for the Environment which found sustainable building features to cost an average of two to six per cent more than capital costs for Standard buildings.

Chairperson	Adele White
Deputy Chairperson	John Spiller
Members	Katrina Bungard
	Bo Burns
	David Collings
	Bruce Kendall
	Mike Turinsky
	Bob Wichman
	Peter Young, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop record 1 October 2020	245
b ⇩	Workshop record 8 October 2020	247
c ⇩	Workshop record 15 October 2020	249
d ⇩	Workshop record 22 October 2020	251
e ⇩	Workshop record 29 October 2020	253

Author	Vanessa Phillips - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager