|
Parks, Arts,
Community and Events Committee
10 December
2020
|
|
Community
Access Scheme Review
File No.: CP2020/17180
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
approve repurposing the existing Community Access Scheme to a contestable
operational grant.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. At
amalgamation, Auckland Council inherited sport and recreation funding
agreements which were evaluated and deemed out of scope of the Community
Grants Policy.
3. As a result, the Community Access Scheme was established in 2016 to
facilitate community access to sport and recreation facilities where there are
identified gaps in the regional network. See Attachment A.
4. The
review found that the scheme is currently not fit-for-purpose and does not
align with Council’s sport investment plan, Increasing
Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039. As
the scheme is not contestable, it is not equitable across all of Auckland and
not responsive to change.
5. This
report assesses three options to improve the outcomes and
strategic alignment of the scheme:
· Option 1: Repurpose the scheme to a contestable, operating fund
which aligns with the new Investment Plan.
· Option 2: Repurpose the scheme to a contestable, programmes and
services fund that grants funds directly to user groups rather than facilities.
· Option 3: Disestablish the scheme to provide a savings to council.
· Option 4: Status Quo - continue funding current recipients under the
existing Community Access Scheme Guidelines.
6. Staff recommend Option 1, as it will meet demand for operational support
in new and existing facilities. It will also provide a contestable process that
is more equitable and transparent across the whole Auckland region.
7. Option
1 better reflects the way the investment is already being used, will compliment
other forms of council sport and recreation investment, and will increase
alignment with the sport investment plan principles.
8. Option
2 will directly deliver participation outcomes however there is already
provision for this within the existing investment from council with the
Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme and other activation programmes.
9. Option
3 will provide savings to council by disestablishing the scheme however some
current recipients may experience financial hardship and sport and recreation
participation outcomes will decrease.
10. Staff
have identified reputational, operational, network and financial risks
associated with the recommended option. Staff consider these risks can be
mitigated with a contestable fund which allows current recipients to apply for
funding and proactive communication with stakeholders.
11. Staff
will engage with current funding recipients and relevant stakeholders to
communicate the implementation plan for the recommended option, with the aim to
implement the changes by 30 June 2021.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Parks, Arts,
Community and Events Committee:
a) approve
repurposing the Community Access Scheme to a contestable operational grant
for non-council operated sport and recreation facilities.
b) approve staff to develop and implement repurposing of the
Community Access Scheme to a contestable operational grant and bring
recommendations to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee for
funding allocation decisions in June 2021.
|
Horopaki
Context
The scheme was
originally set up to address network gaps and support multi-sport and multi-use
facilities
12. At
amalgamation, Auckland Council inherited 14 sport and recreation operational
funding agreements.
13. These
operational funding streams were evaluated and several of the funding
agreements were deemed out of scope of the Community Grants Policy due to their
primary nature being community access grants to third parties to deliver
asset-based services.
14. As
a result, the scheme was developed, and guidelines were approved in July 2016
[PAR/2016/49] after consultation with local boards, existing recipients, and
key sector partners.
15. The
aim of the scheme is to facilitate access to non-council sport and recreation
facilities where there are identified gaps in the regional network, encourage
greater use of existing assets and support multi-sport and multi-use
facilities.
16. The
scheme supports implementation of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic
Action Plan. It seeks to provide community access to non-council operated
facilities to support increased levels of sport and recreation participation
and reduce inequities of access to opportunities.
17. The
scheme has a budget of $1.02 million per annum in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.
18. In
August 2020, the PACE committee approved the extension the of current funding
agreements for one year until 30 June 2021 while the review of the scheme was
completed [PAC/2020/31].
19. The
facilities that currently receive grants through the scheme are detailed in
Attachment B.
A review has been
undertaken to assess the scheme against the new sport investment plan
20. Previous
engagement with the Governing Body indicated that it would be timely to
undertake a review of the scheme as the existing agreements are close to expiry
[CP2018/06192].
21. The
review focused on whether the scheme is still fit-for-purpose, based on the
council’s new sport investment plan– Increasing
Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039,
adopted in July 2019 [ENV/2019/93].
22. A
key shift outlined in the investment plan includes investing in a range of multi-functional
facilities, services, and programmes to reduce barriers to participation.
23. The
sport investment plan guides all council investment in sport in the next twenty
years. This includes the $1.5 billion allocated for sport and recreation in the
Long-term Plan 2018-2028 for its vast sport and recreation facility network, as
well as relationships with local communities and sports organisations through
grants (including Community Access Scheme), leases and partnership.
24. Examples
of council’s current investment in sport and recreation include:
· the contestable Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund which
supports capital development projects
· the Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme supports
programmes and services.
25. Following
adoption of the Emergency Budget, council needs to prioritise investment
through increased partnerships and grants and to focus on communities who need
us most. The four investment plan principles, and the review of the scheme,
enable us to target our investment in more equitable and sustainable ways.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
26. The new sport
investment plan focuses on increasing the level of community sport
participation in Auckland and meeting the changing needs of Auckland’s
diverse community.
27. The plan
requires all future sport investment decision to be guided by four investment
principles:
· Equity
(40 per cent of assessment): Sport investment should ensure equity of outcomes
across the population regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic
status, or location.
· Outcome-focused
(30 per cent of assessment): There needs to be a clear ‘line of
sight’ between each investment and the outcomes it delivers.
· Financial
sustainability (20 per cent of assessment): Investment decisions need to be
financially sustainable for council and sports organisations.
· Accountability
(10 per cent of assessment): Auckland Council has responsibility to act in the
best interests of Aucklanders and invest in the most effective, efficient,
transparent, and consistent way.
28. Table 1 shows
the existing scheme does not align with the equity, outcome-focused and
accountability principles:
Table 1: Assessment against the four
investment principles
|
Principles
|
Equity
|
Outcome-focused
|
Financial sustainability
|
Accountability
|
|
Assessment
results
|
Not aligned
No clear evidence showing legacy
agreements effectively address communities of the greatest need. See maps in
Attachment C. e.g. People living in high deprivation areas have below
average levels of participation.
|
Not aligned
The scheme often funds operating, maintenance and renewal
costs rather than directly buying community access.
|
Possibly aligned
There are large variations in the
financial position of the current recipient groups and no clear relationship
between the funding and financial sustainability. It is also difficult
to know whether the community would be charged a higher rate to access a
facility without council funding.
|
Not aligned
There is no clear evidence showing the
scheme is being used in the most efficient and transparent way.
Rolling over legacy agreements
indefinitely is considered unfair and inconsistent with the investment plan.
|
Three options were identified to improve outcome delivery
and strategic alignment
Option 1: Repurpose the scheme into
a contestable operating fund (recommended option)
29. Option
1 will:
· allow the scheme to reflect how it is currently being used i.e.,
covering operating, maintenance expenses
· provide a clear line-of-sight between council investment and
outcomes
· provide a contestable process that will allow sport and recreation
investment to respond to changing need e.g. population growth, deprivation, and
emerging sports
· provide investment into a range of multi-functional facilities to
break down barriers to participation.
· enable current recipients to continue to apply for operational
support where required for financial stability in the short term
· provide a contestable process that will ensure a fairer, more
consistent, and transparent way of allocating funding to facilities.
30. The
implementation of a new contestable fund will be aligned to the investment plan
and include the design of the criteria, weightings and eligibility, application
form, grant size and term, advertising plan, assessment panel and process.
31. Table 2 summarises
the key advantages and disadvantages for Option 1.
Table 2: Main advantages and
disadvantages of option 1
|
Option 1
Repurpose the scheme to a contestable operating grant
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Compliments other forms of council
investment into sport and recreation.
· Opportunity to continue funding some
current recipient groups in need of financial support
· Addresses legacy inequity
· Clear outcomes in funding agreement
· Responsive to changes and need (for
example, population growth, deprivation, and emerging sports)
· Fairness and transparency in contestable
process
· Acknowledges demand for current and
future facility provision
|
· The contestable process means legacy
agreements may not always get selected and could therefore, experience
financial hardship and must seek funding from other sources
· The contestable process relies on
getting good applications and therefore, may not be the best way to address
inefficiency and inequity.
· Additional staff resource required to
administer the repurposed fund
|
Option 2: Repurpose the scheme into
a contestable fund to directly fund facility access, programmes, and services
32. Option 2
will:
· allow
community groups to apply for funding to access a particular facility,
programme or services that directly increase participation
· allow
a solution to respond to the changing preferences of Auckland’s diverse
community
· provide
a clear line-of-sight between council investment and participation outcomes
· risk
current recipients losing financial stability.
33. Table 3
summarises the key advantages and disadvantages for Option 2.
Table 3: Main advantages and
disadvantages of option 2
|
Option 2
Repurpose the scheme into a contestable grant for facility
access, programmes and services
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Directly increase participation
· Flexible and responsive to changes and
needs
· Clear outcomes in funding agreement
· Fairness and transparency in contestable process
|
· Currently there is a significant
shortage of facilities in Auckland
· Some current recipients may experience
financial hardship causing reduced sport participation
· The contestable process relies on
getting good applications and therefore, may not be the best way to address inefficiency
and inequity
· Additional staff resource required to
administer the repurposed fund
|
Option 3: Disestablish the scheme
34. Option
3 will:
· risk all current recipients losing financial stability, which in
severe cases could lead to facility shutdown and participation rate decline.
This would go against the objective of the sport investment plan to increase
sport participation
· encourage local boards to directly fund the facilities if they are
considered as a priority for delivering local outcomes. Local boards might also
look for different ways of funding the facility (for example, through a
targeted rate)
· regional or sub-regional facilities may be funded by multiple local
boards according to the percentages of local communities in the facility
catchment.
35. Table 4
summarises the key advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches.
Table 4: Main advantages and
disadvantages of Option 3
|
Option 3
Fund current recipients through LDI
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Potentially save council money
· Addresses legacy inequity
· Local boards could determine priority
facilities in their local area and directly provide funding support
|
· Local board may not have sufficient
budget to fund additional facilities
· May be hard to reach consensus on
funding percentages for sub-regional or regional facilities
· Complexity in administrating
sub-regional and regional facilities
· Could be politically difficult to remove
a funding scheme
· Some current recipients may experience financial
hardship
|
Staff recommend Option 1 to improve
equitable alignment with investment principles
36. Table 5 shows
the assessment of status quo and the three options against the four principles
in the sport investment plan.
Table 5: Assessment of options
|
Option
|
Equity (40%)
|
Outcome-focused (30%)
|
Financial sustainability (20%)
|
Accountability (10%)
|
|
Option 1
Contestable Operating grant
|
Aligned
|
Aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
Aligned
|
|
Option 2
Contestable programme and services grant
|
Aligned
|
Aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
|
Option 3
Disestablish the scheme
|
Partially aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
Not aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
|
Status Quo
|
Not aligned
|
Not aligned
|
Partially aligned
|
Not aligned
|
37. Option 1
allows council to be more responsive to changes in community need and
demonstrate clear line-of-sight to equitable outcomes.
38. Option 2 and
3 could result in a gap in the provision of operational funding support in
Auckland sport and recreation facilities.
The review focused on community sport
participation and the four investment principles
Equity Principle (40 per cent)
39. Equity is the
principle that has the highest weighting in the investment plan and addresses
disparities and targets communities of greatest need with the lowest access to
sports opportunities.
40. There is no
evidence that the current legacy agreements effectively address communities of
greatest need.
41. The maps in
Attachment C, were developed using census data and shows the disconnect between
the current investment and future population growth, and deprivation areas in
Auckland.
42. One
of Sport New Zealand’s key findings in its ‘Spotlight on the impact
of deprivation on participation, August 2019’ report
is:
· people living in high deprivation areas have below average levels of
participation and spend less time participating (in play, active recreation,
and sport).
Outcomes Focused Principle (30 per cent)
43. This
principle states there needs to be a clear ‘line of sight’ between
each investment and the outcomes set out in the funding agreements.
44. The
schemes’ funding has mostly been used by current recipients to cover
operating, maintenance, and renewal costs, rather than community access.
45. Although the
current agreements are used to address supply shortage, there is no evidence
showing they are being used in the most strategic and effective way to increase
community sport participation.
Financial Stability Principle (20 per
cent)
46. Investment
decisions need to be financially sustainable in the long run for both council
and sports organisations. This means being financially viable.
47. The financial
position of the legacy recipient organisations varies greatly, and it is
difficult to quantify the need for ongoing investment. Before Covid-19,
council’s grant represented varying percentages of income for each
recipient group (approximate values):
· AUT
Millennium Ownership Trust: one per cent
· North
Harbour Netball: two per cent
· East
City Community Trust: six per cent
· Auckland
Netball: seven per cent
· Kolmar
Charitable Trust: 18 per cent
· Tamaki
College Community Recreation Centre Trust: 34 per cent
· Te
Puru Community Trust: 50 per cent
· Waiheke
Recreation Centre Trust: 74 per cent
· Avondale
College – difficult to calculate as the grant forms part of the total
operation of the college.
48. There is also
variation in the nine facilities financial positions.
49. In the most
recent financial accounts AUT Millennium Trust, North Harbour Netball, and
Auckland Netball have cash balance between $1.4 - 2.3 million whereas Kolmar
Charitable Trust, Waiheke Recreation Centre Trust and Tamaki College Community
Recreation Centre Trust have cash balances between $146,000 to $260,000.
Accountability – value for money (10
per cent)
50. Sports
investment should be efficient and effective, and every public dollar invested
should represent value for money and deliver the greatest return.
51. Investment
decisions should be as transparent and consistent with sufficient information,
clear decision-making criteria, and outcomes.
52. Although the
recipient groups have met their KPIs and delivered positive sport and
recreation outcomes the ongoing legacy agreements have meant that recipient
groups have received uncontested on-going funding.
53. The
contestable process recommended in Option 1 will ensure an efficient and
effective way of allocating funding to facilities that aligns with the
investment plan.
Consultation with stakeholders
54. As part of
the review staff have considered and incorporated feedback from current
recipients, local boards, mana whenua and sector stakeholders including Aktive
and Regional Sports Trusts.
55. Staff
consulted with each stakeholder group in different ways depending on the
group’s knowledge and experience with the scheme. Attachment D is a
themed summary of feedback received.
56. Consultation
with all stakeholders has shown general agreement that changes are needed to
improve the scheme and that the review is necessary to ensure alignment to the
investment plan principles.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
57. Staff
consider there is no immediate climate change impact associated with the
options presented in the report.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
58. Once
a decision is made, staff will engage an external resource to develop and
initiate a detailed implementation plan. Engaging a dedicated resource with
grant expertise will enable high quality and timely implementation.
59. The
implementation of a new contestable fund will include the design of the
criteria, weightings and eligibility, application form, grant size and term,
advertising plan, assessment panel and process.
60. Teams
that currently administer local and regional grants will support the external
resource to develop and administer the first round of the fund.
61. Communications
staff will advertise and promote the scheme through council channels.
62. The
assessment panel will consist of staff from Community and Social Policy and
Parks, Sport and Recreation.
63. The
ongoing administration of the fund will be managed by Parks, Sport and
Recreation staff.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
64. The
recommended option will align with the new investment plan that was adopted in
July 2019 [ENV/2019/93].
65. Nineteen
local boards formally endorsed the investment plan, one local board endorsed
the key components of the plan and one local board carried the agenda without
feedback.
66. The
investment plan seeks to:
· target
communities of greatest need and address disparities
· deliver
a broad range of sport programmes, services and facilities that respond to the
diverse needs of Auckland’s communities
· address
population growth and changing sport preferences through regular assessments
of, and changes to, sport programmes, services and facilities.
67. The
review of the scheme considered and incorporated feedback from local board
workshops. Attachment D is a themed summary of feedback received.
68. Many
local boards supported the review and expressed general agreement that changes
are needed to improve the scheme.
69. Staff
will inform local boards of the committee decision and will share the
implementation plan criteria and timeline to ensure all eligible local
facilities are encouraged to apply for funding.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
70. Sport
and participation contribute directly to the following ‘Māori
Identity and Wellbeing’ outcome in Auckland Plan 2050:
|
Māori Identity and Wellbeing
· Direction 1 –
‘Advance Māori wellbeing’
· Focus area 1 –
‘Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their
whanau’
|
71. Research shows pockets of sedentary
Māori who do not have adequate opportunities to participate in sport. It
also shows Māori have different preferences for sport and recreational
activities compared to other ethnic groups.
72. As
part of the review, staff considered and incorporated feedback from mana whenua
forums. Mana whenua are generally supportive of the review and encourage an
increase in measurement of Māori outcomes.
73. Option
1 will provide a contestable process that will ensure a transparent and more
equitable way of allocating funding to facilities.
74. Option
1 will align to the investment plan’s equity principle which ensures
equity of outcomes across the population regardless of age, gender, ethnicity,
socio-economic status, or location.
75. Staff
will inform mana whenua forums of the committee decision and will share the implementation
plan criteria and timeline to ensure all eligible facilities are encouraged to
apply for funding.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
76. The
scheme currently has a budget of $1,023,000 per annum through the Long-term
Plan 2018-2028. The budget amount will remain
unchanged with the recommended option.
77. Option
1 will improve council’s ability to respond to community need and address
disparities, which is likely to lead to an increase in the value of council
investment.
78. Staff
consider the investment framework detailed in the investment plan will
prioritise future investment in areas where council can add the most value and deliver the greatest benefits for Auckland.
79. Option
1 may require external support to design and initiate the implementation plan.
This could be funded from within the existing Parks, Sport and Recreation
operating budget.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
80. Staff
have identified reputational, operational, network and financial risks
associated with the recommended option 1.
Table 6: Risk and mitigation of the
recommended option 1
|
Type
|
Risk
|
Mitigation
|
|
Reputational
|
Moderate risk – If the scheme is contestable the public may consider
council will reduce financial support to some current recipients.
|
Clear communication with funding
recipients and the public, clearly articulating the purpose of the change and
how it will help council to be more effective in responding to community
needs and addressing disparities.
|
|
Operational
|
Moderate risk – Designing and initiating the implementation plan for
option 1 may require additional resource. Once developed ongoing operational
support will be required by local and regional grants teams.
Moderate risk – Receiving poor quality applications to the contestable
fund.
|
Clear and early communication with
all internal support staff will ensure the smooth employment and management
of any extra resource required. The existing Investment Fund criteria are
aligned to the investment plan principles and can be used as a template for
the new fund design.
High quality design of the fund, implementation plan and communications
strategy will encourage high quality applications. The new fund will align
with other council funds to ensure a consistent approach.
|
|
Network
|
Moderate risk – Changes in funding to current recipients may cause or
contribute to network gaps and the provision of community access to
facilities
|
A
contestable fund will be responsive to demand and provide funding to
facilities that meet the greatest community need and address gaps in
Auckland’s network of facilities.
|
|
Financial (current recipients only)
|
Moderate to high risk – Current funding recipients may experience financial
hardship
|
Option 1 will consider the ongoing
financial sustainability of all applicants. Clear communication with current
recipients about the implementation plan timing and process will help with
future business planning.
|
81. The main risks associated with status quo
are reputational and financial. The public may consider continuing to support
legacy funding agreements is not providing equitable community access across
the region.
82. Status quo is also unlikely to lead to an increase in the value of council investment to deliver
the greatest benefits for all Aucklanders.
83. The
risks of status quo can be mitigated by approving option one (contestable
operating grat) discussed in the report.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
84. Figure
1 details the next steps and timeframes for this work:
Figure 1: Next steps for the Community
Access Scheme following the review
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme
Guidelines
|
23
|
|
b⇩
|
Current Recipients
|
27
|
|
c⇩
|
Maps
|
29
|
|
d⇩
|
Consultation
|
31
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Geraldine Wilson - Activation Advisor - Outdoors
|
|
Authorisers
|
Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation
Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and
Recreation
Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community
Services
|
|
Parks, Arts,
Community and Events Committee
10 December
2020
|
|
Indicative Business Case: Aquatic
Provision in Northwest Auckland
File No.: CP2020/17356
Te
take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek approval to the development of a business case for a destination aquatic facility with leisure components in northwest
Auckland.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. In 2017/18, staff investigated community facility provision across
northwest Auckland. This identified a gap in aquatic and leisure provision and
recommended new aquatic provision from 2026.
3. Staff
have developed an indicative business case to inform decision-making on
investment in an aquatic centre in northwest Auckland. It includes an
investigation of community needs, an assessment of strategic alignment and an
economic analysis.
4. The
investigation of community needs confirms that there is a gap in aquatic
provision. It also identifies a future gap in leisure provision. Provision of
two full-sized indoor courts will respond to a projected gap in the northwest
between 2026 and 2036.
5. The
indicative business case finds that there are strong strategic and economic
cases for a destination aquatic facility with two full-sized indoor courts to
meet council’s provision guidelines and service the unmet and growing
needs of the community.
6. A
cost-benefit analysis indicates the benefits of investment in a new facility
are at least 2.61 times the cost.
7. Five
options were assessed as part of the economic case:
· Option 1: status quo
· Option 2: an aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts at
Royal Reserve
· Option 3: an aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts at
Fred Taylor Park
· Option 4: an aquatic centre with four full-sized indoor courts at
the Massey Leisure Centre
· Option 5: an aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts on a
generic private site.
8. Royal
Reserve (Option 2) or Fred Taylor Park (Option 3) are identified as suitable
sites to construct the new facility and are recommended for further
investigation. Opportunities for community partnerships
to support delivery of the facility should also be investigated in the detailed
business case.
9. Staff recommend the development of a detailed business case to
develop a concept design and implementation of the project for a destination
aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts in Massey-Whenuapai. The timing of this detailed business case will be dependent
on the timing of construction and that funding of up to $250,000 is allocated
in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.
10. Henderson-Massey
Local Board advocated for a new aquatic facility in its Local Board Plan 2017.
The board considered the indicative business case at their business meeting on
17 November 2020 and supports development of a detailed business case.
11. There
are limited risks associated with this investment proposal. There is a low
financial risk of optimism bias, where costs are understated, and benefits
overstated. This is mitigated by the sensitivity analysis, which found that
even in the worst case all options assessed outperformed the status quo. There
is a medium delivery risk due to budget restrictions.
12. If
approved, the next step is to further investigate the preferred options
commencing in 2021/22.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:
a) receive the indicative business case for the development of an
aquatic centre in northwest Auckland, which found that:
i) there is existing and growing need for
additional aquatic and leisure services in northwest Auckland
ii) there
is no reliably accessible aquatic provision in northwest Auckland
iii) the
lack of aquatic provision in northwest Auckland is placing stress on the
wider aquatic network, with neighbouring facilities at capacity
iv) there
is limited access to indoor courts in the northwest
v) providing
a destination aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts would align
with Auckland Plan outcomes and respond to the gap in the network
vi) the
quantifiable benefits of providing this facility exceed the capital and
operational costs required to develop the facility.
b) approve
the development of a detailed business case,
commencing with a further investigation of the
preferred options commencing in 2021/22. The timing
of other aspects of the detailed business case will be dependent on the
timing of construction.
c) note that funding of up to $250,000 can be
considered alongside other funding priorities as part of the adoption of the
Long-term Plan 2021-2031 to assist the development of the detailed business
case as outlined in b) above.
d) approve investigation into Royal Reserve (Option 2) and Fred
Taylor Park (Option 3) as suitable sites to locate the proposed facility as
well as partnership opportunities as part of the detailed business case
outlined in b) above.
e) agree that any action to progress a destination aquatic centre
with two full-sized indoor courts in Massey-Whenuapai be included as a
priority action in the updated Community Facility Action Plan.
|
Horopaki
Context
The Henderson-Massey Local Board advocated
for an investigation, which was approved by the Environment and Community
Committee
13. In
2015, Auckland Council approved the inclusion of an investigation of aquatic
and leisure provision in northwest Auckland as a priority action under the
Community Facilities Network Plan (action 129).
14. The
Henderson-Massey Local Board advocated for a new aquatic facility in its Local
Board Plan 2017.
15. The
board selected the purchase of land to prepare for a pool and future sports
fields as its One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan
2018-2028. The One Local Initiative was assessed as a sub-regional project.
Consideration of the aquatic and leisure elements of this local advocacy
proposal are reflected in this report.
16. In
2018, staff completed an initial investigation into community facility
provision in northwest Auckland. This identified a need to increase aquatic
services provision by 2026 and leisure services provision between 2026 and 2036
in northwest Auckland.
17. In
2018, the Environment and Community Committee agreed with the findings of the
facility provision investigation as outlined above, and directed staff to begin
work on a strategic case for change and the development of investment options
for aquatic provision in the northwest (Resolution ENV/2018/131).
Indicative business cases provide evidence
to support decision-making
18. The
council uses a three-stage process to investigate large-scale
capital projects such as community facilities. This
approach is based on the Better Business Cases framework developed by New
Zealand Treasury.
19. The first stage consists of a needs assessment and aims to ascertain
whether there is or will be a gap in provision. It entails:
· profiling the
community, including projected population growth and demographic changes
· researching
community preferences, based on recent social research
and relevant community engagement surveys
· doing a
stocktake of council-owned and privately-owned community facilities
· assessing current provision against council policy.
20. The second stage is an indicative business case. It considers the
merits of any proposed investment and provides decision makers with an early
indication of a preferred way forward. The indicative business case:
· confirms the
need for investment and need for change
· outlines how
the proposed investment aligns with the organisation’s strategic intent,
notably the Auckland Plan
· considers the feasibility of a range of options, which includes comparing
their costs and benefits in the view to maximise value for money.
21. The third stage is a detailed business case. It recommends a
preferred option that optimises value for money and seeks approval from
decision makers to finalise the arrangements for successful implementation.
Figure 1: Council’s
investment approach
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
22. Staff have prepared an indicative business case for an aquatic
facility with two full-sized indoor courts in northwest Auckland.
23. It comprises a needs assessment, a strategic
case and an economic case.
24. The key findings are outlined below.
The need for aquatic and leisure services in
northwest Auckland is confirmed
25. There is an existing and growing need for additional aquatic and
leisure services in the northwest area of Auckland.
26. Demand is driven by a fast growing and
changing population.
· The northwest
had a population of 36,060 in 2018, with a projected population growth of
150,000 over the next 30 years (based on 2013 census data). This growth rate is
faster than the Auckland average of 2.6 per cent.
· The population
makeup is projected to change over time, with an increase in new immigrants and
a greater diversity of residents, although the high percentage of New Zealand
European base population is likely to continue.
· New
residential developments will continue to draw increasing numbers of younger
people with families to the area. Children, their caregivers, and younger
people are primary users of aquatic facilities.
· A current
aging population trend is likely to continue, with 20 per cent projected to be
65 years of age or over by 2046. The aging resident
base are a potential growth area for aquatics, and have potential to use the
facility at off peak times
· Westgate, Massey West and West Harbour have high levels of deprivation,
with an average deprivation level of eight based on 2018 census data (10 being
most deprived). Locating an aquatic facility in an area of high deprivation
could remove key barriers to participation such as cost and transportation.
27. Current service levels do not align with the provision guidelines.
The Community Facilities Network Plan sets aquatic provision guidelines of
35,000-50,000 residents per local urban swimming pool. However, growth across
Auckland and the high cost of facilities may mean that these guidelines are
difficult to achieve in the medium-term.
28. As
there is limited aquatic provision within five kilometres of the study area,
northwest residents are currently travelling over 10 kilometres to the nearest indoor aquatic facilities at West Wave and Albany Stadium
Pool.
29. Both
facilities are nearing capacity, with 537,553 visitors to West Wave Pool and
326,277 to Albany Stadium Pool in 2019.
30. These
pools are unable to cater for the growing population in northwest Auckland. Overcrowding or perceived overcrowding of these facilities is likely
to have an impact on user experience and future use of these facilities.
31. The provision of a strategically located facility is likely to
release pressure from the West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre and the Albany
Stadium Pool catchments. This could help to reduce current overcrowding at peak
times.
32. Lack of aquatic provision was noted in all community and social
research studies conducted across the study area.
33. As the population base of the northwest grows, its resident profile
is likely to align closely with the general profile of aquatic users, creating
a strong customer base.
34. Residents in the northwest are under-represented in swimming, with
only 2.5 per of the adult population using aquatic facilities. A strategically located
facility could reverse this trend.
The northwest has limited access to indoor
courts and a gap in service provision is projected between 2026 and 2036
35. The
2018 northwest gap analysis identified that there will be a shortfall of four
courts by 2026.
36. Only
Massey Leisure Centre and Kumeu Gym and Sport Centre provide reliable public
access to indoor courts.
37. New
court facilities are in the pipeline and will help to address this shortfall:
· a two-court
facility in Huapai in the Rodney area is currently at the detailed business
case phase
· a facility at
Wasp Hangar in Hobsonville in the Upper Harbour area is being investigated and
could deliver two three-quarter sized courts
· a destination
four-court facility is also at detailed business case phase in Albany in the
Upper Harbour area.
38. Considering
existing and planned provision, the current needs assessment concludes that
service levels for courts in northwest Auckland are likely to fall below
council’s approved provision guidelines in the Community Facilities
Network Plan between 2026 and 2036.
39. An
additional two full-sized indoor courts would address this projected shortfall.
There is a clear strategic case to invest in
a new aquatic facility with two full-sized indoor courts in northwest Auckland
40. Council
provision of a destination aquatic facility with two indoor courts, delivered
in a single phase of construction, has been assessed as the best way to provide
adequate access to aquatic and leisure services in northwest Auckland.
41. The
investment proposal is articulated in an investment logic map depicted below:
Figure
2: Investment logic map
42. Staff
recommend that the proposed facility be scoped as a destination aquatic
facility under the Auckland Community Facilities Network Plan. It would include
two full-sized indoor courts.
43. A
full list of service requirements is provided in the indicative business case.
These can be further developed in consultation with the community in the
detailed business case.
44. The
total ground floor footprint would be around 8000m2, with a total
site size of 17,000 to 21,000m2, including landscaping and car
parking.
45. The proposed aquatic centre aligns with local, regional, and
national strategic objectives. It
is aligned to Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and would contribute to the delivery
of ‘Outcome 1: Belonging and participation’ by providing a public
facility for aquatic, indoor sport and recreation activities.
46. The proposal is also strongly aligned to the Community Facilities
Network Plan 2015, the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017 and the Sport New
Zealand National Facilities Strategy for Aquatic Sports.
There are five options for decision-makers
to consider, including the status quo
47. A long list of options as to where to locate the facility
were investigated.
48. Sites were assessed and exclusions made based on topology,
land use, high-level feasibility, zoning and land capital values, as well as
likely availability at the estimated time of development.
49. The following three council-owned sites were identified as
viable options based on this assessment:
· Royal Reserve,
5 Beauchamp Drive, Massey
· Fred Taylor
Park, 184 Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai
· Massey Leisure
Centre site, 545 Don Buck Road, Massey.
50. The status quo and a non-council owned site were also considered.
· Option 1: Status quo
· Option 2: An aquatic centre with two full-sized
indoor courts on council-owned Royal Reserve
· Option 3: An aquatic centre with two full-sized
indoor courts on council-owned Fred Taylor Park
· Option 4: An aquatic centre with four full-sized
indoor courts on council-owned Massey Leisure Centre site
· Option 5: An aquatic centre with two full-sized
indoor courts on a generic privately-owned site for comparison purposes.
51. Option 1: Status quo. Under this option there are no changes to current provision levels
in the northwest. There are no capital costs associated with this option.
52. This option was discounted because it does not address the strategic
objectives and the community needs detailed in this case.
53. Option 2: An aquatic centre with two courts on Royal Reserve. This is an 8.35-hectare parcel of land. It is currently used as
sports fields and has a large playground. It is located on Beauchamp Road, a
local road, which is accessed from arterial roads - Don Buck and Royal roads.
54. If this option is progressed there may be a need to mitigate loss of
sports field hours due to loss of open space.
55. Option 3: An aquatic centre with two courts on Fred Taylor Park. This is an 8.33-hectare parcel of land. It is currently used for
sports fields. It is located on Fred Taylor Drive, an arterial road with
iterative upgrades being provided by developers.
56. If this option is progressed there may be a need to mitigate loss of
sports field hours due to loss of open space.
57. Option 4: An aquatic centre with four courts on the Massey Leisure
Centre site. This is a 1.93-hectare parcel of land.
It is a developed site with a leisure centre, futsal court, and car parking
with landscaped grounds. It is located on high-profile corner site on Don Buck
Road and Westgate Drive, both busy arterial roads.
58. Investment on this site would necessitate the demolition of Massey
Leisure Centre and the replacement of the two courts currently provided at
Massey Leisure Centre, bringing the total indoor courts provided to four and
increasing capital costs.
59. Option 5: An aquatic centre with two courts on a generic private
site. This is a generic option to provide aquatic
provision on a large freehold site, assumed vacant. This has higher initial
capital costs due to the need to acquire land, but it does not result in a loss
of open space provision or council-owned facilities.
There is a strong economic case for all four
investment options
60. The results
of the cost-benefit analysis found that all the options have a cost-benefit
ratio above one, and all options have a positive net present value.
61. This indicates that the benefits outweighed the costs of each option
over the analysis period, and that there is a strong economic case for
investment.
Table
1: Net Present Value and Benefit Cost Ratio*
|
Net present value
|
Benefit cost ratio
|
|
Option 2: Royal Reserve
|
$108.5
million
|
3.71
|
|
Option 3: Fred Taylor Park
|
$72.9 million
|
2.92
|
|
Option 4: Massey Leisure
Centre site
|
$67.8 million
|
2.61
|
|
Option 5: Generic private
site
|
$67.9 million
|
2.71
|
*Highest values
in dark green, lowest values in light green
62. Each option has large upfront capital costs. They range from
approximately $53 to 65 million dollars.
63. The options would deliver a negative net present value for the first
eight to 10 years. This is normal for large capital projects.
64. The ongoing and increasing benefits once the facilities are
operational deliver a cumulative positive net present value from between 2037
and 2040 onwards.
65. As the number of visits to the facility increases over time in line
with the demand projections, the cumulative net present value also increases.
66. All
options remain economically viable when key assumptions are altered.
67. Sensitivity
analysis applied a reduction of visitor numbers by 20 per cent, a reduction in
health benefits by 50 per cent, an increase in construction costs by 20 per
cent, as well as a higher cost of land and variation in the discount rate.
68. This
sensitivity analysis mitigates the risk of optimism bias. It shows that even
when construction costs are higher, or visitor numbers are lower there is still
a positive return on investment.
Staff have developed criteria to assess the
five options
69. Staff developed assessment criteria to enable the comparison of the
options in line with New Zealand Treasury’s Better Business Case
framework.
70. The following criteria are unweighted and allow for objective
assessment:
· strategic fit: does the option align with the council’s strategic intent and
contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes?
· business need:
how well does the option fulfil the current and future needs for aquatic and
leisure services in the local catchment?
· alignment with
site criteria: is the option in a location where it will best serve the
community and contribute positively to placemaking?
· reduce
inequities: does the option provide good access to low socio-economic
demographic groups?
· potential
value for money: will the benefits delivered by a new facility outweigh the
costs in the long run? These include not only economic benefits but also
health, social and community benefits.
71. A summary of the options against the assessment criteria is provided
in the table below.
Table 2: Assessment of options
against criteria
|
Strategic
fit
|
Business
need
|
Site
suitability
|
Reduce
inequities
|
Value
for money
|
|
Option
1
Status
quo
|
xxx
|
xxx
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Option
2
Royal
Reserve
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
üü
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
|
Option
3
Fred
Taylor Park
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
üü
|
üü
|
üü
|
|
Option
4
Massey
Leisure Centre
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
ü
|
üüü
|
ü
|
|
Option
5
Generic
private site
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
unknown
|
unknown
|
ü
|
72. When the criteria are applied, Option 2: An aquatic centre with two courts on Royal Reserve scores the highest.
73. This option has
the highest cost-benefit ratio (3.71), owing to a higher number of residents
within its catchment and associated benefits.
74. Royal Reserve is more centrally located reflecting the proximity of
the reserve to urban areas. It has significant potential to reduce inequities
in the area.
75. Royal Reserve is a suitable site, subject to wayfinding
improvements.
76. Option 3: An aquatic centre with two courts on Fred Taylor Park is
the next best option. It has the second highest cost-benefit ratio (2.92).
77. It is a suitable site, subject to improvements in transport access
and safety. Some of these are currently under development as part of general
upgrades to cater for growth in the area.
78. Option 4: An aquatic centre with four courts on the Massey Leisure
Centre site is not a recommended option in the short to medium-term.
79. Locating a new facility on the site would necessitate the
rationalisation of the Massey Leisure Centre, a well-used community and leisure
centre with 219,000 visits in 2019. The facility has an
estimated 15-year asset life remaining.
80. This option has the lowest cost-benefit ratio (2.61), reflecting
higher capital costs. The proposed facility would need to provide four courts
to make-up for the loss of two existing courts.
81. Option 5: An aquatic centre with two courts on
a generic private site is not recommended. It has the second lowest cost-benefit
ratio (2.71), due to the need to purchase land.
82. Option 1: Status quo does not address the
strategic objectives and the community needs detailed in this case.
83. Staff recommend Option 2: an aquatic centre with two full-sized
indoor courts on Royal Reserve and Option 3: an aquatic centre with two
full-sized indoor courts on Fred Taylor Park be
investigated as part of a detailed business case. They best meet critical
success factors.
84. Both options would result in the loss of some open space and sports
field capacity. This loss may need to be mitigated if it results in local
provision levels falling below council service levels.
85. To account for this possibility, an option to buy an adjacent piece
of land to Fred Taylor Park was included in the economic modelling. It found
that the cost of purchasing the additional land is almost offset by the benefit
of retaining sports field provision levels.
86. Overall feasibility of delivering either option, including network
optimisation considerations, will be investigated in the commercial and
management case in the detailed business case.
87. Opportunities for partnership will also be investigated and may open
new site options for the proposed facility.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
88. Two
of the site options, Option 2: Royal Reserve and Option 3: Fred Taylor Park,
are open space owned by council and used for sport and recreation.
89. Developing
the aquatic facility on either of these sites would reduce open space.
90. Vegetation
on parks and open space can serve as temperature regulators through shade and
evapotranspiration. Plants and woodlands can also process and store carbon,
helping to offset the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
91. Parks
and open space also act as collection points for surface and run-off water,
reducing flood risks during storms.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and
views
92. Staff
from Parks Sport and Recreation, Service Strategy and Integration, and Service
and Asset Planning were involved in reviewing, inputting feedback, and
finalising specifications, site options, costings and recommendations.
93. Auckland
Transport provided early input into traffic considerations for the shortlisted
sites.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board
views
94. Northwest
residents have poor access to aquatic facilities and limited access to indoor
courts.
95. The
proposed facility aims to serve population across parts of Upper Harbour,
Rodney and Henderson-Massey Local Board areas and would benefit those
communities.
96. The
Henderson Massey Local Board advocated for a new aquatic centre and selected
purchasing land for the development of an aquatic centre and sports fields as
their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.
97. Progressing
the development of a new aquatic facility would deliver on part of this high
priority advocacy project for the board.
98. Sports
field provision is being investigated separately.
99. Henderson-Massey
Local Board received the findings of the indicative business case at its
business meeting on 17 November 2020. The local board supported the development
of a detailed business case [HM/2020/174
refers].
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
100. Northwest
Auckland has a slightly lower percentage of Māori (10%) compared to the
Auckland average (11%).
101. Māori,
in general, are more active, younger, and are over-represented on the deprivation
index compared to the general population. The provision of affordable sport
opportunities is important to this group.
102. One of
the largest populations of tamariki Māori live in Henderson-Massey in
areas of high deprivation.
103. The
lack of an aquatic centre in the local area is a barrier to participation in
aquatic services. The transport cost to neighbouring facilities is an issue for
lower socio-economic groups. Providing a new local facility would boost their
participation. It would contribute to Māori outcome ‘Priority 2:
Whānau and Tamariki Wellbeing.’
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial
implications
104. Up to $250,000 is required to fund technical and specialist input
into the development of the detailed business case. This funding can be
considered alongside other funding priorities as part of the adoption of the
Long-term Plan 2021-2031.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
105. A
comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken. There are limited risks
associated with investing in the detailed business case. The main risks are
outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Initial risk identification and
mitigations
|
Main risks
|
Consequence
|
Likelihood
|
Comments and risk management strategies
|
|
Optimism
bias
|
Low
|
Low
|
Conducted sensitivity analysis of
cost-benefit results.
|
|
Delay
in delivery due to budget restrictions
|
Low
|
High
|
The council’s budget
restrictions may impact on growth programmes that are not already
contractually committed, including pools.
|
106. While
the indicative business case establishes a clear need for investment, the
current fiscal environment is likely to impact on project delivery timing.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
107. Subject
to approval, the next step is for Community and Social
Policy to further investigate the preferred options for
a destination aquatic centre with two full-sized indoor courts in
Massey-Whenuapai commencing in 2021/22.
108. The timing of the detailed business case will be dependent on the
timing of construction and that funding of up to $250,000 is allocated in the
Long-term Plan 2021-2031.
109. Service Strategy and Integration will lead the detailed business
case process.
110. The
timeline below indicates how the process could progress.
111. The
detailed business case:
· revisits and
confirms the strategic case developed in the indicative business case. This
includes refining the service specifications for the facility in consultation
with the community.
· identifies the
preferred option which optimises value for money, by undertaking a more
detailed analysis of the costs, benefits and risks of the short-listed options.
This includes investigating opportunities to increase revenue, undertake
partnerships or obtain sponsorship.
· prepares the
proposal for procurement.
· plans the
necessary funding and management arrangements for the successful delivery of
the project.
· informs a
proposal to decision-makers to seek agreement to approach the market and
finalise the arrangements for implementation of the project.
· recommends a
preferred option that optimises value for money and seeks approval from
decision-makers to finalise the arrangements for successful implementation. The timing of the detailed business case will be dictated by the
timing of construction.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Indicative business case
|
51
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Kurt Barber - Policy Advisor
Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy
Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki – General Manager
- Community & Social Policy
Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and
Community Services
|
|
Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee
10 December
2020
|
|
Contents
Foreword. 5
1 Executive summary. 6
2 Introduction.. 9
3 Needs assessment 10
3.1 Summary. 10
3.2 The need for a new
aquatic facility was previously established. 11
3.3 The
faster-than-anticipated population growth is driving demand. 12
3.3.1 The study area is
northwest Auckland. 12
3.3.2 Urbanisation the key
driver of population growth over the last 15 years. 13
3.3.3 Continued rapid future
population growth in new Future Urban Zones. 14
3.3.4 A fast-changing
population. 17
3.4 There is a gap in
aquatic and leisure service provision.. 20
3.4.1 Residents must travel
to access aquatic services. 20
3.4.2 Swimming participation levels
are below Auckland average. 25
3.4.3 Community access to
courts across the study area is relatively limited. 26
3.5 Need for more aquatic
and leisure services sooner than anticipated. 27
3.5.1 Current provision level
for aquatic facilities is below the council’s policy. 27
3.5.2 A gap in leisure
provision in the future. 28
4 Strategic case. 31
4.1 Summary. 31
4.2 The investment proposal
is a destination aquatic facility with two courts. 32
4.3 The proposal aligns
with the council’s strategic direction.. 32
4.3.1 The proposal aligns
with existing plans and strategies. 32
4.3.2 The proposal meets
specific council objectives. 34
4.4 The proposal follows a
clear investment logic. 34
4.4.1 Investing in the
proposed facility would meet a current and growing demand. 34
4.4.2 Investing in the
proposed facility would deliver clear benefits. 35
4.4.3 The investment proposal
must meet five critical success factors. 37
4.5 Limited risks are
associated with the investment proposal 37
5 Economic case. 39
5.1 Summary. 39
5.2 The options. 40
5.2.1 The options were
developed using a rigorous process. 40
5.2.2 Starting with a long
list of options. 40
5.2.3 Three sites are
selected as potential locations. 43
5.2.4 Five options are
short-listed for assessment against critical success factors. 44
5.2.5 Capital costs vary from
$53m to $66m.. 45
5.2.6 Options description.. 46
5.3 Options 2 and 3
assessed as preferred options against critical success factors. 48
5.4 All options deliver
value for money. 50
5.4.1 The cost-benefit analysis
methodology is adapted from MartinJenkins. 50
5.4.2 Future demand varies
significantly across sites. 51
5.4.3 The cost-benefit
analysis shows that all options are economically viable. 52
5.4.4 Option 2 at Royal
Reserve has the highest cost-benefit ratio. 53
5.4.5 All options remain
economically viable when benefits and costs are altered. 54
5.5 Royal Reserve and Fred
Taylor Park deemed preferred locations. 54
5.5.1 Three sites are
assessed for suitability against four criteria. 54
5.5.2 All three council-owned
sites are suitable, subject to improvements. 56
5.5.3 Massey Leisure Centre
site excluded due to the impact of current use. 59
5.6 A facility at any of
the three sites has potential to reduce inequalities. 62
6 Outlining the commercial
case. 65
7 Outlining the financial
case. 66
8 Outlining the
management case. 67
Tables. 68
Figures. 69
Appendix 1 Future
development of Northwest Auckland. 70
Foreword
This document outlines the indicative business case for
investment in a destination aquatic facility in northwest Auckland.
An indicative business case builds an argument for, or
against, an investment proposal. It ensures that any investment is based on robust
evidence and makes good use of scarce resources. It examines:
· the needs assessment,
which evaluates how provision meets current and future demand
· the strategic case,
which outlines the compelling case for change
· the economic case,
which shows how options represent value for money.
The commercial, financial and management cases are also
touched on, but are the focus of later stages of the investment assessment
process.
If there is a case for change, a detailed business case is
recommended to further assess an option.
1 Executive summary
This indicative
business case makes a strong case for Auckland Council to invest in a
destination aquatic facility with two full-sized indoor courts in northwest
Auckland.
The current and planned facility network does not meet the
existing and growing demand for aquatic and leisure services in northwest
Auckland.
The proposed investment would ensure that service levels
meet the council’s approved provision guidelines in the Community
Facilities Network Plan and provide adequate access to aquatic and leisure
services.
Staff recommend that a detailed business case investigate a
destination aquatic facility with two full-sized indoor courts in
Massey-Whenuapai.
The rationale for this recommendation is based on a needs
assessment, a strategic case outlining a compelling case for change and an economic case
demonstrating value for money.
There is a clear need for aquatic and leisure services in
northwest Auckland.
The proposed investment
· delivers service levels
to meet the council’s approved provision guidelines
· provides services in a
catchment with unmet and growing needs
· supports the efficient
use of the existing network of aquatic facilities.
There is a clear strategic case to invest in a new facility
in northwest Auckland.
The proposed investment:
· aligns with national
and local strategic objectives and contributes to Auckland Plan outcomes
· responds to a clear
investment logic as depicted below
· determines the mix of
services: a destination aquatic facility (which includes an eight-lane 25 metre
pool, play, learn-to-swim, relaxation and fitness areas) with two full-sized
indoor courts
· has limited risks.
·
There
is a strong economic case to invest in a new facility in northwest Auckland.
·
Five
options were short-listed from a long list of potential suitable sites.
·
Figure
1.1: Short-listed options
Analysis in the
economic case reached several conclusions
· Status quo is not a
recommended option as it does not address the council’s strategic
objectives or meet community needs.
· Each of the four
remaining options deliver benefits associated with increased aquatic and
leisure service provision that outweigh the costs of provision.
· Overall benefits remain
higher than costs when key assumptions such as visitor numbers and construction
costs were altered in a sensitivity analysis.
· Option 2: An aquatic
facility with two courts on Royal Reserve and Option 3: An aquatic facility
with two courts on Fred Taylor Park are the preferred options as they offer
high benefit-cost ratios, have scope to reduce access inequalities based on
proximity to areas of high deprivation and offer suitable sites to house a
future facility, subject to some improvements.
· A detailed business
case should further investigate options to develop the proposed facility on
either Royal Reserve or Fred Taylor Park and consider opportunities for delivery
partnership.
A detailed business case would include full financial,
commercial and management cases. The need and options to mitigate the loss of
any public open space amenity would also be further examined.
2 Introduction
The
population in the northwest of Auckland is projected to grow significantly over
the next 30 years. This will create additional demand for new sport and
recreation facilities.
In 2015, the council approved the investigation of aquatic
and leisure provision in the northwest of Auckland (the study area) as priority action 129 under the Community Facilities Network
Action Plan. This priority action was supported by Henderson-Massey Local
Board.
In 2017, the local board identified purchasing land to
prepare for a pool and future sports fields, be progressed as a local priority
under their ‘One Local Initiative’.
The local board’s proposed initiative was assessed as
a sub-regional project and a network priority. This indicative business case
delivers on the priority action under the Community Facilities Network Action
Plan.
Provision of the additional sports fields is being
investigated separately as part of an assessment of open space provision in the
Redhills precinct.
The council’s guidelines for aquatic and leisure
provision are set out in the Community Facilities Network Plan and are based on
population thresholds.
An investment in a new facility requires the council to
develop a good understanding of the current and future demand for services as
well as the current and planned level of provision in the study area and wider
network.
·
Figure
2.1:
Northwest study area
·
3 Needs
assessment
3.1 Summary
In 2018, the
council’s Environment and Community Committee agreed the findings of the
northwest community provision investigation for aquatic provision. This
established a clear need to increase aquatic and leisure services provision.
The Environment and Community Committee approved the strategic case for change
and development of investment options to implement the indicative business case
(Resolution number ENV/2018/131).
The Henderson-Massey
Local Board also identified purchasing land to prepare for a pool and future
sports fields and local community facilities as a local priority under their
‘One Local Initiative’. The sports field component is being dealt
with separately and is not relevant to this stage of the business case.
The Henderson-Massey Local Board ‘One
Local Initiative’ was assessed as sub-regional in nature, and a network
priority. Consequently, on 31 May 2018, the governing body recommended that the
Henderson-Massey proposal for ‘One Local Initiative’ be allocated funding,
or earmarked funding from development and other regional budgets in the 10-year
budget 2018-2028 (Resolution number GB/2018/91).
Further analysis conducted as part of this indicative
business case confirms the need for aquatic and leisure provision. The
provision of an aquatic and leisure centre in northwest Auckland would:
· provide for unmet and
growing needs for aquatic and leisure services in the northwest catchment
· increase service levels
to meet the council’s approved provision guidelines
· support the efficient use
of the existing network of aquatic facilities.
There is currently no aquatic facility servicing the
northwest catchment. The current population in northwest Auckland is 36,060 as
of the 2018 census. It is projected to rise to 150,000 over the next 30 years.[1] This
equates to a 5.3 per cent average annual growth rate. Growth is faster than the
Auckland average of 2.6 per cent.
The current level of provision for leisure and aquatic
services in the study area is insufficient to meet existing or future needs,
and aquatic service levels are below the council’s approved provision
guidelines in the Community Facilities Network Plan.
Investing in a new aquatic facility in the northwest is
likely to reduce pressure on neighbouring aquatic facilities Albany Stadium
Aquatic Centre and West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre, an ageing facility. Those
facilities are currently nearing capacity and serve many users coming from the
northwest catchment.
A strategically placed aquatic facility in the northwest is
likely to increase the amenity value of both Albany Stadium Aquatic Centre and
West Wave, strengthening the regional aquatic network.
There is currently limited community access to courts in
northwest Auckland and it is anticipated that service levels for courts will be
below the council’s approved provision guidelines in the Community
Facilities Network Plan at some stage between 2026 and 2036.
3.2 The need for a new aquatic facility was previously
established
An investigation into community
provision in the northwest of Auckland was conducted in 2018. The
investigation incorporated all forms of community facility provision to
identify current or future gaps in service or facility provision.
The investigation was undertaken in four parts.
· Community profile
– an overview of the current state and likely future state of the study
area using census data, growth data and other primary research.
· Social research summary
– summarised the findings from recent social research. This included
residents’ perceptions of their local environment, and their concerns and
aspirations for the northwest.
· Community facility
stocktake – identified existing facilities (council and non-council) in
the study area and analysed available data on what these offer, how they are
used, who uses them and the physical condition of these assets.
· Gap analysis –
synthesised evidence from the community profile, social research and community
facilities stocktake to assess if provision meets current and forecast demand,
aligns with provision guidelines and supports desired national, regional and
local outcomes. If demand for services and facilities is expected to exceed
supply, it estimates when and where this will occur.
The investigation found that the current level of provision for community
services, arts, recreation, and aquatic services is insufficient to meet the
current and future growth needs of the community. The
key drivers of change were identified as population growth, changing demographic,
and changing preferences.
With regards to leisure and aquatic facility provision, the investigation
recommended the following key moves:
· investigate the
provision of a new aquatic facility by 2026 in the Massey area (sub-catchment
three).
· investigate the
provision of additional courts past 2026 – with one to two additional
courts in the Kumeu-Huapai area (sub-catchment one), and an additional two
courts to what is provided by Massey Leisure centre in the
Hobsonville/Whenuapai or Massey area (sub-catchments two or three).
The following sections of the business case test and build
on the findings of the 2018 investigation to confirm (or not) the need for
additional service provision.
3.3 The faster-than-anticipated population growth is
driving demand
3.3.1 The study area is
northwest Auckland
The northwest study area is approximately 150
square kilometres and represents three per cent of Auckland’s geographic
area.
It includes parts of the Rodney local board
area, parts of the Upper Harbour local board area and parts of the
Henderson-Massey local board area.
It is an area of rapid growth, with a population
of 36,060 in 2018[2]
and a projected population of 150,000 over the next 30 years.[3] Since the investigation
was conducted, the population of northwest Auckland has grown faster than
expected.
Due to its large size, the study area has been
broken into three sub-catchments.
Each aligns closely with local board
boundaries, and is demographically, ethnically, and economically discrete.
The boundaries of each sub-catchment were
determined in consultation with the relevant local boards.
·
The
study area covers both urban and rural areas. While much of the land will
retain its rural zoning, particularly within Rodney, portions have been
identified as future urban areas with significant residential development
planned or underway between 2018 and 2022 in Whenuapai, and 2028 to 2032 in
Kumeu Huapai Riverhead, Whenuapai, and Red Hills North.
·
Hobsonville,
Kumeu and Whenuapai are experiencing significant
residential growth within the study area. Kumeu-Huapai and Whenuapai are both zoned as a
town centre in the Unitary Plan and are surrounded by large areas of Future
Urban Zone. Westgate
is zoned as an emerging metropolitan centre.
·
Residential
intensification and new employment opportunities will increase the number of
people living within the study area, increasing demand for a new aquatic
facility close to where people live.
Table 3.1 below provides a high-level profile of the
current communities in each of the three catchments in the study area.
·
Table
3.1:
Population profile in the northwest sub-catchments (2017)
|
·
Sub-catchment one
·
Census area units: Huapai, Kumeu West, Riverhead, Taupaki,
Waipareira West, Kumeu East, and Waimauku
|
|
·
10,010 people
- Older
and ageing population
- 80:20
ratio of those born in New Zealand to those born overseas
- Predominance
of people who identify as New Zealand European (92 per cent)
- Highest
per cent of single person households
- Predominantly
single dwellings, currently no social housing
|
|
·
Sub-catchment two
·
Census area units: Hobsonville, Lucken Point, Herald Island, and
Whenuapai
|
|
·
15,720 people
- Most
even spread of each age group (between six and eight per cent for each group)
- 60:40
born in New Zealand vs overseas
- Highest
percentage of people who identify as Asian (19 per cent)
- Fifty
per cent couples with children
- Predominance
of two children per family
- Most
even spread of incomes
- Highest
household income
- Currently
no social housing
|
|
·
Sub-catchment three
·
Census area units: Westgate, Massey West and West Harbour
|
|
·
7,510 people
- Younger
population with more zero-to-nine-year olds
- 60:40
born in New Zealand vs overseas
- Highest
representation of those who identify as Māori or Pacific (17 and 19 per
cent)
- Lowest
median individual and household income
- Higher
percentage of people receiving a benefit (21 per cent)
- Median
score of seven on the deprivation index
- Mixed
housing, 35 per cent social housing
·
Source: Auckland Council Community Profile: North-west Auckland
Community Facilities Provision Investigation 2018
|
3.3.2 Urbanisation the key driver of population
growth over the last 15 years
An estimated 36,060
people lived in the study area in 2018. This estimate was revised based on the
2018 Census of Population released in early 2020. The previous estimate
based on the 2013 Census of Population was 31,770 people living in the study
area in 2016.
Table 3.2 shows moderate growth between 2006 and 2013,
followed by rapid growth in sub-catchments 1 and 2 between 2013 and 2018.
Overall, the northwest area has grown much faster than
Auckland in that period, with an additional 8388 people calling the area
home.
The three sub-catchments have increased at different rates. Table 3.3
identifies the estimated population increase for the sub-catchments over three
census periods.
·
Table
3.2:
Population count
|
Sub-catchment
|
Population census count
|
Change
2006-2013
|
Change
2013-2018
|
|
2006
|
2013
|
2018
|
|
Northwest
|
26,844
|
27,672
|
36,060
|
3.1%
|
30.3%
|
|
Auckland
|
1,322,925
|
1,438,446
|
1,571,718
|
8.7%
|
9.3%
|
|
Sub-catchment one
|
8,250
|
8,793
|
12,870
|
6.6%
|
46.4%
|
|
Sub-catchment two
|
12,087
|
12,129
|
15,933
|
0.3%
|
31.4%
|
|
Sub-catchment three
|
6,507
|
6,750
|
7,257
|
3.7%
|
7.5%
|
Source:
Research and Evaluation, based on 2018 census data
Population growth based on 2013 census data was used to develop the
northwest investigation into community provision conducted in 2018. This data
largely aligns with the 2018 census data, although the faster-than-expected
population growth shown in the 2018 census shows the northwest provision
guidelines for local
aquatic and leisure facilities in the Community Facilities Network Plan have been exceeded earlier than
anticipated (in 2018 as opposed to 2026).
3.3.3 Continued rapid future population growth in
new Future Urban Zones
Rapid growth of the study area population is projected to
continue.
Population is forecast to grow by an annual average of 5.3
per cent between 2016 and 2046. This is faster than the Auckland average of 2.6
per cent.
Population growth is estimated to be especially rapid in
the period to 2031 as land zoned urban or future urban under the Unitary Plan
is developed.
·
Figure
3.1:
Future urban areas in northwest Auckland
Source:
Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, Auckland Council, 2017
By 2046, the estimated population in the study area will
have almost quadrupled to reach 150,556, accounting for 6.3 per cent of
Auckland’s population. This level of population growth places it well
beyond the indicative population thresholds for local provision guidelines in
the Community Facilities Network Plan.
·
Table
3.3:
Population growth projections for the study area
|
Area
|
2016
|
2021
|
2026
|
2031
|
2036
|
2041
|
2046
|
Change
2016-2046
|
|
Northwest total
|
31,770
|
50,090
|
75,532
|
97,449
|
121,963
|
143,789
|
150,556
|
+118,786
|
|
Five-year growth rate
|
n/a
|
57.7%
|
50.8%
|
29.0%
|
25.2%
|
17.9%
|
4.7%
|
n/a
|
|
Sub-catchment one
|
11,696
|
12,138
|
14,726
|
17,353
|
25,085
|
32,550
|
32,210
|
+20,514
|
|
Sub-catchment two
|
14,076
|
30,595
|
46,953
|
60,101
|
71,090
|
79,934
|
86,923
|
+72,847
|
|
Sub-catchment three
|
5,998
|
7,357
|
13,853
|
19,996
|
25,788
|
31,306
|
31,423
|
+25,425
|
Source:
Auckland Council, based on 2013 census data
Note: Population growth projections based on
2018 census data are not yet available
Within the sub-catchments, there are several concentrations of growth.
· Kumeu-Huapai is
projected to grow to seven times its current population by 2046.
· Whenuapai is projected
to grow to four times its 2017 population by 2026 and 10 times its current
population by 2046.
· Hobsonville is
projected to grow to eight times its current population base by 2026 and 10
times its current population base by 2046.
· Westgate is anticipated
to cover an area of 56 hectares when its development is complete, and its
population is projected to be 10 times its current size by 2046.
·
Figure
3.2:
Population growth projections for the study area
Source:
Auckland Council, based on 2013 census data
These population forecasts are based on
data from the 2013 Census and reflect the best information currently available.
The 2018 population count for the sub-catchment one (Kumeu–Huapai) has
already exceeded forecasts for 2021, while 2018 population counts for
sub-catchment two (Hobsonville / Whenuapai) remains below the 2021 forecast.
This suggests that the population is growing faster than anticipated in
sub-catchment one, but slower than anticipated in sub-catchment two.
3.3.4 A fast-changing population
Changing demographics provide insight as to current
and future demand for a facility. Coupled with overall population growth,
change in the community profile impacts on visitation of facilities and demand
for services.
Care should be taken in interpreting future demand based on demographics
alone as low levels of participation might be driven by historic
under-provision.
The following sections provide a breakdown of different demographic
groupings for the study area compared with Auckland and highlights the shift in
demographics over time.
An aging population but new development is attracting younger
people
The base population of the study area is older than the Auckland average.
By 2046, it is estimated that 20 per cent of the population will be over 65
years old, up from nine per cent in 2016.
Sub-catchment one has an older population base than sub-catchments two
and three.
It is increasingly important that this community has access to
age-appropriate community facilities. Older age groups are a potential major
growth demographic for aquatics but have different expectations regarding
temperature, access, covered pools and water depth.
As new development occurs, it will transform some parts of the study area
from rural to urban. New developments with improved transport links and
employment opportunities are likely to attract young families and working
households.
·
Figure
3.3:
Age group population growth and aquatic demand
Current visitation patterns of users to aquatic facilities
in the council pool network show that:
· only three per cent of
users are aged 70 or older
· children aged 16 and
under make up 60 per cent of users
· women visitors
outnumber men at 58 to 38 per cent
· women visitors are much
more likely than men to bring children to activities; 66 per cent of all women
users brought a child compared to 31 per cent of men
· adults make up 40 per
cent of total users
· over half of adult
users are 30 to 49 years of age. This over-representation is likely due to this
age group bringing children to participate in aquatic activities. Seventy per
cent of those 30 to 49 years of age brought a child to a facility, compared
with under 33 per cent of those under 30 and 32 per cent of those 50 and over.
More ethnically diverse population
Within the study area there is a 73:27 ratio of people born in New
Zealand to those born overseas, compared to 61:39 ratio for Auckland. This
ratio of birthplace origin has remained consistent since 2001. The population
of the study area has increased primarily through natural increase or internal
migration.
Most of the study area (72 per cent) identifies as New Zealand European.
In sub-catchment one, 92 per cent identify as New Zealand European.
Trends from 2001 show an increase in those who identify as Asian and a
moderate decrease in those who identify as New Zealand European. There has been
no significant change in those who identify as Pacific or Māori. As
the study area develops it is likely there will be a greater diversity of
ethnicities (particularly those who identify as Asian) if current growth trends
continue.
Typically, 58 per cent of aquatic
users identify as New Zealand European. Nine per cent identify as Māori,
12 per cent identify as Pacific, 19 per cent identify as Asian. Though the
northwest primarily identifies as New Zealand European, there are
concentrations of those who identify as Asian in sub-catchments two (19 per
cent) and three (17 per cent) which aligns with the representation of aquatic
users. Young Māori and Pasifika participate frequently in sport and
recreation which is likely to place increased demand on leisure and recreation
facilities.
Disparity of opportunity and incomes creating barriers to
participation
The community profile, developed using 2013 census data, found that the
study area had a lower level of deprivation than the Auckland average, with
higher levels of deprivation in sub-catchment 3. The median deprivation for the
catchment was three. This means that sub-catchment 3 is the focal point for
reducing inequities.
Sub-catchment one and sub-catchment
two are relatively affluent, with a medium income around the Auckland average.
Sub-catchment three has a lower median income and a lower household income than
the Auckland average.
A deprivation level of eight and above indicates relatively high levels
of hardship. Sub-catchment
three has a higher level of deprivation than the rest of the area of study.
West Harbour has the highest deprivation level in the study area.
One of Auckland’s largest
populations of tamariki Māori live in the Henderson-Massey local board
area in high deprivation neighbourhoods.
2018 figures found a slight increase in deprivation for sub-catchments
one and three.
·
Table
3.4:
Deprivation average by sub-catchment
|
Census area unit
(based on 2013 definition)
|
Deprivation average in 2013
|
Deprivation average in 2018
|
|
Sub-catchment
one
|
3
|
3
|
|
Sub-catchment two
|
1.75
|
3
|
|
Sub-catchment three
|
7
|
8
|
Note: A
value of 1 represents the areas with the least deprived scores and 10 the areas
with the most deprived scores in New Zealand
Source: New Zealand Index of Deprivation
People living in high-deprivation areas have below-average weekly
participation in sport and active recreation. They spend less time
participating compared with people in less deprived areas.
Research indicates that facilities in areas of deprivation that provide
safe, free-to-low cost access, can help to mitigate the effects of lower
socio-economic status.
A significant percentage of people across the study area live on fixed
incomes. There are concentrations of fixed income households in parts of
sub-catchment one and parts of sub-catchment three.
The number of single person households, single parent households, and
people receiving superannuation are all projected to increase in future years.
These households, along with fixed income households and larger households, are
more likely to be sensitive to barriers to participation, such as facility
entry costs and transport costs.
Swimming participation levels are lower per head of population
in the study area
·
Swimming
is an activity that caters for all ages, abilities and ethnicities. User
profile data shows that it is popular with Europeans, Māori, Pacific
Island and Asian communities.
·
Swimming
participation levels per head of population are lower in the northwest than in
other parts of Auckland. The lack of a local facility is likely to be a factor
in these lower participation rates.
·
People
in high-deprivation parts of the study area are likely to be most affected by
the lack of local provision, and therefore have lower swimming participation
levels. This is because the cost of transport is a barrier to access to
facilities beyond the study area.
·
Addressing
the lack of access is likely to substantially increase active recreation
participation levels, which would support achieving participation targets in
the Auckland Plan. Many residents engaged by Ben Parsons and Associates as part
of the social research informing the 2018 needs analysis considered access to a
public swimming pool and additional sport and recreation space to be priorities
for the area.
3.4 There is a gap in aquatic and leisure service
provision
3.4.1 Residents must travel to access aquatic
services
Existing aquatic facilities in the study
area
There is currently no council-owned aquatic facility in the
study area.
There are 10 school pools, one private pool at Whenuapai
Air Force Base, and two private learn-to-swim pools.
The community has limited reliable access to school pools,
as follows:
· access Waimauku and
Taupaki School pools over the summer periods
· access to Massey High
School indoor pool 25 hours a week
· negotiations are
underway to gain some access to Hobsonville Point Primary School pool.
·
Table
3.5:
Non-council owned facilities in the study area with aquatic amenities
|
·
Facility
|
·
Location
|
·
Category
|
·
Management
|
·
Basic amenities and access
|
|
·
Hobsonville Point Primary School
|
·
Hobsonville
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
Hilton Brown Swim School
|
·
Hobsonville
|
·
Non-council facility
|
·
Private
|
·
20m long indoor pool. Purpose-built
for lessons.
·
Heated to 32c. High-tech filtration
system.
|
|
·
Huapai Area Primary School
|
·
Kumeu
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
Riverhead Primary School
|
·
Kumeu
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
Whenuapai Air Force Pool
|
·
Kumeu
|
·
Non-council facility
|
·
Ministry of Defence
|
·
|
|
·
Waitakere Primary School
|
·
Waipareira
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
Waimauku School
|
·
Waipareira
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
20m long, 1-1.5m in depth, heated to
25c.
·
Some community access over summer,
weekends and from 3:30pm to 7:30pm.
|
|
·
Taupaki School
|
·
Waipareira
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
18m long, 5m wide. Not heated. Some
paid community access during summer outside school hours.
|
|
·
Massey High School
|
·
Westgate
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
Covered heated pool, contracted to
the Dean Greenwood Swim School.
·
25 hours a week community access.
|
|
·
Westbridge Residential School
|
·
Westgate
·
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
West Harbour School
|
·
Westgate
|
·
School
|
·
Ministry of Education
|
·
|
|
·
Dean Greenwood Swim School
|
·
Westgate
|
·
Non-council facility
|
·
Private
|
·
Learn to swim
|
Residents travel extensively to access nearest indoor council
aquatic facilities
Residents within the study area are over 10 kilometres from
the nearest indoor aquatic facilities, the West Wave Centre in Henderson or
Albany Stadium Aquatic Centre. Public transport is available to these
destinations from the study area. Both are destination facilities, providing a
wide range of amenities as detailed in Table 3.6.
The West Wave Centre was built in 1990 and was partly
refurbished in 2003.
Albany Stadium Aquatic Centre opened its doors in 2018.
·
Table
3.6:
Council aquatic facilities with catchments bordering the study area
|
Facility
|
Location
|
Category
|
Management
|
Basic
amenities
|
|
West
Wave Pool and Leisure Centre
|
Henderson
|
Council
facility - Destination pool
|
Auckland
Council
|
Lap
pool
Spa
pool
Steam
room
Sauna
Hydro
slide and wave pool
Dive pool
with 1 metre, 3 metre and 5 metre diving boards
Hydrotherapy
pool
Fitness
centre
|
|
Albany
Stadium Aquatic Centre
|
Albany
|
Council
facility – Destination pool
|
Auckland
Council
|
Lap
pool
Splash
pad
Leisure
pool
Sauna
Spa
pool
Recreation
Climbing
wall
Fitness
centre
Learn
to swim
|
Both facilities sit outside the study area. However, the five kilometre and
10 kilometre drive catchments for Albany Stadium and West Wave aquatic centres,
shown in Figure 3.4, cover part of the study area.
·
Figure
3.4:
Catchments of Albany Stadium and West Wave aquatic centres
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Key:
dark blue 5 kilometre catchment, light blue 10 kilometre catchment
Analysis of membership information and learn to swim data
from Albany Stadium Aquatic Centre and West Wave show that visitors come from
beyond the catchment, and include residents from the study area. This is shown in Figures 3.5
and 3.6. In
2019, 26,325 West Wave members had postcodes within the study area.
·
Figure
3.5:
Location of Albany Stadium Aquatic Centre members
·
Figure
3.6:
Location of West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre members
·
Neighbouring council aquatic facilities
unable to cater for growing population
Both West Wave and Albany Stadium Aquatic Centres are well
used, as shown in Table 3.7.
Empirical evidence suggests that both facilities are near
full capacity, with people waiting to get in during weekends and school
holidays.
·
Table
3.7:
Visitation to bordering council aquatic facilities
|
Visitation types
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
|
West Wave Pool and
Leisure Centre
|
|
Casual pool visits
|
409,262
|
371,383
|
429,606
|
401,618
|
|
Pool and learn to
swim spectators
|
142,088
|
167,172
|
186,721
|
61,252
|
|
Lean to swim lessons
|
71,384
|
103,607
|
109,802
|
74,683
|
|
16 and under
|
112,731
|
137,594
|
119,206
|
89,170
|
|
Total aquatic
|
604,545
|
642,162
|
726,192
|
537,553
|
|
Albany Stadium
Aquatic Centre (opened in 2018)
|
|
Casual pool visits
|
|
|
189,707
|
264,189
|
|
Pool and learn to
swim spectators
|
|
|
16,019
|
26,775
|
|
Lean to swim lessons
|
|
|
16,665
|
35,313
|
|
16 and under
|
|
|
73,203
|
94,544
|
|
Total aquatic
|
|
|
222,391
|
326,277
|
Source: Auckland Council internal pool usage data, January
2020.
While these facilities meet current demand, they are
unlikely to meet growing demand from within their catchments as well as
neighbouring areas such as the northwest.
West Wave pool currently provides aquatic services to a
significant and growing number of residents in the study area. It served 13,152
residents in the catchment in 2016 and is anticipated to cater for the aquatic
needs of 53,562 residents by 2046. The significant projected growth across the
study area will place pressure on existing facilities and create demand for new
facilities.
3.4.2 Swimming participation levels are below
Auckland average
Residents in the Rodney and Henderson-Massey local board
areas engage in physical activity at the same rate as the Auckland average.
Approximately half of residents engaging in physical activity three or more
times a week. Those in the Upper-Harbour local board area engage in physical
activity more often, with over 60 per cent being physically active three times
a week or more.
3.4.3 Community access to courts across the study
area is relatively limited
Limited current provision of court facilities
There are currently at least eight indoor
courts across the study area:
· two courts at the council-owned Massey Leisure Centre[4]
· one netball court at
Kumeu Gym and Sports Centre which provide access on a ‘pay for
play’ basis
· five indoor courts in
local schools with varying levels of community access.
·
In
addition, there are small indoor courts for sports such as squash and
badminton, as well as schools with outdoor courts in the study area and private
facilities.
The 2018 investigation into community provision found the
following demand for recreation and leisure facilities:
· court provision across
the study area is relativity low in relation to population
· residents are
travelling to facilities in other catchments to access services
· social research
identified community aspiration for additional provision: indoor court sports
such as netball, basketball and futsal are listed high in sports young people
want to participate in
· demand for indoor
courts is increasing at Massey Leisure Centre
· Māori, Pacific and
Asian population groups are underrepresented at Massey Leisure Centre
· changes in the profile
of the study area suggest demand for indoor courts will continue to increase
over time.
Investment in
additional provision is being progressed
Since the 2018 investigation, new facilities are in the
planning phase in the northwest area:
· a proposed
two-court facility in Huapai in the Rodney local board area is currently at
detailed business case phase
· a facility at
Wasp Hangar in Hobsonville in the Upper Harbour local board area is being
investigated and would deliver two three-quarter sized courts in 2020/2021.
In addition, a destination four-court facility
is at detailed business case phase in Upper Harbour. While the indicative
business case for this facility identified Brigham Creek Road as a potential
site for this facility, the site is more likely to be in or near Albany. This
means that there is a lesser likelihood of catchment overlaps with existing
provision at the Massey Leisure Centre.
Massey Leisure Centre
serves a growing catchment
Massey Leisure Centre currently serves a five
kilometre catchment of 37,000 people, including 22,700 residing in the
northwest study area. The catchment is estimated to reach 60,000 by 2026 and
83,000 by 2036.
·
Figure
3.7:
Massey Leisure Centre catchment area
·
Key:
dark green five-kilometre catchment, light green 10 kilometre catchment
3.5 Need for more aquatic and leisure services sooner than
anticipated
3.5.1 Current provision level for aquatic facilities
is below the council’s policy
The Community Facilities Network Plan identifies target
urban population thresholds for local and destination aquatic facilities
provision.
·
Table
3.8:
Population threshold per aquatic facility
|
·
Local facility
|
·
Destination or regional facility
|
|
·
35,000 to 50,000 people
|
·
Assessed on a case by case basis
determined by evidence of need and assessment of viability
|
The previous sections of this report have found that:
· there is no current
aquatic provision in the northwest of Auckland, which impacts on participation
level
· the 2018 population
count was 36,060 based on the 2018 census data
· the population is
projected to reach 50,090 in 2021 and 150,000 in 2046, based on the 2013 census
data. These projections are likely to underestimate the rate of population
growth. Recent growth has exceeded expectations.
We can conclude that the lack of aquatic facilities in
northwest Auckland means current service levels are likely below the urban
provision metrics in the Community Facilities Network Plan 2015. Future service
levels will be substantially below thresholds during the study period. The plan
has population guidelines of 35,000 to 50,000 for aquatic provision, and 18,000
to 40,000 for leisure provision.
In the light of this analysis, the need for aquatic
provision identified in 2018 remains valid. Faster than expected population
growth means the need for a new facility will arise earlier than the previous
estimate of 2026.
3.5.2 A gap in leisure provision in the future
Court provision is guided by the Community Facilities
Network Plan.
·
Table
3.9:
Provision Metrics: Local and Destination Facilities
|
·
|
·
Local
|
·
Destination
|
|
·
Functions
|
·
Free-play
·
• Fitness
·
• Learning
·
• Relaxation
·
• Casual-play
·
• Community programmes
|
·
• Aquatic entertainment both indoor and outdoor
·
• Pool sports training
·
• Indoor sports leagues
·
• Special leisure (rock climbing, skating etc.)
·
• Possible local functions
|
|
·
Provision approach
|
·
Network to serve local catchments of up to 5km
|
·
Limited number of facilities to serve catchments 10km plus
|
|
·
Ideal function of space
|
·
Use affordable facility design as a base and customised in
accordance with needs assessment.
·
Pool base includes:
·
• 25 metre pool
·
• Teaching pool
·
• Leisure water
·
• Fitness space
·
Leisure base includes:
·
• At least 2 standard sized basketball courts
·
• Programme rooms
·
• Fitness space
|
·
Design determined by evidence of need and assessment of
viability.
·
Consider pool need for:
·
• Deep-water
·
• Aquatic sport amenities such as dive-boards
·
• Aquatic entertainment amenities such as slides,
splash-pads
·
Consider leisure need for:
·
• Multi-courts of 4 or more
·
• Multiple changing rooms
·
• Special leisure amenities
|
|
·
Identifying gaps
|
·
• In areas outside catchments of existing facilities
recognising other providers
·
• Pools target population thresholds of 35,000 to 50,000
·
• Leisure target population thresholds of 18,000 to
40,000
|
·
Utilise existing facilities
·
• Assessed on case by case basis, based on clear
evidence of demand and viable business case
·
• Recognise National Facility Strategy
|
|
·
Rural
|
·
• Within 30 minute drive-time of a satellite town
·
• Target population of 9,000 people or more
·
• Consider partnerships
|
·
None
|
·
Source:
Community Facilities Network Plan 2015
·
Table
3.10:
Population threshold per court based on National Facilities Strategy for Indoor
Sports
|
·
Local facility
|
·
Destination or regional facility
|
|
·
9000 to 20,000 people per court
|
·
9000 people per court
|
For destination and regional facilities, the Community
Facility Network Plan refers to the provision metrics specified in the National
Facility Strategy. The provision guidelines in the National Facility Strategy
is one court per 9000. A leisure facility is defined as two full-sized indoor
courts, a programme room and fitness space.
Based on the current population of the study area (36,060),
the current ratio of residents to courts is estimated at approximately 12,000:1
(excluding courts with partial public access). If increased community access to
courts within schools can be negotiated, this ratio would improve to 4500:1,
decreasing the need for additional courts in the area.
An assessment conducted in 2018 concluded there was a need
for four additional courts between 2026 and 2036 in the study area and
recommended that partnership opportunities be sought for court provision.
The current analysis considers the planned provision and
partnership opportunities in the area and recommends the provision of an
additional two new indoor courts.
Existing provision at Massey Leisure Centre, planned new
facilities in or near the northwest study area and improved community access to
school courts will limit the need for new court provision in the short-term
future.
Present analysis shows that there will be a gap in courts
provision in the northwest of two new indoor courts between 2026 and 2036. Population projections
are likely to have reached the threshold for an additional new facility
(18,000-40,000) by this point.
The provision of two additional courts as part of a
proposed aquatic facility would meet estimated future required provision for
courts in the study area in the medium term.
This business case considers a core option of an aquatic
facility with two full-sized indoor courts and an expanded option of four
courts.
An expanded option of four courts would create an
over-supply in the medium term if the courts at Massey Leisure Centre continue
to operate. There are currently no plans for the Massey Leisure Centre to cease
its operations.
As detailed more fully in the economic case section of this
report, locating the proposed facility on the Massey Leisure Centre site would
require rationalising the existing facilities as the site cannot accommodate
them all.
In this event, the provision of two indoor courts within a
new aquatic facility would serve to maintain current provision levels, but
additional courts would still be required to meet future demand. A total of
four new courts would need to be provided as part of the development of a new
aquatic facility to accommodate growth.
4 Strategic
case
4.1 Summary
There is a strong case to invest in a new aquatic facility
with two full-sized indoor courts in northwest Auckland.
The investment proposal is:
“to provide adequate access to aquatic and leisure services to meet
the growing need of the population in northwest Auckland from 2021”.
The investment proposal aligns with national and local
strategic objectives and contributes to Auckland Plan outcomes.
A new aquatic facility would directly contribute to the
delivery of ‘Outcome 1: Belonging and participation’ in the
Auckland Plan 2050 by providing a public facility for aquatic, recreation, and
indoor sport activities.
The proposal aligns with the Community Facilities Network
Plan 2015 and the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017, as well as the Sports
New Zealand National Facilities Strategy for Aquatic Sports.
The needs assessment shows a clear need for more aquatic
and leisure services in northwest Auckland between 2026 and 2036. The provision
of an aquatic and leisure centre in northwest Auckland would:
· address unmet and
growing demand for aquatic and leisure services in the northwest catchment
· increase service levels
to meet the council’s approved provision guidelines
· support the efficient
use of the existing network of aquatic facilities.
The investment proposal is to provide a new destination
aquatic facility with two full-sized courts near Westgate in the
Henderson-Massey local board area.
It aims to remedy the following problem: the current and
planned network of aquatic and leisure facilities does not meet the demand for
aquatic and leisure services in northwest Auckland now and in the future.
Investing in the proposed facility would deliver clear benefits:
· increased participation
in a range of aquatic, leisure and active recreation activities
· improved health and
fitness
· improved life-skills
and enhanced personal and social wellbeing
· enhanced community
wellbeing
· reduced pressure on
neighbouring aquatic facilities.
The proposed facility is classified as a destination
facility in the Community Facilities Network Plan. Indicative service
requirements include an eight-lane 25 metre pool, play, learn to swim and relaxation
areas, as well as two indoor courts and fitness area.
4.2 The investment proposal is a destination aquatic
facility with two courts
The investment proposal is a destination aquatic facility
in the Massey area, as classified under the Community Facilities Network Plan.
It would include:
· an eight-lane 25 metre
pool totalling 500m2
· a dedicated 300m2
learn to swim area
· leisure swimming space
totalling 280m2, including a toddlers’ pool
· two spas, totalling 40m2
· fitness – two
100m2 multi-use exercise rooms
· group fitness –
200m2 space for programmed recreational activities
· two full-sized indoor
courts
· storage, common areas,
changing rooms, café and retail space, and services
· car parking of
approximately 150 carparks.
The facility mix is set out in detail in a report prepared
for the council by Global Leisure Group Ltd[5], a specialist sport, recreation and
community planning consultancy. The service requirements would be further
refined in consultation with the community in the next step of work.
The approximate total
ground floor footprint would be around 6000m2, with a total site
size of 17,000 to 21,000m2, including landscaping and car parking.
In the case of a facility providing four full-sized indoor
courts with spectator seating, an additional 2000m2 of ground floor
footprint would be required.
4.3 The proposal aligns with the council’s strategic
direction
4.3.1 The proposal aligns with existing plans and
strategies
The council’s
vision is for Auckland to be a world class city that enables communities to
live healthy lifestyles, strengthens community participation, and promotes
economic benefits.
Our communities rely on the council to provide
public facilities that enable Aucklanders to participate in sport and
recreation when the private sector is unable to meet these needs.
The relevant strategies
and plans that provide the framework in which to consider any future investment
in aquatic and leisure facilities are presented below.
The investment proposal aligns with national and local
strategic objectives and contributes to Auckland Plan outcomes.
A new aquatic facility would directly contribute to the
delivery of ‘Outcome 1: Belonging and participation’ in Auckland
Plan 2050 by providing a public facility for aquatic, recreation, and indoor
sport activities.
The proposal aligns with the Community Facilities Network
Plan 2015 and the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017, as well as the Sports
New Zealand National Facilities Strategy for Aquatic Sports.
·
Figure
4.1:
Strategic alignment
4.3.2 The proposal meets specific council objectives
The investment proposal contributes to
the following specific council objectives.
· Enable our communities:
fulfil Auckland Plan outcomes through increased participation in indoor sports
by enhancing the current network of facilities (Auckland Plan 2050).
· Fit-for-purpose:
provide greater efficiencies through investing in multi-use facilities rather
that single codes. This will support our diverse communities and provide
greater efficiencies. The 2015 Community Facilities Network Plan provides a
roadmap for how the council will invest in community facilities over the next
20 years. It sets population guidelines of 35,000 to 50,000 for aquatic
provision, and 18,000 to 40,000 for leisure provision.
· Reduce inequities:
reduce inequities between communities through providing accessible facilities
where the greatest need exists. This will address disparities in sport and
recreation outcomes and ensure a robust network of facilities across Auckland
(Auckland Plan, Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport:
Investment Plan 2019-2039).
· Do more with less: provide greater value for dollar spend and seek new
opportunities by leveraging partnerships (Community Facilities Network Plan
2015).
· Evidence-based: use
evidence to prioritise investment in aquatic facilities that will have the
greatest impact, shifting from an ad-hoc investment mentality (Community
Facilities Network Plan 2015).
· Maximise sport
participation: address population growth and changing sport preferences through
regular assessments of, and changes to, sport programmes, services and facilities (Increasing
Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039).
4.4 The proposal follows a clear investment logic
4.4.1 Investing in the proposed facility would meet
a current and growing demand
Community facilities play an important role by
providing places for people to connect and participate in activities. They
contribute to broader outcomes that are important to developing resilient and
cohesive communities, including health and wellbeing, community identity and
pride, and a sense of belonging.
The needs assessment
establishes that the current and planned network of aquatic and leisure
facilities does not meet demand for aquatic and leisure services in northwest
Auckland.
Specific problems related to
unmet demand for aquatic and leisure services include:
· the lack of aquatic
service provision in northwest Auckland impacts on swimming participation
levels, especially amongst the most deprived communities
· northwest residents
using nearest aquatic facilities put pressure on existing facilities nearing
capacity
· northwest
residents’ limited access to courts impacts on their ability to
participate in leisure activities
· fast growing demand is
widening the service provision gap faster than anticipated.
The needs assessment
leads to the proposal
to invest in a new
destination aquatic facility with two courts near Westgate in Henderson-Massey.
The investment
objective of the proposal is: “To provide adequate
access to aquatic
and leisure services to meet the growing need of the population in northwest Auckland”.
The problem statements,
benefits from investment and investment objective are shown in an investment
logic map below.
·
Figure
4.2:
Investment logic map
4.4.2 Investing in the proposed facility would
deliver clear benefits
· Higher participation in a range of aquatic,
leisure and active recreation activities. This is consistent with the
council’s strategic investment objectives and participation targets.
· Better health and
fitness
through
greater participation in swimming for fitness or recreation, learn to swim
programmes or community centre programmes such as yoga and dance.[6]
Swimming is an activity that spans all age groups and
abilities including for people who may struggle to participate in other fitness
activities, for example disabled or older persons.
· Enhanced personal and
social wellbeing by reducing isolation and providing learning opportunities.
These include learn to swim programmes, as well as other community programmes and
services that support people to engage in their community and build or enhance
a sense of belonging.
· Enhanced community
wellbeing
by offering a centre for community members to meet, socialise and develop
shared bonds.
· Reduced pressure on
neighbouring aquatic facilities. While some of the usage of the new facility in
northwest Auckland may be displaced from other aquatic and leisure facilities
in the region, the closest pools in Albany and Henderson are operating at
capacity at peak times.
The provision of an additional aquatic facility in
northwest Auckland will spread some of this demand delivering additional
benefits for the wider network.
Analyses undertaken by the council and Sport New Zealand
National Facilities Strategy for Indoor Sports 2014 indicate that there is an
under-supply of indoor courts in Auckland.
·
Table
4.1:
Benefits associated with aquatic and leisure facilities
|
Benefits
|
Who
benefits?
|
|
Higher
participation
|
All new users
Children and young
people as high users of aquatic and leisure services
|
|
Health
and fitness benefits
· Caters for all
ages and ethnicities
· Inclusive of
people that may struggle to participate in other fitness activities due to
health or physical limitations (e.g. disabled and older persons)
|
All users
|
|
Personal
and social benefits, such as improved life skills and social connectedness
|
Programme
participants
All users
|
|
Community
wellbeing benefits
|
All users
Residents in
catchment
|
|
Wider
network benefits: reduced pressure on neighbouring aquatic facilities
|
Residents in
neighbouring catchments
|
4.4.3 The investment proposal must meet five
critical success factors
Five factors have been identified by the project team as
the unweighted critical success factors for the project. They were adapted from
New Zealand Treasury guidance to be more specific to the investment proposal.
1) Strategic fit (Should we be
doing this?)
· Does the facility align
with the council’s strategic intent and contribute to Auckland Plan
outcomes?
2)
Business need (Do we need to do this?)
· How well does the
option fulfil the current and future needs for aquatic and leisure services in
the local catchment?
3) Potential value for money (What is the best
value way to do this?)
· Which option has the
highest net present value and benefit-cost ratio?
4) Site suitability (Is the facility in the optimal location?)
· Is the facility located
where it will best serve the community and contribute positively to
placemaking?
5) Reduce inequities (Is there fair access?)
· Does the option provide
good access to low socio-economic demographic groups?
Options that are short-listed are assessed against these
success criteria.
Each option is ranked against each criterion. Options must
meet the strategic fit and the business need or be discarded. The option or
options that are ranked highest are recommended to be further assessed at the
next stage of planning.
The question of affordability will be considered as part of
the Long-term Plan.
4.5 Limited risks are associated with the investment
proposal
Risks result from uncertain events that either improve or
undermine the achievement of benefits. The main risks that might create,
enhance, prevent, degrade, accelerate, or delay the achievement of the
investment objectives are identified and analysed below.
·
Table
4.2:
Initial risk analysis
|
Main risks
|
Consequence
|
Likelihood
|
Comments and risk management strategies
|
|
Optimism
bias
|
Low
|
Low
|
Conduct
sensitivity analysis of cost-benefit results.
|
|
Delay
in delivery due to budget restrictions
|
Low
|
High
|
The
council’s budget restrictions may impact on growth programmes that are
not already contractually committed, including pools.
|
The major risk associated with the investment proposal is
an optimism bias, whereby the benefits expected from the investment are
overstated. A sensitivity analysis of cost-benefit results is conducted in
Section 5.4. It concludes that all options remain economically viable when
costs and benefits are altered, hence eliminating the optimism bias.
Another major risk is the delay in investment in the
facility because of the financial constraints faced by the council in the wake
of the Covid-19 pandemic.
5 Economic
case
5.1 Summary
The economic case considers five short-listed options,
including the status quo. There is a strong economic case for all
four non-status quo options. Benefits are significantly higher than costs, even
when key assumptions such as visitor numbers and costs are altered. Three
options are located on council-owned sites and one on a generic privately-owned
site for comparison purposes.
Option
1: Status quo
· Not a recommended option as it does not meet strategic
objectives, nor does it address community needs.
Option 2: An aquatic facility with two courts on Royal
Reserve
· A recommended option for further investigation.
· A facility on Royal Reserve would serve a large number
of residents within its catchment. Hence this option has the highest
cost-benefit ratio (3.71) among all five options.
· This option also has the greatest scope to reduce
access inequalities as it is located in and near highly deprived areas.
Option 3: An aquatic facility with two courts on Fred
Taylor Park
· A recommended option for further investigation.
· This option has the second highest cost-benefit ratio
(2.92) and is well located to serve the study area population.
Developing a new facility on either
Royal Reserve or Fred Taylor Park would:
· require improvements in transport access and safety, many of which are already planned
· impact on the provision of open space and sports
fields, which may need to be mitigated.
Option 4: An aquatic facility with four courts on the
Massey Leisure Centre site
· Not a recommended option in the short to medium term
as it requires the rationalisation of the Massey Leisure Centre, a well-used community and leisure
centre with an estimated 15-year asset life remaining.
· The site, while suitable to house a future facility,
is on the small side. To accommodate the proposed facility, the Massey Leisure
Centre would need to be rationalised and the proposed facility would need to
provide four courts (instead of two) to compensate for the loss of the existing
two courts.
· This option has the
lowest cost-benefit ratio (2.61), reflecting higher capital costs than other
options.
Option 5: An aquatic facility with two courts on a
generic private site
· Not a recommended option as locating the proposed
facility on council-owned land offers better value for money.
· This option has the second lowest cost-benefit ratio
(2.71), due to the need to purchase land.
· This option does not investigate
potential partnership arrangements, which may offer a value-for-money alternative
to the recommended options and should therefore be investigated during the next
phase of planning.
5.2 The options
5.2.1 The options were developed using a rigorous
process
Options were developed to provide adequate access
to aquatic
and leisure services to the population in northwest Auckland from 2026. Five options were arrived
at after a rigorous process of investigation and analysis that follows New
Zealand Treasury guidelines. This process is summarised in Figure 5.1.
·
Figure
5.1:
Process to develop options
The five short-listed options were then
assessed against the critical success factors detailed in Section 4.4.3. This
assessment includes an economic analysis.
5.2.2 Starting with a long list of options
A long list of options was developed to
consider the following five dimensions of choice:
1. what level of services is possible?
2. how can functions be provided?
3. where can deliver the services?
4. when can the services be delivered?
5. how can the services be funded?
The description of the long list of options and
their analysis are shown in Table 5.1 and Section 5.2.3. This analysis provides
the evidence to support the exclusion of options. Consequently, five options
were short-listed.
·
Table
5.1:
Exclusion considerations for long list of options
|
Dimension
|
Description
|
Options
within each dimension
|
Analysis
|
|
Scope
|
In relation to the
proposal, what level of services is possible?
|
· Local
aquatic provision
· Destination
aquatic provision
· Regional
aquatic provision
· Two
courts included in leisure component
· Four
courts included in leisure component
|
· Local aquatic
provision does not fully meet demand from northwest catchment.
· Destination
aquatic provision provides Pools sports training, Indoor sports leagues, and
special leisure (rock climbing, skating etc.) in addition to local aquatic
services. It fully meets demand.
· Regional
aquatic provision would constitute an oversupply of
aquatic services. One to three regional facilities are required to service
the whole of Auckland.
· The
provision of two courts in leisure component meet demand for additional
leisure.
· The
provision of four courts would lead to over provision and associated
disbenefits[7].
· Recommended
scope: destination aquatic provision with two
courts
|
|
Service
solution
|
How can functions
be provided?
|
· Increase
community access to existing facilities
· Partnership
provision
· Council
provision
|
· Increasing
community access to existing facilities, notably school pools, would somewhat
fill the provision gap but would not be sufficient to meet unmet demand for
aquatic services. There are no existing aquatic facilities in area.
· Partnership
provision is unlikely to happen as provision of an aquatic facility is
primarily seen as a public good.
· Council
provision addresses a market failure and provides a public good.
· Recommended
service solution: Council provision
|
|
Service
delivery
|
Where can deliver
the services?
|
· Council
operated facility on sites option
· See
site selection section
|
· The
site selection assessment is detailed in Section 5.2.3.
· Recommended
service delivery: Royal Reserve or Fred Taylor Park
|
|
Timing
|
When can the
services be delivered?
|
· Delivery
is staged as policy threshold for provision are met
· Facility
is delivered in a single stage
|
· Staged
delivery: the aquatic facility is developed first to meet the existing gap in
aquatic services provision, while the leisure component is delivered later to
fill the gap in leisure provision, estimated to occur between 2026 and 2036.
· Given
extended development period, the aquatic facility is unlikely to be operative
before 2030, by which date there will be a gap in leisure services provision
in northwest Auckland.
· Recommended
timing: facility is delivered in a single stage.
This would likely deliver economies of scale in design and construction.
|
|
Funding
|
How can the
services be funded?
|
· Follows
the council’s funding model for network provision and operation
|
· Funding for the facility follows the council’s funding
model for network provision and operation.
|
5.2.3 Three sites are selected as potential
locations
The site selection considers how and when the
northwest area will develop in terms of urbanisation and infrastructure
provision. This is presented in Appendix 1.
Potential sites were earmarked based on
proximity to the suburbs of Massey and Westgate and being of approximately
18,000 to 20,000m2 in size, sufficient to accommodate the planned facility
along with landscaping and carparking.
The council’s development arm Panuku
provided a list of potential sites in a memorandum dated 25 March 2019.
Panuku investigated council-owned sites suggested by the Henderson-Massey Local
Board as well as alternative council-owned and privately-owned sites. It noted
that the supply of vacant land of the size required for the new facility listed
for sale on the open market is minimal.
A total of 19 sites were initially assessed and
advice was also sought from valuation company Roberts McKeown (report dated 12
March 2020). An option of either leasing or purchasing one of two private sites
was also put forward by a private developer.
Exclusions were made based on location, size,
topology, land use, zoning and land capital values, as well as likely
availability at the time of development and feasibility. Land zoned
‘Terrace Housing and Apartment Building’ was not thought suitable
for recreational facilities use in the context of a growing housing shortage
and high land value.
From this assessment, the following three
council-owned sites were retained as options to be assessed in the economic
case:
· Royal Reserve at 5
Beauchamp Drive, Massey
· Fred Taylor Park at 184
Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai
· the Massey Leisure
Centre site at 545 Don Buck Road, Massey.
An option of a facility on a generic
privately-owned site was added for the purpose of assessing costs and benefits.
·
Figure
5.2:
Map of proposed sites
5.2.4 Five
options are short-listed for assessment against critical success factors
A total of five options
were short-listed as shown in Figure 5.3 below.
Option 1 is the do-nothing option,
which represents the status quo.
Options 2, 3 and 4 consist of developing a
facility on three different council-owned sites.
Option 5 consists of
developing a facility on a generic private site, which provides a comparator to
development on council-owned sites.
·
Figure
5.3:
Options for a proposed aquatic facility in northwest Auckland
The facility services are identical for all options, except
for Option 4 where the facility would provide four courts instead of two. This
is to compensate for the two existing courts that would be lost as a result of
the rationalisation of the leisure facility currently on site.
5.2.5 Capital costs vary from $53m to $66m
Capital costs for the investment options vary from $53m to
$66m.
· ‘Medium’
construction cost estimates, taking the halfway point between the
‘high’ and ‘low’ construction cost estimates.
Construction cost is higher for Option 3 as the facility provides an additional
two indoor courts (or a total of four courts plus spectator seating) to replace
lost courts associated with the rationalisation of the existing buildings on
site.
· An estimate of
development contributions and infrastructure growth charges to be paid by the
council.
· Site clearance costs
for Option 4, associated with the rationalisation of the Massey Leisure Centre.
· The cost to purchase of
a private site in Option 5. The costs are based on the valuation by Roberts McKeown,
March 2020 and are assumed to occur in 2030. The purchase cost of a generic
private site in Option 5 is increased to $7,000,000 as part of the sensitivity
testing as part of the cost-benefit analysis.
5.2.6 Options description
The short-listed options are described
below.
|
·
Option 1: Do-nothing (Status quo)
|
|
·
Capital costs
|
·
$0
|
|
·
Option 2: An aquatic facility with
two full-sized indoor courts at Royal Reserve
5 Beauchamp Drive, Massey
|
|
·
Site characteristics
|
·
8.38 ha, owned by Auckland Council
·
Zoning: Open Space – Sport and
Active Recreation and Open Space – Informal Recreation
·
Capital Value: $7,150,000
·
Land Value: $6,450,000
|
|
·
Current use
|
·
Sports fields; Playground
|
|
·
Technical feasibility
|
·
Good - The land is of variable
gradient with moderate slopes and flat areas
|
|
·
Capital costs
|
·
DC
and IGC* estimate: $560,803
·
Construction
Cost (medium): $52,900,000
·
Total: $53,460,803
|
|
·
Option 3: An aquatic facility with
two full-sized indoor courts at Fred Taylor Park
184 Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai
|
|
·
Site characteristics
|
·
8.32 ha, owned by Auckland Council
·
Zoning: Open Space – Sport and
Active Recreation
·
Capital Value: $9,150,000
·
Land Value: $8,350,000
|
|
·
Current use
|
·
Sports fields (four playing fields
and two training grounds); Waitakere City Football Club
|
|
·
Technical feasibility
|
·
Excellent – The land is
generally flat
|
|
·
Capital costs
|
·
DC
and IGC* estimate: $403,763
·
Construction
Cost (medium): $52,900,000
·
Total: $53,303,763
|
|
·
Option 4: An aquatic facility with
four full-sized indoor courts at Massey Leisure Centre site
545 Don Buck Road, Massey
|
|
·
Site characteristics
|
·
1.83 ha, owned by Auckland Council
·
Zoning: Open Space – Community
·
Capital Value: $14,950,000
·
Land Value: $4,450,000
|
|
·
Current use
|
·
Massey Leisure Centre; futsal court;
carpark
·
The leisure centre is currently
managed by the YMCA
·
The former library space to be
leased to a community organisation
·
Aquatic facility a permitted use
Existing facilities would need to be rationalised to make space for the proposed
aquatic facility
|
|
·
Technical feasibility
|
·
Moderate – constrained due to
overall size and topography
·
The site size is on the lower end of
the acceptable range to accommodate the indicative specifications of the
proposed new facility
·
The high-profile corner site is
elevated with views over the Waitemata Harbour towards the CBD
·
It has a moderate slope from Don
Buck Road
|
|
·
Capital costs
|
·
Site
clearance: $1,600,000
·
DC
and IGC* estimate: $216,988
·
Construction
Cost (medium): 63,900,000
·
Total: $65,716,988
|
|
·
Option 5: An aquatic facility with
two full-sized indoor courts on a generic private site
Address unknown, Massey / Whenuapai area
|
|
·
Site characteristics
|
·
Large free-hold site
|
|
·
Current use
|
·
Assumed vacant
|
|
·
Technical feasibility
|
·
Assumed good
|
|
·
Capital costs
|
·
Site
purchase: $4,000,000
·
DC
and IGC* estimate: $466,645
·
Construction
Cost (Medium): $52,900,000
·
Total: $57,366,645
|
·
*DC
and IGC stand for ‘development contributions’ and
‘infrastructure growth charges’
Source:
MPM Projects, Order of Cost Estimate for NW Aquatics, January 2020
5.3 Options 2 and 3 assessed as preferred options against
critical success factors
Below is a matrix that summarises the assessment of each
option against the critical success factors described in the strategic case.
·
Table
5.2:
Overall assessment of options
|
Critical Success Factors
|
Strategic fit
|
Business need
|
Site suitability
|
Reduce inequities
|
Potential value for money
|
Overall assessment
|
|
Option 1
Status quo
|
xxx
|
xxx
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
xxx
|
|
Option 2
Royal Reserve
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
üü
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
üü
|
|
Option 3
Fred Taylor Park
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
üü
|
üü
|
üü
|
üü
|
|
Option 4
Massey Leisure Centre
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
ü
|
üüü
|
ü
|
ü
|
|
Option 5
Generic private site
|
üüü
|
üüü
|
unknown
|
unknown
|
ü
|
ü
|
Staff recommend that investment in an aquatic facility with
two full-sized indoor courts be further assessed in a detailed business case.
This recommendation is based on a strong needs assessment, strategic case and
economic case.
Based on current site analysis, locating the proposed
facility on Royal Reserve (Option 2) or Fred Taylor Park (Option 3) provide the
best fit against the critical success factors. Depending on the timing of the
investment, further sites may need to be assessed to take advantage of future
opportunities.
Further analysis of the need and options to mitigate the
loss of open space attributed to the development of the proposed aquatic
facility on reserve land will be required. Feasibility, including network
optimisation considerations, will be investigated in the commercial and
management case in the next phase of the business case development.
The full assessment is detailed as follows:
· critical success
factors 1 and 2 are covered in detail in the strategic case
· factors 3, 4 and 5 are
covered in detail in the economic case below
· all factors must be
considered when making an investment decision due to the council’s role
as a public sector organisation.
5.4 All options deliver value for money
This section provides an assessment of the options against
critical success factor 3: potential value for money. The primary tool used in
this assessment is a cost-benefit analysis.
5.4.1 The cost-benefit
analysis methodology is adapted from MartinJenkins
The cost-benefit analysis was done by the council’s
Research and Investigation Unit and draws on work undertaken by MartinJenkins,
a consultancy firm. It was peer-reviewed by the council’s Chief Economist
Unit for alignment against the following quality advice standards tools:
· guide to weighing
benefits and costs
· quantify, proxy,
describe.
The cost-benefit analysis considers the options outlined in
Section 5.2. An option on a generic private site provides a comparator to the
options using the three short-listed council-owned sites. While the status quo
option is not analysed in the cost-benefit analysis, it is the baseline against
which all options are compared.
The cost-benefit analysis has two primary outputs:
· net present value
· benefit-cost ratio.
Net present value shows the value of the option today,
taking the whole life of the facility into account. It subtracts the costs of
an option from its benefits. A positive net present value shows that the
benefits outweigh the costs.
Benefit-cost ratio shows the ‘dollar’ of
benefit we get from every dollar of cost. A benefit-cost ratio above 1.0 shows
that the benefits are higher than the costs.
The cost-benefit analysis considers the following benefits
and costs. These are not intended to be comprehensive as with any public good
there will be elements of benefits and costs that cannot be quantified and, in
some cases, proxy measurements have had to be used.
For this project the benefits quantified are as followed:
· physical health
benefits
· revenue from user
charges
· consumer surplus
benefits, i.e. the benefit to the individual above the ‘cost’ of
the activity, estimated at $3.80
Unquantified benefits include:
· revenue from
café and retail space
· non-use value for
aquatic facility, i.e. the benefits which accrue to people who do not use the
facility but who may value its existence and the option to use it
· mental health benefits
· social and community
benefits
o increased productivity
o reduced unemployment
o reduced crime
· visitor expenditure,
i.e. GDP generated by visitors to the facility from outside the Auckland region
· network benefits by
relieving pressure from the Albany and West Wave aquatic facilities.
Quantified costs are as followed:
· capital costs
· operational costs
· asset renewal
· deadweight cost of
local government funding
· green space reduction,
associated with Options 2 and 3
· loss of environmental
services associated with green space reduction, i.e. loss of carbon
sequestration and loss of storm-water run-off function.
Unquantified costs include:
· cost of providing
Massey Leisure Centre at a different location under Option 4, noting that
Option 4 includes the development of four courts to replace the loss of
existing facilities
· cost of demolishing
buildings on purchased private sites, which applies to Option 5, as well as the
case study of a facility on Fred Taylor Park with additional land purchase.
5.4.2 Future
demand varies significantly across sites
Levels of demand drive the level of benefits. Numbers for
projected facility membership, visitation and catchment population were
modelled[8].
Analysis of the drivetime catchment area indicates a significant variation in
the projected demand for the proposed facility once the location has been
considered. It is projected that by 2046 the total population of a 20-minute
drivetime catchment area would range from 380,695 to 531,607.
·
Table
5.3:
Projected catchment size now and by 2046
|
·
|
·
Option 2
·
Royal Reserve
|
·
Option 3
·
Fred Taylor Park
|
·
Option 4
·
Massey Leisure Centre site
|
·
Option 5
·
Generic private site
|
|
·
Based on current population in the catchment
|
·
Assume same as Fred Taylor Park
|
|
·
Projected aquatics demand
|
·
62,496
|
·
47,628
|
·
51,108
|
|
·
Projected gym demand
|
·
68,928
|
·
61,152
|
·
59,472
|
|
·
Projected group exercise demand
|
·
4,104
|
·
3,744
|
·
4,404
|
|
·
Total demand
|
·
135,528
|
·
112,524
|
·
114,984
|
|
·
Percentage
of projected members within a 5-minute drive time
|
·
50%
|
·
13%
|
·
38%
|
|
·
Based on population forecasts in the catchment by 2046
|
|
·
Projected catchment size
|
·
531,607
|
·
380,695
|
·
483,553
|
|
·
Projected aquatics demand
|
·
228,732
|
·
180,564
|
·
193,752
|
|
·
Projected gym demand
|
·
261,776
|
·
231,828
|
·
225,456
|
|
·
Projected group exercise demand
|
·
15,552
|
·
14,184
|
·
13,368
|
|
·
Total demand
|
·
506,060
|
·
426,576
|
·
432,576
|
Source: Adapted from
Global Leisure Group report
The projected visits
per annum based on current population indicate that the Royal Reserve site
would have the highest demand. Fred Taylor Park has the lowest proportion of
members within a 5-minute drive time in 2019. This is likely to change as the
Whenuapai area becomes more urbanised and transport access improves.
The projected visits
per annum are forecasted to rise significantly by 2046, whichever site is
considered.
5.4.3 The cost-benefit analysis shows that all
options are economically viable
The results of the
cost-benefit analysis found that all the options have a cost-benefit ratio
above 1 and all options have a positive net present value, indicating that the
benefits outweighed the costs of each option over the analysis period.
·
Table
5.4:
Net present value and benefit cost ratio
|
Net
present value
|
Benefit
cost ratio
|
|
Option 2: Royal Reserve
|
$108.5 million
|
3.71
|
|
Option 3: Fred Taylor Park
|
$72.9
million
|
2.92
|
|
Option 4: Massey Leisure Centre site
|
$67.8
million
|
2.61
|
|
Option 5: Generic private site
|
$67.9
million
|
2.71
|
·
Highest
values in dark green, lowest values in light green
Figure 5.4 shows the
cumulative net present value over time and demonstrates that each option has
large upfront capital costs which deliver a negative net present value for the
first eight to ten years. The ongoing and increasing benefits once the facilities
are operational deliver a cumulative positive net present value from between
2037 and 2040 onwards. As the number of visits to the facility increases over
time in line with the demand projections, the cumulative net present value also
increases.
·
Figure
5.4:
Cumulative net present value over time
5.4.4 Option 2 at Royal Reserve has the highest
cost-benefit ratio
Option 2 at Royal Reserve has the highest cost-benefit
ratio. This option is assessed favourably relative to the other options, due to
the location of Royal Reserve generating a higher number of projected visits
over time. This is driven by higher population growth in the catchment versus
the other two sites.
·
Option
3 at Fred Taylor Park has lower net present value and benefit cost ratio than
the Royal Reserve option. This is driven by lower demand over time for this
location, which reduces the user generated benefits of consumer surplus and
physical health.
·
Option
4 on Massey Leisure Centre site has the lowest cost-benefit ratio. The greater
capital costs of delivering four courts associated with the rationalisation of
the existing facility impacts on the benefit cost ratio and
net present value. However, this option does not consider the potential need to
fully replace or compensate for the loss of some current amenities of the
existing Massey Leisure Centre site, including the community facility in the Massey
ex-library space, or the outdoor futsal court.
·
Option
5 on a generic private site has the second lowest benefit cost ratio, due to
the need to purchase land. This reflects that locating the proposed facility on
council-owned land offers better value for money. Alternative arrangements to
deliver the facility through a partnership have not been investigated under
this option.
5.4.5 All options remain economically viable when
benefits and costs are altered
As discussed in the strategic case, the major risk
associated with the investment proposal is an optimism bias, whereby the
benefits expected from the investment are overstated.
To test the robustness of the results, staff performed a
sensitivity analysis. This involved altering some key cost-benefit assumptions.
The resulting cost-benefit ratios were then compared to those generated under
the original assumptions.
·
Table
5.5:
Sensitivity analysis: benefit cost ratios under different assumptions
|
|
Option
2
Royal Reserve
|
Option
3
Fred Taylor Park
|
Option
4
Massey Leisure Centre
|
Option
5
Generic private site
|
|
Base model
|
3.71
|
2.92
|
2.61
|
2.71
|
|
If visits reduce by
20%
|
2.96
|
2.29
|
2.07
|
2.13
|
|
If health benefits
are halved
|
2.57
|
1.97
|
1.76
|
1.82
|
|
If construction costs
increase by 20%
|
3.11
|
2.45
|
2.18
|
2.28
|
|
If private land costs
$7m
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2.51
|
|
If discount rate is
2% instead of 4%
|
4.54
|
3.58
|
3.23
|
3.35
|
|
If discount rate is
6% instead of 4%
|
3.05
|
2.40
|
2.13
|
2.21
|
·
The
sensitivity analysis shows that under the altered assumptions, the benefits
still outweigh the costs for all options considered.
5.5 Royal Reserve and Fred Taylor Park deemed preferred
locations
·
This
section provides an assessment of the options against critical success factor
4: site suitability. The three short-listed sites were assessed in terms of:
· the optimal location,
including the ease and safety of access for visitors
· trade-offs associated
with the impact on current use.
·
Overall,
Royal
Reserve and Fred Taylor Park are both considered suitable locations for the
proposed facility, pending improvements in terms of access, transport safety,
and wayfinding. The required improvements would need to be fully scoped at
detailed business case level. The Massey Leisure Centre site is not a preferred
location as developing the proposed facility would require the rationalisation
of the existing facilities.
5.5.1 Three sites are assessed for suitability
against four criteria
The qualities for community facilities described in the
Community Facilities Network Plan are:
· accessible: universally
accessible and affordable for all
· best placed: easy to
find and get to and well-placed to serve the community and catchment
· flexible: able to
respond and adapt to the changing needs of the community and support continued
growth in participation
· functionality: designed
to accommodate the intended range of functions and activities and utilise the
outdoor environment to support participation
· local character:
contribute to place-making by reflecting the character of the community in the
building fabric and design
· quality:
well-maintained, safe and provide an enjoyable customer experience.
Criteria were developed to support decision making around
optimal site selection, to locate facilities where they will best serve their
communities and contribute positively to placemaking. Those criteria are
described in the Site Assessment Criteria for
Community Facilities 2016 as follows:
The short-listed site options were assessed against the
four criteria above. Auckland Transport provided an assessment against the
‘easy to find and get to’ criteria which includes 1) visibility, 2)
accessibility, 3) route safety and 4) convenience.
Some caution must be taken in reading the results as it is
difficult to evaluate the sites against the ‘future state’, as the
details are not fully known.
5.5.2 All three council-owned sites are suitable,
subject to improvements
The site assessment determined that all three sites are
suitable for the development of an aquatic facility, with the Massey Leisure
Centre site being the optimal site in terms of being easy to find and get to.
The site assessment is be summarised in Table 5.6.
·
Table
5.6:
Summary findings from site assessment
|
|
Site
suitability
|
|
Option 2
Royal Reserve
|
Low visibility from
arterial roads
In an existing urban
area with adequate transport access
50% of potential
users a 5-minute drive away in 2019
|
|
Option 3
Fred Taylor Park
|
High visibility
Requires major
improvements to transport access and safety (many planned)
Urbanisation of the
area planned from 2028-32
|
|
Option 4
Massey Leisure Centre site
|
Good ease and safety
of access
High visibility site
Central location
Site size on the
lower end to accommodate aquatic facility
|
Auckland Transport noted that the two main roads servicing
the three sites, Fred Taylor Drive and Don Buck Road are strategic arterials,
and will be upgraded to cater for growth of the area as part of the work by the
Growth Alliance.
A transport impact assessment will be required as part of
the resource consent application to establish whether the arterial roads are
able to support the estimated annual visits and associated traffic. This will
assist in identifying the required transport improvements additional to those
already planned. Additional costs associated with extra improvements will be
considered in the cost-benefit analysis in the detailed business case.
Table 5.7 provides a more detailed account of the site
assessment.
·
Table
5.7:
Site assessment against site assessment criteria
|
·
Option 2: Royal Reserve
|
|
·
Central
|
· 1.2 kilometres away from the Westgate Shopping Centre
· Within an existing urban area
· Percentage of potential users within a five-minute drive time
in 2019: 50%
|
|
·
Easy to find and get to
|
·
Visibility
· Situated off Don Buck Road and Royal Road, both busy arterials
· Entrance to the site is on Beauchamp Drive, with the site
located among an existing residential area
|
|
·
Accessibility
· One bus service, stopping on 34 Royal Road and opposite
· Westgate Shopping Centre is five-minute drive, a 13-minute bus
ride, six-minute cycle ride or a 16-minute walk
|
|
·
Route safety
· Network of cycleways in the vicinity but would require improvements
· Pedestrian access to and from the site is adequate
|
|
·
Convenience
· Some existing car parking and capacity
for more
· Closest amenities would be in the Westgate Shopping Centre
|
|
·
Transformational
|
·
Part of an existing urban area
|
|
·
Future proofed
|
·
Space to expand on site and limited
option to acquire adjacent land
·
Compatible with existing use
|
|
·
Option 3: Fred Taylor Park
|
|
·
Central
|
· 3.4 kilometres away from the
Westgate Shopping Centre
· Zoned for future urban development
· Percentage of potential users within a five-minute drive time
in 2019: 13%
|
|
·
Easy to find and get to
|
·
Visibility
· On a busy arterial
road
· Entrance to the site needs to be via the existing access off
Fred Taylor Drive
|
|
·
Accessibility
· Four buses stopping at 186 Fred Taylor Drive and opposite
· Three Westgate Shopping
Centre is an approximately seven-minute drive, 13-minute bus ride, 11-minute
cycle ride or a 41-minute walk
|
|
·
Route safety
· Safety issues related to general speed of this section of road
(80km/h) and high incidence of accidents
· Would require upgrade of the walking and cycling network
alongside Fred Taylor Drive
· It may be necessary to provide for signalised crossing
|
|
·
Convenience
· Some existing car parking and capacity
for more
· Closest amenities would be in the Westgate Shopping Centre
|
|
·
Transformational
|
·
Part of future urban area to be
developed from 2028 to 2032 period
·
Development of aquatic facility may
precede urbanisation of the surrounding area
|
|
·
Future proofed
|
·
Space to expand on site and option
to acquire adjacent land
·
Compatible with existing use
|
|
·
Option 4: Massey Leisure Centre site
|
|
·
Central
|
· 750 metres from the Westgate Shopping Centre
· Within an existing urban area
· Percentage of potential users within a five-minute drive time
in 2019: 38%
|
|
·
Easy to find and get to
|
·
Visibility
· Frontage onto Don Buck Road and Westgate Drive, both busy
arterial roads
· Entrance to the site is from Westgate Drive, which is
appropriate
|
|
·
Accessibility
· Three bus services stopping at two nearest bus stops opposite
2 Westgate Drive and at 526 Don Buck Rd
· Westgate Shopping Centre is an approximate three-minute cycle
ride, or a 10-minute walk
|
|
·
Route safety
· Network of cycleways in the vicinity but would require
improvements
· Pedestrian access to and from the site is adequate
|
|
·
Convenience
· Some existing car parking
· Highly convenient location as close to existing amenities
|
|
·
Transformational
|
·
Part of an existing urban area
|
|
·
Future proofed
|
·
No space to expand on site and
limited option to acquire adjacent land
|
