Agenda of Papakura Local Board

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - Papakura Business Association 5

8.2 Deputation - Sea Cleaners 6

8.3 Deputation - Mafutaga Samoa Papakura 6

8.4 Deputation - Southern District Chinese Association 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Governing Body Member's Update 9

12 Chairperson's Update 11

13 November 2020: Auckland Transport monthly update to the Papakura Local Board 13

14 Papakura Youth Scholarships 2020/2021 19

15 New community leases for Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated at Massey Park, 2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura and The Scout Association of New Zealand (1st Papakura Scouts), at Ray Small Park, 50 Queen Street, Papakura 33

16 Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard 47

17 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 55

18 Local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct 65

19 For Information: Reports referred to the Papakura Local Board 71

20 Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2019-2022 Political Term 73

21 Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2020 83

22 Papakura Local Board Workshop Records 89

23 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) confirm the minutes of its additional meeting, held on Wednesday 11 November 2020, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Papakura Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation - Papakura Business Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tracy Shackleton, Town Centre Manager from the Papakura Business Association, will present on the recent activities of the business association.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Tracy Shackleton, from the Papakura Business Association, for her presentation on the activities of the business association.

8.2 Deputation - Sea Cleaners

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Captain Hayden Smith, founding trustee of Sea Cleaners, and Director of Haydens Harbour Clean Ltd, will present on the work of Sea Cleaners.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Hayden Smith from Sea Cleaners, for his presentation on the activities of Sea Cleaners.

8.3 Deputation - Mafutaga Samoa Papakura

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Teleiai Edwin Puni, from Mafutaga Samoa Papakura, will present on the work of Mafutaga Samoa Papakura.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Teleiai Edwin Puni, from Mafutaga Samoa Papakura, for his presentation on the work of Mafutaga Samoa Papakura.

8.4 Deputation - Southern District Chinese Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Yu Yongming, from the Southern District Chinese Association, will present on the activities of the group.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) thank Yu Yongming, from the Southern District Chinese Association, for her presentation on the activities of the group.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

November 2020: Auckland Transport monthly update to the Papakura Local Board

File No.: CP2020/15931

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. An update for the Papakura Local Board about transport related matters in their area, including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. No decision is required this month. This report contains information about the following:

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and Community Safety Fund.

· Auckland Transport (AT) local and regional projects and activities including;

- Freight Strategy

- Impact of Covid on Passenger Transport

- Settlement Road

- Future Connect

- Pararekau Road construction.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

3. This report addresses transport-related matters in the board’s area and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and Community Safety Fund projects.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

6. With the Auckland Council’s emergency budget now confirmed, the LBTCF for the 2020/2021 Financial Year has been set at $5,000,000 for allocation across the 21 Local Boards. Allocation will still be based on the Local Board Funding Policy. Decisions about the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 Financial Years will form part of the Long-Term Plan/Regional Land Transport Plan discussions but early indications are that these years will also see a more constrained capital programme, than prior to the COVID crisis.

7. Advice from the AT Finance Department set the following criteria for the fund following the setting of the Emergency Budget:

· The $5,000,000 for 2020/21 will be split using the Local Board Funding Policy

· A significant proportion of the $5,000,000 has already been to committed to projects in progress.

· Currently, with budgets unknown for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 boards are unable to combine future years allocations into a single project.

· Boards are encouraged to target delivery of smaller projects or complete design and documentation for a project that can be physically delivered in 2021/2022.

8. The Papakura Local Board’s share of the 2021/2022 allocation is $173,955, however of that $90,000 is committed to existing construction and installation, leaving $83,995 to be allocated in the 2020/2021 financial year.

9. Auckland Council has appointed a new project team to explore options for progressing the pathway projects 12 and 13, in the current constrained financial situation due to Covid-19. These options were workshopped with the board on 21 October 2020.

10. As follow up to the workshop, staff have met with AT finance staff and NZTA to progress the project, particularly with regard to future funding.

11. A report on these options will go to the board’s December 2020 meeting.

12. At its meeting on Wednesday 28 October 2020 the board resolved;

“ b) express on-going disappointment at the treatment of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) as this fund was created by a policy decision of the Governing Body which ring-fenced funding, regardless of cashflow variation, for local board allocation across the electoral term

c) disputes a deduction of $90,000 in the local board’s ability to allocate LBTCF this financial year, as this project was already committed and scheduled to be contracted and completed well before the Emergency Budget was adopted”.

13. Following an assessment of the impact of the Covid 19 outbreak, Auckland Council produced a revised Emergency Budget. This was to reflect the significant reduction in revenue, and consequently a reduction in expenditure. Both operational and capital expenditure was impacted in Council and its CCOs. The Local Board Capital Fund was reduced to a quarter of the normal budget.

14. Once these decisions were made by Council all local board members were advised at a number of forums and the issue was reported to all boards, including Papakura.

15. As previously advised, the resolution is incorrect in that the LBTCF is allocated by Council annually, not “for allocation across the electoral term”. This is important in the context of the Emergency Budget implications.

16. Again, as previously advised, the Central Park Pathway project is an Auckland Council (AC) project that the Papakura Local the Board resolved to fund through LBTCF. It is not being delivered or managed by AT. A funding agreement with Community Facilities was entered for them to deliver the project and for AT to pay on invoice as work is completed. AT is effectively only the “banker” for the project on behalf of the board. This resolution and any concerns over project delivery should therefore be directed to Auckland Council.

Community Safety Fund

17. The Community Safety Fund is funded from AT’s safety budget and is dependent on the level of funding AT receives from Auckland Council. This level of funding has been constrained through the Emergency Budget process.

18. Safety projects will be prioritised according to DSI (death and serious injury) data and therefore local board community safety projects will continue with planning and design but cannot be delivered in the 2020/2021 financial year.

19. Once the Auckland Council draft budget and annual plan have been adopted, AT will have an indication of available funds for the 2021/22 financial year. AT will report and update the board on progress toward delivering these projects, noting that the plan will not be adopted until July 2021.

Name	LB Current Status	Project Description	LB Update
Wood St pedestrian crossing	Design Phase	New raised zebra crossing	Detail design and safety audit completed. Resolution report prepared and to be submitted
Clevedon Rd pedestrian crossing	Design Phase	New raised zebra crossing	Detail design and safety audit completed. Resolution report prepared and to be submitted
Settlement Rd safety improvements	Design Phase	New speed table to reduce speed at intersection and reduce crossing distance for pedestrians	Detail design and safety audit completed. Resolution report prepared and to be submitted
Elliot St Haven	Design Phase	Installation of a new pram crossing, side islands and a concreted/paved cut through on the existing grass median.	Detail design and safety audit completed. Resolution report prepared and to be submitted

Future Connect

20. Future Connect will be AT’s long-term plan for Auckland’s future integrated transport system. It maps Auckland’s Strategic Networks, the most critical links of our current and future transport system and will ultimately set a 30-year vision for all modes: public transport, general traffic, freight, cycle and walking.

21. Strategic Networks have been investigated to surface critical problems, opportunities and focus areas. This will help inform the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan (our 10-year investment programme) and will guide future planning and investment.

22. Future Connect was introduced to Local Board Chairs at the 14 September Chairs Forum. In October and November, the project team will be available to talk to interested Local Boards and Transport Representatives. This will be an opportunity to provide a more detailed project overview, answer questions and seek local knowledge.

23. The board will have an opportunity to give feedback on the Future Connect draft document early in the new year.

Freight Strategy

24. AT recently released a refresh of the strategic freight network (SFN). The SFN represents the most critical roads in Auckland for the movement of freight and where freight should be considered a modal priority (though not necessarily the only priority).

25. The SFN has been designed to:

· Link major areas of freight generation and attraction within the Auckland region, and to and from important locations outside the region.

· Minimise the impact of freight movement on the community.

· Provide roads and routes capable of accommodating the largest vehicles within normal legal limits.

· Offer convenient and reliable travel for freight between key locations.

26. In addition to the strategic routes, the SFN map also identifies the overweight and over dimension routes in the Auckland road network, as well as core freight areas. You can find more information at https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/auckland-freight-plan/

27. With Papakura close to the industrial area of Wiri to the north and impacted by the aggregate extraction from Hunua in the south, the strategy should help mitigate impacts of freight movements in residential Papakura. The Drury South development will also impact on Papakura.

Impact of Covid on Bus Patronage

28. Below is a region wide analysis of the impact of Covid on bus patronage.

Total boarding’s on all Auckland Transport buses
		2019	2020	2020 as a % of 2019
Last seven days of	February	1,606,551	1,651,739	102.8%
	May	1,526,450	699,561	45.8%
	September	1,504,566	815,392	54.2%
	October	1,375,811	1,016,059	73.9%

Local Updates

Settlement Road

25. The rehabilitation work on Settlement Road between Marne Road and Hunua Road is nearing completion. Members raised the state of the remainder of the road.

26. The maintenance programme has Settlement Road between Hunua Road and Kelvin Road scheduled for the 2022/2023 year. Noting that with the implications of Covid-19 on budgets for the upcoming years may change.

27. A further issue is the current state of Settlement Road between Hunua and Kelvin Roads is impacted by patches following work by utility companies. The Road Corridor team advises that it is often the case that subsidence occurs well after the work has been completed and inspected. When the subsidence becomes significant, maintenance is undertaken prior to the planned rehabilitation.

Pararekau Road Construction

17. The Pararekau Road construction went out for tender in mid-August 2020, with the successful contract being awarded in mid-October to Fulton Hogan.

18. Enabling works for construction began on 2 November 2020.

19. The next phase of the project is tree removal and that is currently underway. There was a slightly delay while boundaries were confirmed.

20. The next step is to begin is work on stormwater changes, which were dependent on the tree removal. This project is on track.

21. With the residential growth in the Hingaia area there are increasing issues with regard to vehicle speeds and conflicts between local traffic and commuter traffic. The board may wish to progress the potential for a study of the area between Hingaia Bridge and the motorway. This needs to include all feeder and side roads.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

23. 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

24. The impact of information (or decisions) in this report are confined to AT and do not impact on other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. The local board have been consulted on the following project(s) over the reporting period:

Auckland Transport Consultations

26. There were no consultations circulated to the local board during the October 2020 reporting period.

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

27. There were no decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Papakura Board area during the October 2020 reporting period.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. There are no specific impacts on Māori for this reporting period. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi-the Treaty of Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

29. Our Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to with 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them.

30. This plan in full 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

31. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. Our capital and operating budgets have been reduced following the announcement of the Emergency Budget. Some projects we had planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered, which will be disappointing to communities that we had already engaged with.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. AT will provide another update report to the board at the next meeting in December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager, Elected Member Relationship Unit

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

Papakura Youth Scholarships 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/17176

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Papakura Youth Scholarship recipients for 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff received seventeen applications to the 2020/2021 Papakura Youth Scholarships, requesting a total of $25,422.

3. The aim of the Papakura Youth Scholarships 2020/2021 is to support the development of local young people to develop and grow them as leaders.

4. Funding these scholarships will enable the young people to move into further education, training or attend events that will develop their leadership potential.

5. Staff have assessed the applications and recommend that twelve applications align with the scholarship criteria and these are recommended to be approved for funding, totalling $15,000.

6. Staff advise that five applications do not align with the scholarship criteria and are recommended to be declined for funding.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the following Papakura Youth Scholarship 2020/2021 applications:

Application ID	Requesting scholarship for	Recommended funding amount
PAPSCH20/2103	Course travel costs and course related expenses	$554
PAPSCH20/2104	Fees, course related costs and travel expenses	$1,000
PAPSCH20/2113	Course fees	$1,500
PAPSCH20/2117	Course fees and related costs and accommodation	$554
PAPSCH20/2120	Course fees and related costs and accommodation	$1,500
PAPSCH20/2125	Tools	$1,500
PAPSCH20/2126	Restricted license, tools	$1,492
PAPSCH20/2128	Course related costs	$1000
PAPSCH20/2130	Travel, laptop	$1500
PAPSCH20/2134	Course books, transport	$1,500
PAPSCH20/2135	Travel and course related costs	$1,400
PAPSCH20/2136	Travel and course related costs	$1,500
Total:		$15,000

b) decline the following Papakura Youth Scholarships 2020/2021 applications:

Application ID	Requesting scholarship for	Recommended funding amount
PAPSCH20/2101	Admin and course feeds, laptop and stationery	$0
PAPSCH20/2106	Travel, course fees, stationery, laptop	$0
PAPSCH20/2122	Tuition fees	$0
PAPSCH20/2123	Course fees	$0
PAPSCH20/2131	Course fees	$0

Horopaki

Context

7. The 2020/2021 Papakura Local Board Work Programme includes a budget of $15,000 for the Papakura Youth Scholarships 2020/2021 (the scholarships).

8. The local board sought applications that aligned with their priorities: to support rangatahi to develop and grow as leaders, foster Māori culture, help young people contribute, prosper and thrive, enable people to participate, celebrate and contribute to their local community and improve the overall wellbeing of Papakura.

9. The scholarships opened on 18 September 2020 and closed on 18 October 2020.

10. They were advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

11. A total of seventeen applications have been received for the scholarships and are provided in Attachment A to the agenda report. Twenty applications were commenced but unsubmitted.

12. The applications were assessed by a panel of six local board members and one youth council representative for their alignment to the following scholarship criteria:

· aged 14 to 24 years old

· in pursuit of academic excellence and trades

· enrolment in tertiary study or vocational training

· New Zealand citizens or residents

· reside in the Papakura Local Board area

· show leadership potential or have contributed to leadership/volunteer activities during the past 12 months that promote youth participation in the community

· will undertake study at a tertiary or training institution in 2021 or are participating in a conference or event in New Zealand that is significantly based on youth leadership and development.

13. Changes to the criteria for the 2020/2021 include council staff being ineligible to apply and the removal of overseas travel from the eligibility criteria due to COVID-19.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Staff have considered the recommendations of the assessment panel and recommend that the following 12 applications align with the scholarship criteria and are recommended to be approved for funding:

Application ID	Requesting scholarship for	Requested funding amount	Recommended funding amount	Reason for recommendation
PAPSCH20/2103	Course travel costs and course related expenses	$1,500	$554	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2104	Fees, course related costs and travel expenses	$1,000	$1,000	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2113	Course fees	$1,500	$1,500	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2117	Course fees and related costs and accommodation	$1,500	$554	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2120	Course fees and related costs and accommodation	$1,500	$1,500	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2125	Tools	$1,500	$1,500	Meets local board priorities and mostly aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2126	Restricted license, tools	$1,492	$1,492	Meets local board priorities and mostly aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2128	Course related costs	$1,000	$1,000	Meets local board priorities and mostly aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2130	Travel, laptop	$,1500	$1500	Meets local board priorities around regeneration and mostly aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2134	Course books, transport	$1,500	$1,500	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria however the application did not provide sufficient information to fund the full requested amount
PAPSCH20/2135	Travel and course related costs	$1,400	$1,400	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
PAPSCH20/2136	Travel and course related costs	$1,500	$1,500	Meets local board priorities and aligns with the scholarship criteria
Total		$16,892	$15,000

15. Funding these scholarships is intended to enable the young people to move into further education, training, or attend events that will develop their leadership potential. This will help to achieve educational aspirations identified in the local board plan with the hopes of growing young leaders in the community.

16. The number of applications received was down from the previous year. The age group that submitted the most applications was 18-year-olds while there was an equal amount of 17 and 20-year-olds with only one who was 19. There was one applicant who identified as Māori while seven identified as Pasifika. The remaining applicants were of New Zealand European descent and one of Chinese descent.

17. The majority of applicants were asking for support to fund their course fees and related costs, transport, and accommodation. There were some requests for equipment such as laptops which may be a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased focus on digital and online learning.

18. Twenty applications were unsubmitted, even with follow up from staff to provide support and advice. Reasons were varied ranging from different priorities to being unable to complete and submit the documentation in time. Staff will consider extending the deadlines for next year.

19. Staff recommend that the following five applications do not align with the scholarship criteria and are should be declined for funding:

Application ID	Requesting scholarship for	Requested funding amount	Recommended funding amount	Reason for recommendation
PAPSCH20/2101	Admin and course feeds, laptop and stationary	$1,030	$0	Low priority compared to other applications
PAPSCH20/2106	Travel, course fees, stationary, laptop	$2,000	$0	Does not align with scholarship criteria as does not live in the Papakura local board area
PAPSCH20/2122	Tuition fees	$2,000	$0	Did not have any references or stated any community service/volunteering
PAPSCH20/2123	Course fees	$1,500	$0	Does not align with scholarship criteria as does not live in the Papakura local board area and no references
PAPSCH20/2131	Course fees	$2,000	$0	Does not align with scholarship criteria as does not live in the Papakura local board area
Total		$8,530	$0

20. Staff will provide feedback to unsuccessful scholarship applicants about why they have been declined, so they can increase their chances of success in the future.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Staff note that due to COVID-19, there is an increased uptake in online and virtual education and activity. This has a positive impact on the environment through reduced carbon emissions resulting from travel.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The scholarships are managed and delivered by the Youth Empowerment Team with administrative support and expertise from council’s Grants Team.

23. Communications Advisors assisted with the marketing and promotion of the scholarships.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The scholarships contribute to the local board achieving the following 2017 Local Board Plan outcome: “activities that focus on people in Papakura leading active, healthy and connected lives, prosperous local economy supporting local people” and “activities that contribute to a strong local economy.”

25. The applications were presented to the assessment panel, which consisted of six local board members and one youth representative, at a workshop on 11 November 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. In Papakura Local Board rea, 26.8 per cent of the population identify as Māori, compared to 11.5 per cent across Auckland.

27. Only one of the applications received identify as Māori, approximately six per cent of applicants received.

28. As this is not representational of the Māori population of Papakura, staff recommend that better and more targeted engagement needs to occur in the future to encourage applications from rangatahi Māori. Staff note that there was strong Pasifika representation in the applications.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The 2020/2021 work programme includes $15,000 for the scholarships

30. A total of seventeen applications were received, totaling $25,422 in requested funding

31. Staff recommend that the total budget of $15,000 be allocated to 12 successful applicants who best meet the criteria.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There is a heightened risk of students not completing studies if there is another COVID-19 lockdown, especially noting some students are attend universities outside of Auckland. Funds will need to be returned to the local board if activities do not go ahead and staff will advise successful applicants of this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Staff will notify applicants of the local board’s decision and process scholarship payments.

34. Scholarship recipients are required to acknowledge the local board on any publicity or promotional material and be available to work with council staff on media coverage.

35. Scholarship recipients will be invited to provide a verbal accountability report at a future local board business meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Youth Scholarship applications	27

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Melissa Lelo - Specialist Advisor, Youth Specialist

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

New community leases for Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated at Massey Park, 2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura and The Scout Association of New Zealand (1st Papakura Scouts), at Ray Small Park, 50 Queen Street, Papakura

File No.: CP2020/15501

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek new community ground-leases for:

i. Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated at Massey Park, 2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura

ii. Scout Association of New Zealand (1^st Papakura Scouts), Ray Small Park, 50 Queen Street, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Community leases are one of the ways in which council provides support to local community organisations, assisting them to sustain the activities and experiences they provide in alignment with recognised local priorities.

3. Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated entered into a nine- year lease with the former Papakura District Council in October 2010 for the group-owned building at Massey Park. The lease expired on 30 September 2019 and is currently holding over on a month-by-month basis. The club have applied for a new ground-lease for the site.

4. The Scout Association of New Zealand (1^st Papakura Scouts) entered into a lease with the former Papakura District Council in October 2010 for the group-owned building at Ray Small Park. The lease expired on 30 September 2020. The group has applied for a new ground-lease for the site. The group have applied for a new ground-lease for the site

5. Staff are satisfied both groups meet the standards specified and recommend the leases be granted in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) grant, under Section 54 (1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, a new community ground-lease to Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated for the land at 2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura (marked in red and hatched on the map Attachment A) and described as Part Allotment 208, Section 11, Village of Papakura, comprising 4.8464 hectares (more or less), no title; subject to the following terms and conditions:

i. term – ten (10) years commencing 1 October 2019 with a single 10-year right-of-renewal and final expiry on 30 September 2039

ii. rent – one dollar ($1.00) plus GST per annum, if requested

iii. rent review date – on renewal

iv. permitted use – athletics administration and ancillary purposes

v. the approved community outcomes plan (Attachment B), to be included in the lease agreement as Schedule 3.

b) grant all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 and the Reserves Act 1977.

c) note the public notification under the Local Government Act 2002 council’s intention to enter into a lease for the land at 50 Queen Street, Papakura described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 16908, comprising 1,634 square meters, NA15C/739 (outlined in red and hatched on Attachment C)

d) grant, under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002, subject to any objections being resolved, a new community ground-lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand (1^st Papakura Scouts) for the land at 50 Queen Street, Papakura (marked in red and hatched on the map Attachment C) and described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 16908, comprising 1,634 square meters (more or less), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i. term – ten (10) years commencing 1 October 2020 with a single 10-year right-of-renewal and final expiry on 30 September 2040

ii. rent – one dollar ($1.00) plus GST per annum, if requested

iii. rent review date – on renewal

iv. permitted use – scouting activities and ancillary purposes

v. the approved community outcomes plan (Attachment D), to be included in the lease agreement as Schedule 3.

e) grant all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 and the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

Papakura Athletics and Harrier Club Incorporated

The land and building

6. The lease at Massey Park, Papakura is on land described as Part Allotment 208, Section 11, Village of Papakura, comprising 4.8464 hectares (more or less), no title; and is held by the Department of Conservation as a classified recreation reserve and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes. The athletic club’s operation fits with this classification. Athletics is also a contemplated activity on Massey Park in the adopted May 2011 Massey Park Reserve Management Plan. Therefore, no public notification of the lease is required.

7. The land of approximately 315 square meters (more or less) is for the footprint of the group-owned building, as shown in the aerial plan (Attachment A).

8. After lengthy fundraising the building was completed in 1977. It is well maintained and the first floor recently re-painted and re-carpeted. The downstairs toilets and showers were re painted in 2018. The building was revalued for insurance in December 2019.

2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura

The tenant

9. Papakura Athletic and Cycling Club was first established in 1937. Initially based at Prince Edward Park, the club became the Papakura Athletics and Harrier Club and relocated to Massey Park in the mid-1950s. The current club was registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 in March 2009. The aims of the club are to foster enjoyment, achievement and satisfaction for all members; provide resources and opportunities for athletes to reach their goals; develop consideration, co-operation, acceptance of differences and leadership; and to provide effective, efficient administration, communication and financial structures.

10. The club’s base at Massey Park was initially two grass tracks and floodlighting. One track was lost when the new indoor swimming pool was built at the park in the late 1990s. Following extensive fundraising, the clubrooms were built in 1977. An all-weather track was laid in 1989 – the only international track in south Auckland. Council owns and maintains the track, which was resurfaced in 2017.

11. The club currently has more than 400 members aged from pre-schoolers to 70+ years old and reflects the multi-cultural community of Papakura with an ethnic membership of 9% Pacific Island, 23% Māori, 49% European and 13% Asian, 6% other and unspecified. Fifty two percent of members are male and 48% female.

12. Funding of the club is from the on-site canteen, fundraising events (e.g. canteen sales, sausage sizzles, quiz nights), facility hire and sponsorship. The club is financially well run with annual surplus of income over expenditure.

The Scout Association of New Zealand (1^st Papakura Scouts)

The land and building

13. The lease is on land described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 16908, comprising 1,634 square meters and is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002; and as such any lease of more than six-months will require public notification and engagement with iwi of the intention to lease.

14. The scout operation fits with the classification of the land.

15. The building requires some maintenance and renewal works and the group were advised to prepare a maintenance and renewal plan to assist in scheduling the necessary work.

50 Queen Street, Papakura

The tenant

16. First Papakura Scouts (as the name suggests) was the first scout group set up in the area, approximately 75 years ago. The club’s building at Ray Small Park was first occupied in 1971. Scouting provides training in leadership and self-reliance, for both male and female youth, through a programme that is based around outdoor skills and community work. The group last year were proud when two female Venturers receive the Queen Scout Award. This is the highest youth award and was presented by the Governor General in 2019, the Scout leader said, “this was a great outcome for the effort and training put in”.

17. There are currently six Kea scouts (years one to three); nine Cubs (years four to six), 12 Scouts (years 7 to 10), and five Venturers (years 11 to 14) at Papakura. They have nine leaders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 sets out the requirements for community occupancy agreements.

19. Under the guidelines, groups that own their buildings have an automatic right to reapply for a new lease at the end of the occupancy term, a right which both groups are exercising. It is recommended that new leases be granted to Papakura Athletics and Harrier Club Incorporated and The Scout Association of New Zealand (1st Papakura Scouts); each for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for a further term of 10 years, in line with the guidelines.

20. Local boards have discretion to vary the term of the leases if it wishes. The guidelines suggest that where a term is varied, it aligns to one of the recommended terms contained in the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

21. Staff undertook a site visit of the athletic club building on 13 July 2020. The building appears well-maintained and managed. A regular maintenance schedule for the building and grounds is in place and the club is planning to upgrade the bathroom facilities at the clubrooms.

22. A site visit of the scout building, together with the Papakura Facilities Maintenance Co‑ordinator, was done on 3 August 2020. This building is in a poor condition, with the exterior window frames needing sanding and painting and the inside also needing a refresh. Scouts NZ have been advised of the works necessary.

23. After assessing the lease applications and meeting with the tenants, staff have determined that both groups qualify for a new community lease because the:

i. activity of both groups supports the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives

ii. Papakura Athletic and Harrier Club Incorporated and 1^st Papakura Scouts are not in breach of the current occupancy agreements

iii. the groups’ financial accounts have sufficient reserves to cover its operating costs with no declared contingent liabilities

iv. Papakura Athletic Club funds their activities mostly by way of grants, membership fees, donations and ‘light touch’ trading (e.g. canteen sales, sausage sizzles, quiz nights, etc.); 1^st Papakura Scouts fund their activities by way of fees, charitable grants and fundraising

24. each premises meets needs of the local community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. The designated impact level of the recommended decisions on greenhouse gas emissions is “no impact” because the proposals continue existing activities and does not introduce any new sources of emissions.

26. Climate change has a slight potential to impact the athletic club lease as the site does sit adjacent to a flood plain zone. The athletic club building is not near the coast.

2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura

27. Climate change has a slight potential to impact the lease as the site is on the edge of the tidal Pahurehure Inlet, although the building and surrounds, which is on a slope, are not within a flood plain or flood-prone zone.

50 Queen Street, Papakura

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Council’s Papakura Facilities Co-ordinator accompanied the lease specialist on the site visit to the scout building.

29. Both buildings are group-owned, and the proposed leases have no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the advice in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. The recommendations within this report fall within local boards’ allocated authority relating to the local recreation, sports and community facilities. The tenancies were discussed at the local board workshop of 19 August 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Information on the athletic club lease was distributed to the South-Central Mana Whenua Forum in late June 2020, no obligations were received from forum members.

32. Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns the 1^st Papakura Scout lease has not been discussed at the forum. Formal consultation with local iwi, on the lease to Scouts NZ, will take place alongside the public notification of the intention to lease the property.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. All cost involved in the advertising of the intention to lease and preparation of the documents are borne by Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. The granting of new community leases to these existing groups allows them to continue to provide services to their local communities. If new community leases are not granted the groups have no security of tenure over the premises which can inhibit their ability to apply for funding, develop programmes, maintain their buildings and deliver services. It would also mean that the assets would be transferred to council and ongoing maintenance and renewal work would be funded from the local board budget.

35. There are no risks associated with the granting of new community leases to these two groups.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Subject to approval by the local board, the intention to lease the land to Scouts NZ will be publicly advertised in the Papakura Courier, council’s website and via social media outlets.

37. The lease agreement for Papakura Athletic Club will be prepared for approval and signing by the tenant.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Map - 2R Ron Keat Drive, Papakura	39
b ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan - Papakura Athletic & Harrier Club	41
c ⇩	Site Map - 50 Queen Street Papakura	43
d ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan - 1st Papakura Scouts	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Young - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/17126

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 to the agenda report).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

· 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 to the agenda report

· Energy transition accelerator plans to align renewal works to reduce emissions at targeted, high-emissions sites

· 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 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:

· 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

· 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 Papakura 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 1, right.

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 2, 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).

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:

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

· 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^{^[1]} 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:

· 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)

· 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:

· The Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

· 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^{^[2]} 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 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 LTP approval process and finalisation of the 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	53

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 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.: CP2020/16013

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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

· 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 Papakura 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 Papakura 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:

· Unitec Residential Development

· Papakainga development in Point Chevalier

· Britomart Station Eastern End Upgrade

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Northern Pathway – Westhaven to Akoranga shared pathway

· 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:

· the public good aspects of the application

· its potential contribution to job creation and economic activity

· the potential significance of any environmental effects

· 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.

· 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.

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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

· The development plan is inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan and/or not aligned with the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050.

· The specified development area is out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

· There is insufficient infrastructure to support the development plan and/or significant public infrastructure spend is required to support the project.

· There are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location.

· There is a significant impact on Auckland Council/Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) and/or third-party infrastructure.

· There is the potential for significant adverse environmental effects to occur.

19. 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 from relevant local board(s).

20. 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

21. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings (option two in Table 1), 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).

22. 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 1: 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

23. 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.

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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. 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

26. 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

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

28. 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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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	61
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	63

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16322

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Papakura 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.^{^[3]}

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:

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

· 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 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

· 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 Papakura 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 Papakura 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.^{^[4]}

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:

· 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

· 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:

· the Section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

· submissions

· 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 1: 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:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

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

· 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)

· 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.^{^[5]}

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.^{^[6]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[7]}

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:

· the mechanism for the Papakura Local Board to express its views and preferences if it so wishes; and

· 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 - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

For Information: Reports referred to the Papakura Local Board

File No.: CP2020/15933

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an opportunity for the Papakura Local Board to receive reports and resolutions that have been referred from the Governing Body committee meetings, Council Controlled Organisations, forums, staff or other local boards for information.

2. The following information was circulated to the local board:

No.

Report Title

Item no.

Meeting Date

Governing Body Committee or Council Controlled Organisation or Forum or Local Board

Deputation – Graeme Rix – Pine Harbour Marina – resolution b) request staff report back on the progress and status of Auckland Council’s Marina Strategy.

Email response on 11 November 2020 from the General Manager Auckland Strategy and Research, Jacques Victor “The issue with development of the strategy has been, and continues to be, one of resourcing. The 2019/20 Emergency Budget did not prioritise / provide funding for the strategy to be developed. Work on the strategy has therefore not progressed”.

8.3

28 October 2020

Papakura Local Board

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) receive the following staff report back from the General Manager Auckland Strategy and Research:

No.

Report Title

Item no.

Meeting Date

Governing Body Committee or Council Controlled Organisation or Forum or Local Board

Deputation – Graeme Rix – Pine Harbour Marina – resolution b) request staff report back on the progress and status of Auckland Council’s Marina Strategy.

8.3

28 October 2020

Papakura Local Board

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Paula Brooke - Democracy Advisor, Local Board Services
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

Papakura Local Board

25 November 2020

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2020

File No.: CP2020/15938

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present to the Papakura Local Board the three months Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governance Forward Work Calendar is a schedule of items that will come before the local board at business meetings and workshops over the next three months. The Governance Forward Work Calendar for the Papakura Local Board is included in Attachment A of this report.

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

i) ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month, be included on the agenda for business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 18 November 2020.

Horopaki

Context

5. The council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for Governing Body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. There are no new projects in the Governance Forward Work Calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities that have been previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes Governing Body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the board’s governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

i) Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan.

ii) Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

iii) Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled below:

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction / priorities / budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives / specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant council staff.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. This report is an information report providing the governance forward work programme for the next three months.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11. The council is required to provide Governance Forward Work Calendar to the Manurewa Local Board for their consideration.

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

Local impacts and local board views

12. All local boards are being presented with a Governance Forward Work Calendar for their consideration.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13. The projects and processes referred to in the Governance Forward Work Calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

14. There are no financial implications relating to this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

15. This report is a point in time of the Governance Forward Work Calendar. It is a living document and updated month to month. It minimises the risk of the board being unaware of planned topics for their consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2020	87

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Paula Brooke - Democracy Advisor, Local Board Services
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager, Local Board Services

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

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

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

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

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

Chairperson	Brent Catchpole
Deputy Chairperson	Jan Robinson
Members	Felicity Auva'a
	George Hawkins
	Keven Mealamu
	Sue Smurthwaite