I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 18 February 2021

2.00pm

Council Chamber
Orewa Service Centre
50 Centreway Road
Orewa

 

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Gary Brown

 

Deputy Chairperson

Victoria Short

 

Members

Andy Dunn

 

 

Janet Fitzgerald, JP

 

 

Gary Holmes

 

 

Julia Parfitt, JP

 

 

Alexis Poppelbaum

 

 

Leanne Willis

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Gemma Kaldesic

Democracy Advisor

 

15 February 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 02 152 7397

Email: gemma.kaldesic@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                             5

2          Apologies                                                                                                           5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                   5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                             5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                     5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                     5

9.1    Public Forum - Peter Garrett - Access Issues in Mairangi Bay                                                                                          5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                 6

11        Public feedback on proposal to amend the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014                                                                                      7

12        Browns Bay Beach Reserve – Detailed Design approval for boardwalk renewal                                                                       13

13        Waiake Beach - boardwalk safety improvements and shed removal                                                                                          41

14        Governance forward work calendar                                         107

15        New road name in the BAA Land Holdings Limited subdivision at 15 Newman Road, Stillwater                            111

16        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)           confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Thursday 10 December 2020 as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.1       Public Forum - Peter Garrett - Access Issues in Mairangi Bay

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To deliver a presentation to the local board during the public forum segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Peter Garrett will be in attendance to present to the local board on access issues in Mairangi Bay. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the presentation and thank Peter Garrett for his attendance.

Attachments

a          Public Forum 18 February 2021_Peter Garrett........... 121

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014

File No.: CP2021/00509

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek views on public feedback to the proposal to amend Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakararata Waipiro / the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      To enable the local board to provide its views on public feedback to the proposal to amend the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, staff have prepared summary and deliberation reports.

3.      The Bylaw continues to enable alcohol bans in public places to reduce crime and disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there.

4.      The proposal seeks to improve the Bylaw by including new temporary alcohol bans for major events at Rarotonga / Mount Smart Stadium, Waiōrea / Western Springs Stadium, Eden Park and Pukekawa / Auckland Domain, and by making the Bylaw easier to read and understand.

5.      Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

6.      There is a reputational risk that feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole local board area. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

7.      The Panel will consider all local board and Auckland Domain Committee views and public feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 19 March 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision on 29 April 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      note the public feedback to the proposal to amend Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakararata Waipiro / the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 by people from the local board area in this agenda report

b)      provide views on the public feedback to assist the Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakararata Waipiro / the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 Panel in its deliberations on all public feedback to the proposal

c)      appoint a local board member to present the views to the Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakararata Waipiro / the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 Panel on Friday 19 March 2021.

Horopaki

Context

The Alcohol Control Bylaw enables council to make alcohol bans

8.      Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakararata Waipiro / the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) aims to help reduce crime and disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there.

9.      The Bylaw achieves this by providing a framework that enables alcohol bans to be made by resolution of the relevant delegated authorities the Regulatory Committee, local boards and the Auckland Domain Committee.

10.    The New Zealand Police enforce alcohol bans.

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

11.    On 24 September 2020 the Governing Body adopted a proposal to improve the Bylaw for public consultation (Item 15, GB/2020/109).

12.    The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw (see figure below).

13.    The proposal seeks to better reduce alcohol-related crime and disorder by making:

·    new temporary alcohol bans for major events[1] at four regional venues (Rarotonga / Mount Smart Stadium, Waiōrea / Western Springs Stadium, Eden Park and Pukekawa / Auckland Domain)

·    the Bylaw easier to read and understand. 

14.    The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 10 October until 13 November 2020. During that period, council received feedback from 881 people.

Decisions leading to the proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

15.    The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on public feedback to the proposal by people from the local board area before a final decision is made.

16.    Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 March 2021.

17.    The nature of the views is at the discretion of the local board. Any views must however remain inside the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

·    indicate support for public feedback by people from the local board area

·    recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

18.    A total of 59 people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal via online and written feedback.[2] There was majority support for the proposal, similar to the total support from all people who provided feedback.

         Percentage support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal

Total support from local board area

Total support from people across Auckland

1A: New temporary alcohol ban for all major events at Pukekawa / Auckland Domain

83 per cent

75 per cent

1B: New temporary alcohol ban for ‘Christmas in the Park’ at Pukekawa / Auckland Domain

72 per cent

75 per cent

1C: New temporary alcohol ban for all major events at Eden Park

77 per cent

72 per cent

1D: New temporary alcohol ban for all major events at Rarotonga / Mount Smart Stadium

90 per cent

78 per cent

1E: New temporary alcohol ban for all major events at Waiōrea / Western Springs Stadium

86 per cent

75 per cent

2:     Replace unnecessary clauses with a ‘related information’ note

66 per cent

70 per cent

3:     Clarify exceptions to alcohol bans, council’s ability to make temporary alcohol bans, and the Bylaw wording

93 per cent

87 per cent

19.    Key themes from feedback from people in the local board area are consistent with key themes from all public feedback. For example, that the proposal:

·    reduces alcohol-related crime and disorder and improves public safety

·    creates clearer, more efficient and enforceable rules.

20.    The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachments A to E to this report contain a summary of all public feedback by local board area, all public feedback related to the local board area, ‘Have Your Say’ event feedback, operational and non-bylaw-related feedback and draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

21.    Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on the public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 March 2021.

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.    There are no implications for climate change arising from this decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23.    The proposal impacts the operation of units across the council group involved in events, processing alcohol ban requests and alcohol ban signage. Those units are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

24.    Auckland Unlimited advise Proposal 1E: New temporary alcohol ban for all major events at Waiōrea / Western Springs Stadium also apply to major events held on the outer fields.

25.    Community Action on Youth and Drugs (CAYAD) Tāmaki Makaurau, and the Safety Collective Tāmaki Makaurau provided advice including about event implementation that has been circulated to other relevant council units.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.    Local board and Auckland Domain Committee views were sought on a draft proposal in July and August 2020 as they have delegated authority to make local alcohol bans.

27.    Nineteen local boards and the Auckland Domain Committee provided views and all supported public consultation on the proposal.

28.    Four local boards suggested changes, some of which resulted in updates to the draft proposal (click link to view in 01 September 2020 Regulatory Committee agenda, Item 9).

29.    This report provides an opportunity for the local board to give views on public feedback to the proposal by people from the local board area, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.    The Bylaw has significance for Māori as users and kaitiaki / guardians of public space. Māori are also over-represented in alcohol-related hospital visits, the criminal justice system and as victims of crime.

31.    Māori health advocacy organisations, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority support the use of alcohol bans as a tool to reduce alcohol-related harm.

32.    The Tūpuna Maunga Authority provided general feedback on the proposal noting that Tūpuna Maunga are subject to alcohol and smoke-free policy that supports the spiritual, cultural and community significance of the maunga.

33.    The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback support the proposal. This is consistent with the overall percentage of public feedback in support.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.    There are no financial implications from this decision.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.    There is a reputational risk that feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole local board area. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36.    The Bylaw Panel on 19 March 2021 will consider all formal local board and Auckland Domain Committee views and public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision on any amendments to the Bylaw on 29 April 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of public feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Public feedback from people in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

'Have Your Say' event feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Operational and non-bylaw-related feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

Browns Bay Beach Reserve – Detailed Design approval for boardwalk renewal

File No.: CP2021/00462

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek approval of the detailed design for the timber boardwalk renewal at the Browns Bay Beach Reserve, Browns Bay and to commence construction.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved in the Community Facilities Work Programme 2019/2020 (resolution HB/2019/90, approved 19 June 2019) to renew the timber boardwalk at the Browns Bay Beach Reserve. 

3.      The detailed design for the boardwalk has been completed with two possible delivery options: 

    Option 1 – Renewal as Tonka boardwalk 
    Option 2 – Renewal as part Tonka boardwalk and part concrete path 

4.      The project is currently being tendered to validate the estimated construction costs and to ensure it remains within budget. No contracts have been executed at this time.  

5.      Option 2 is recommended as the most cost-effective solution for the renewal. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      approve the design for the construction of the boardwalk as per option two: renewal as part Tonka boardwalk and part concrete path. 

 

Horopaki

Context

6.      Auckland Council’s Community Facilities department is currently planning the renewal of the timber boardwalk at the Browns Bay Beach Reserve as part of the Community Facilities work programme 2019/2020 (resolution HB/2019/90, approved 19 June 2019). 

7.      The current boardwalk is situated along the Browns Bay Beach Reserve in Browns Bay. 

8.      When the existing boardwalk was constructed, Eucalyptus Diversicolour boards were used. These boards are a Class 2 timber and have reached their expected lifespan and are now beginning to fail. The classification refers to durability of the material rated from 1 to 4. Timber with a class 2 durability has an average life of about seven – 15 years exposed above ground.

9.      With this boardwalk being a very popular feature of the Browns Bay Beach Reserve and wider town centre, it was confirmed in the scope of the project that the general look and feel of the boardwalk is to be maintained. 
 
 
 

10.    A review of the boardwalk’s substructure confirmed that sections of it remain in good condition and could likely be considered for re-use. However, it was noted that the air circulation underneath the timber boards may be insufficient and could have potentially added to the faster decay of the timber boards. Any renewal should therefore seek to improve the air circulation of the substructure to avoid this issue. 

11.    Due to the financial implications from the COVID-19 pandemic, staff investigated whether delaying the renewal and continuing with the repairs to the timber boards could be considered. Previous repairs had to be undertaken with conventional timber boards due to the unavailability of the original Eucalyptus Diversicolour boards.  

12.    The width of the timber boards differs from the original boards and with aging of the replacement boards, larger gaps had to be accepted. Some replacement boards also began to twist, thereby creating fall and trip hazards. Due to the concerns for the public’s health and safety and the short life span of the repairs, this option has not been considered further and the permanent renewal of the boardwalk remains the focus of the investigation. 

13.    To maintain the similar “look and feel” of the boardwalk, while increasing its longevity and minimising maintenance costs, an alternative timber option has been sought. The most suitable material for the new boardwalk is confirmed as Tonka. Tonka is a hardwood that is 100 per cent Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified and has a lifespan of over 25 years when installed above ground. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.    Once the material was identified, the Community Facilities Landscape Architecture team developed the required design drawings and specifications to renew the boardwalk. 

15.    During the design process a number of options were considered for the boardwalk. These have been outlined below. 
 

Option one – Renewal as Tonka boardwalkImage 1 – Aerial overview of option one 

16.    This option would consist of the renewal of the existing timber boardwalk like-for-like and will see all of the existing boardwalk replaced in new Tonka boards. The detailed design drawings have been attached to this report for reference (see Attachment A). 

17.    This option will maintain the design of the existing boardwalk and have minimal visual impact on the Browns Bay town centre. 

18.    Overall, the project will seek to maintain as much of the existing substructure as possible to reduce disturbance to trees and services, and to reduce the costs of the renewal. However, in some areas this will not be achievable due to the overall aim to improve air flow under the boardwalk. The substructures may have to be raised or deepened to achieve this. Any such changes will have no or minimal visual change for boardwalk users. 
 
 
 

19.    It is envisioned that the renewal of the boardwalk be undertaken in sections. This will allow for the remainder of the boardwalk to be available for public use, thereby minimising the impact the works will have. 

20.    The costs for this option are higher than the currently allocated budget and would lead to an estimated budget shortfall of $85,496.00 (refer to the Financial Implication section for further detail on cost estimated for this option). Therefore, staff considered an alternative option and do not recommend option one. 
 

Option two – Renewal as part Tonka boardwalk and part concrete pathImage 2 – Aerial overview of option two 

21.    Option two is identical to option one for the most part. The exception is the section at the end of the boardwalk, highlighted in blue in the above image, which will be renewed with a concrete path. The detailed design drawings have been attached to this report for reference (see Attachment B). 

22.    With the close proximity to the car park at the southern end and the adjacent toilet, this part of the boardwalk is usually used more as a regular sidewalk. Changing its appearance to a concrete path would not negatively impact on the overall look and feel of the remaining boardwalk. The northern and mid-section will continue the recreational design achieved by the timber boardwalk.  

23.    By completing part of the renewal as a concrete path, it will decrease the overall costs of the project. It will also speed up the construction process and reduce the time that the use of the boardwalk is restricted. 

24.    This option can be delivered within the allocated project budget, with a remaining contingency of an estimated $5,504.00. 

25.    This option is recommended as it provides a reasonable balance between the cost of renewing the boardwalk and maintaining the original design of the boardwalk. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26.    In June 2019, Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and a commitment to the community to look at ways how we can consider climate implications in everything that we do. 

27.    The Community Facilities department has chosen to use the Tonka material for this project, not only because of its durability but also because it is 100 per cent FSC certified. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) sets standards to make sure that forestry is practiced in an environmentally responsible and socially beneficial manner. Through the promotion of sustainable forest management, the effects from climate change are addressed and mitigated. 

28.    The project also seeks to achieve waste minimization by repurposing as many of the materials, especially the Eucalyptus Diversicolour boards, upon removal.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.    Council staff from within the Community Services team have been consulted with and are supportive of the renewal of the boardwalk. The renewal supports the active use of the reserve for walking and active recreation. 

30.    Staff within Community Facilities have been consulted and ongoing collaboration ensures that the design aligns with long term goals and that maintenance requirements are met.  

31.    Consultation with Watercare is underway and consultation with Auckland Transport will occur if required to ensure alignment with respective requirements prior to construction.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32.    An update on the investigation and concept design was presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at a workshop on the 27 February 2020, the local board provided feedback which has been incorporated in the design. 

33.    The project aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2020 and supports the objective of “Protect, maintain, and improve access and amenities for activities on our coastlines, parks and reserves” (Outcome four: Open spaces to enjoy) by providing an improved experience when visiting the Browns Bay Beach Reserve with a refreshed look of Beach Front Lane. 

34.    Staff also liaised with the Browns Bay Business Association in November 2020 and outlined the proposed works which were met with support.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.    Parks and cultural heritage are of fundamental importance to mana whenua and their culture and traditions. The development discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community through maintaining access to recreational spaces. 

36.    The project remains within the boundaries of the existing boardwalk and respects its surrounding natural environment.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.    As part of the Community Facilities work programme, the below funding was allocated to the renewal of the boardwalk: 
 

Funding source 

Financial Years 

Total funding allocated 

2019/20 

2020/21 

2021/22 

2022/23 

ABS Capex (Renewal) 

$ 24,516.25 

$10,000.00 

500,000.00 

145,483.75 

$ 680,000.00 

 

38.    The project was identified as a Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) project. This means there is the ability to bring the budgets forward for earlier delivery. The planned timeframe for delivery is the end of the year, subject to local board approving either of the options presented in the report.

 

39.    Based on an initial cost estimate, option two can be delivered within budget while option one will produce a budget shortfall of $ 85,496.00. 

 

 

Option one 

Option two 

Surveys and Design charges 

$ 61,746.00 

$ 61,746.00 

Project Management, Internal charges, etc. 

$ 9,750.00 

$ 9,750.00 

Cost for construction 

 

 

Material Supply – Tonka hardwood 

$ 226,200.00 

$ 177,190.00 

Construction costs 

$ 467,800.00 

$ 425,810.00 

Total estimated costs 

$ 765,496.00 

$ 674,496.00 

Total Budget 

$ 680,000.00 

$ 680,000.00 

Contingency (+) / Budget shortfall (-) 

- $ 85,496.00 

$ 5,504.00 

 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40.    If the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board were to approve option one for the boardwalk renewal, additional funds would have to be allocated and another project will likely have to be delayed or reduced in scope to allow for this.  

41.    There is a risk that the initial cost estimate is incorrect and cost for the recommended option will also cause a budget shortfall. A tender for both options is currently underway to confirm costs in detail. This will allow staff to negotiate the price or undertake changes to the design if required.  

42.    A Watercare ‘works over’ approval is required for the construction due to the close proximity to Watercare assets. Discussions with Watercare have started and approval is expected prior to construction. There is however a risk that approval conditions may be applied by Watercare, which could lead to additional costs for the project. 

43.    The renewal of the boardwalk does not propose a general change in the design of the boardwalk but will see it renewed as like for like. For this reason, wider community consultation has not been undertaken to avoid unnecessary costs.  

44.    If the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board were to decide that further consultation has to be undertaken for this project, it will delay the delivery of the project by up to three to six months and likely add to the costs. The public will be informed about the works through on-site signage once the contract has been awarded and a timeline for the delivery has been confirmed. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45.    A tender for the construction works is currently underway, which will be validated and allow for confirmation of costs.  

46.    Once the approval of the preferred option from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is received, further negotiations will be undertaken with the potential suppliers and the contract awarded.  

47.    Construction is expected to commence within the next few months. Consideration will be given to recreational activities and any potential events that may be scheduled, to ensure times of high public traffic are avoided. 

48.    The construction timeframe will be communicated to stakeholders through on-site signage. In addition, the Browns Bay Business Association, Coastguard and any other key stakeholders (which will be confirmed with the local board office closer to the time) will be informed via email once the construction timeline is confirmed. 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Option 1 – Renewal as Tonka boardwalk

19

b

Option 2 – Renewal as part Tonka boardwalk and part concrete path

31

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Barbara Heise – Senior Project Manager, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

Waiake Beach - boardwalk safety improvements and shed removal

File No.: CP2021/00825

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To inform the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board about the results of the investigations into the Pōhutukawa tree that is creating access issues on the Waiake Beach boardwalk.

2.      To seek approval for the planned actions to address the identified risks relating to the Pōhutukawa tree, as per Option 2 outlined below.

3.      To seek approval for the demolition of the Waiake Beach boat shed, as per Option B outlined below.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.      This report seeks approval for the planned actions to address the identified risks relating to the Pōhutukawa tree, as per Option 2 outlined below, as well as approval for the demolition of the Waiake Beach boat shed, as per Option B outlined below.

5.      A low hanging Pōhutukawa tree limb across the boardwalk at Waiake Beach Reserve was identified and brought to the attention of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. The tree limb restricts access to a height clearance of about 1.4m and safety concerns were raised.

6.      The Pōhutukawa tree is one of three assets at the site and although each asset needs to be considered individually, the adjacent boardwalk and boat shed are associated with the Pōhutukawa tree.

7.      The local board has requested that staff investigate the low hanging tree limb and propose suitable solution options.

8.      Public consultation on the matter was undertaken in November 2020 with mixed responses.

9.      Based on the community feedback received, internal assessments and advice from external specialists, a number of options were identified and are summarised in this report.

10.    The options are as follows:

Tree Limb

·      Option 1 - Do nothing / Accept restricted access 

·      Option 2 - Update signage and accept restricted access by not removing tree limb

·      Option 3 - Remove the tree limb and restore full access to the boardwalk

 Shed

·      Option A - Do nothing – leaving the shed in its current state

·      Option B – Remove the shed and re-instate lawn 

·      Option C – Remove the shed and rebuild in a new location

11.    The recommended options are Option 2 “Update signage and accept restricted access” and Option B “Remove the shed and re-instate lawn” for the shed.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      approve Option 2 to update the signage on either end of the boardwalk and accept the restricted access to the boardwalk by not removing the Pōhutukawa tree limb at Waiake Beach in Torbay.

b)      approve Option B to remove the boat shed and re-instate the lawn at Waiake Beach in Torbay.

c)      note the content of the Arboricultural, Structural, Coastal and Risk assessments as well as the Legal Advice relating to the Pōhutukawa tree that is creating access issues on the Waiake Beach boardwalk in Torbay.

Horopaki

Context

12.    The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board was contacted by members of the public in June 2020 about a Pōhutukawa tree limb overhanging the boardwalk at Waiake Beach. The tree limb hangs low with a minimum clearance of 1.4m, thereby restricting access for members of the public. 

13.    On 29 July 2020 members of the local board met with council staff on site to discuss the issue. During the site visit it was confirmed that there were a number of factors to be considered in relation to the tree limb, these included:

·        The Pōhutukawa tree is at least 100 years old and forms part of the natural environment of Waiake Beach. The tree also provides the boardwalk and adjacent boat shed some protection from coastal erosion which is evident along the adjacent banks of the creek

·        The settling of tree limbs is a natural process for Pōhutukawa trees, and it is unclear whether the removal of the entire limb could cause irreversible damage to the tree.

Another limb of the tree had also come to rest on the adjacent boat shed, potentially a heritage building, applying additional pressure to a structure that is already in poor condition

·        Options to change the boardwalk to accommodate the tree limb were discussed. These included the possibility of lowering the limb and renewing the boardwalk above limb. Alternatively, lowering the boardwalk to allow for greater clearance height under the tree limb.

14.    The options are as follows:

Tree Limb

·      Option 1 - Do nothing / Accept restricted access 

·      Option 2 - Update signage and accept restricted access by not removing tree limb

·      Option 3 - Remove the tree limb and restore full access to the boardwalk

 Shed

·      Option A - Do nothing – leaving the shed in its current state.

·      Option B – Remove the shed and re-instate lawn 

·      Option C – Remove the shed and rebuild in a new location

 

15.    Due to the complexity of the problem, a project line was included in the Community Facilities work programme (resolution HB/2020/101), requesting that staff investigate options to remediate access to the boardwalk, as well as the possible refurbishment of the boat shed. 

16.    An independent arborist report was commissioned to further assess options around the tree limb and possible changes to the boardwalk in case the limb had to remain. This report is included as Attachment A – Arboricultural Assessment.

17.    The local board also requested that wider community consultation be undertaken using the ‘Have Your Say’ platform, to better understand the views of the public in relation to the assets and the natural environment at Waiake Beach.

18.    The results of the arborists report and timeline for consultation were discussed with the local board at a workshop on 10 September 2020.

19.    Following the workshop, staff initiated a risk assessment to clarify the potential and perceived risk in relation to the tree, the boardwalk and boat shed. Community Facilities Project Manager, Arborist and Health & Safety Manager prepared a draft assessment but noted additional confirmation on the boat sheds structural integrity was required. A structural assessment was requested to allow for the risk assessment to be finalised.

20.    At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop on 15 October 2020 a deputation by Brian Mooney, a member of the Deep Creek Restoration Society, was presented which requested the removal of the tree limb. Mr Mooney also brought a case of a serious injury in relation to the tree limb to the local board’s attention.

21.    As a consequence of the deputation, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requested staff to seek additional legal advice on liability and general duty of care aspects.

22.    The legal advice received was shared with the local board at a workshop on 29 October 2020. The detail of the legal advice is discussed under the Analysis and Advise section of the report. An update on the draft risk assessment results and consultation material was also presented at the workshop.

23.    The public consultation was undertaken from 9 to 27 November 2020 and made available on the Have Your Say website. Signage was installed at Waiake Beach to promote the consultation and key stakeholders such as local schools, community groups and iwi were informed via email.

24.    On the morning of 11 November 2020, Auckland Council was notified that someone had unlawfully cut the tree limb just above the handrail the night before. One part of the tree limb had been cut off completely while the other was partially separated.

25.    The act of vandalism was investigated but the guilty party has not been identified to date. The incomplete cut was cleaned up and the tree limb that had been cut off removed from site.

26.    As the unlawful cutting of the tree limb did not impact on the access restriction caused by the tree limb, consultation continued as scheduled. 

27.    The results of the consultation were shared with the local board in a memo on 11 December 2020. The details of which are reflected in the Analysis and Advice section of the report.

28.    The results of the investigation, consultation and assessments have been further analysed in the following section.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The synergy between the Pōhutukawa tree, the boardwalk and the boat shed

29.    The boardwalk, the boat shed and the Pōhutukawa tree form a synergy and each asset needs to be assessed in relation to the other and not only individually.

The Pōhutukawa tree

A tree in a forest

Description automatically generated
Image 1: Pōhutukawa tree at Waiake Beach

30.    The Pōhutukawa tree is estimated to be a century old and provides many ecological benefits in its location. Of importance are the following:

·      the slowing of erosion from the estuary

·      safeguarding against the retreating of the reserve

·      the ecosystem benefits of the removal of air pollutants

·      the production of oxygen

·      the storage and sequestration of carbon

·      the benefits of providing habitat for invertebrates and birds

·      shading and cooling of the estuary for aquatic life

·      the significant contribution to amenity

31.    The Pōhutukawa has a multi-stemmed form and the process of slowly subsiding scaffold limbs is often referred to as ‘coastal rotation’, whereby the tree will gradually lower its limbs. After coming to rest on the beach or coastal shelf, the limb will continue to grow and service the tree’s biological requirements. This characteristic can be seen in many coastal locations around the Auckland region where mature pōhutukawa are present, with limbs resting on the beach.

32.    One tree limb has come to rest on the boat shed. If the branch remains on the shed the limb may become reliant on the shed’s support and impact on the structural integrity of the shed.

33.    Signage is in place at both ends of the boardwalk alerting users of the low hanging tree limb.

 Image 2: Warning signage installed at Waiake Beach boardwalk

34.    Due to the vandalism, the tree limb in question now ends above the handrail. Auckland Council’s Arborist advises that it is likely that new shoots will begin to grow on the limb if it is not removed and a new portion of canopy will emerge.  

35.    With less weight and force on the limb, the migration of the limb will significantly slow, if not stop altogether. The loss of part of the limb may also lead to other limbs, now more exposed to the forces of the wind, to accelerate their descent.

36.    The lowest tree limb has a head clearance restriction of no more than 1.4 metres. The other limbs still remain clear of the boardwalk, with a height clearance of at least 2.5m. The low hanging limb is approximately 400-500mm thick. It is connected very close to the base of the tree trunk and reaches across the boardwalk and is also descending toward the beach. These tree limbs could present similar access issues in future years.



Image 3: Pōhutukawa tree at Waiake Beach boardwalk post act of vandalism

37.    The removal of the remainder of the vandalised limb would create a large wound at the base of the tree. This would create a point of decay and potentially compromise the structural integrity of the tree, thereby reducing the long-term safe life of the tree.

 

The boardwalk

Image 4: Waiake Beach boardwalk

38.    The boardwalk at Waiake Beach is located at the northern end of the beach and connects Waiake Beach Reserve, via an underpass, to the Torbay Yacht Club and Aicken Reserve on the opposite side of Beach Road.

39.    The boardwalk is well loved by the community and visitors to the area. It is often used by Waterwise groups, school groups and yacht club members. The boardwalk is the only way to access the boat shed.

40.    The boardwalk is generally in good condition. However, a few issues have been identified in relation to the substructure which is affected by coastal erosion and damage caused by fire. These will have to be addressed to ensure the asset remains safe and in good working condition.

41.    The concrete footpath connecting to the boardwalk on the side of the Torbay Yacht Club has been subject to erosion and dropped below the boardwalk level. This is addressed by a repair but will require a more permanent fix to avoid future trip hazards.

42.    The boardwalk is used for recreational purposes but also as a means to cross the road. Along Beach Road signage is in place that promotes the boardwalk as a pedestrian underpass. It should be noted that an alternative crossing for Beach Road exists in the form of a pedestrian zebra crossing approximately 50m south of the boardwalk just past the Torbay Sailing Club.

 

Image 5: Waiake Beach boardwalk



The boat shed

Image 6: Waiake Beach boat shed

 

43.    At its northern end Waiake Beach hosts a boat shed that appears to date back to the 1950’s as the aerial imagery below suggests.

Image 7: Aerial photographs 1953 (left) and 1954 (right)

 

44.    While the boat shed contributes to the rich boating history of the area, the boat shed itself is not a heritage building. It appears that the shed was heavily modified or rebuilt after 1953 as it originally had an A-framed roof. An explanation as to the asymmetrical shape that it has today is unavailable.

45.    Access to the interior of the boat shed is only available via the adjacent boardwalk. A former barn door at the back of the boat shed can no longer be accessed due to this side of the shed being embedded in the bank.

46.    As outlined above, one of the tree limbs of the Pōhutukawa is resting on the roof of the boat shed and impacting on the structural integrity. This can be seen by the shifted cladding sheets to the left of the roller door.

47.    The shed is informally used by the Torbay Sailing Club to store Luna boats (Youth Sailing Programme) a support vessel and some rigging for regattas. A lease agreement for the shed is not in place.

Investigation results

Arboricultural Assessment of the tree and relation to boardwalk

48.    In July 2020 The Tree Consultancy Company prepared an independent Arboricultural Assessment (dated 20 July 2020) of the tree management options for the Pōhutukawa at Waiake Beach, Torbay.

49.    The assessment confirmed that any works undertaken in relation to the tree will require a resource consent to be sought as per the Auckland Unitary Plan.

50.    Below is an outline of the findings. For more details refer to the full assessment, attached to this report as Attachment A – Arboricultural Assessment.

51.    The assessment provides five options for the tree’s management:

•      Option 1 – Do nothing

•      Option 2 – Removing the limb

•      Option 3 – Propping up the limb

•      Option 4 – Lower the limb

•      Option 5 – Abandon the boardwalk

52.    The tree assessment also takes note of the public interest that was experienced through onsite enquiries during site visits and recommends public consultation prior to making a decision.

53.    The report also includes a memorandum from Stellar Projects which outlines the potential implications and proposes two options for the adjacent boardwalk, subject to the tree management decision:

•      Option 1 - Once the limb is low enough, re-construct the boardwalk over the limb

•      Option 2 – Remove the limb

Structural Assessment of the shed

54.    A structural assessment was requested for the shed, to support the internal risk assessment that was completed, refer to “Auckland Council Risk Assessment” below. The key findings from the structural assessment are outlined as follows:

•      Exterior cladding and roofing – very poor condition and requires replacement

•      Internal structure – the timber framing is in moderate condition with a few elements requiring replacement and lateral bracing to be installed retrospectively

•      Foundation – appears insufficient (no detailed review was undertaken due to access restrictions)

•      Recommendation – The shed is in poor overall condition. Shed should be refurbished or in the next few years replaced or removed altogether.

55.    For more details refer to the full assessment, attached to this report as Attachment B – Structural Assessment Shed.

Coastal Assessment

56.    An initial assessment of the coastal environment highlighted that the Waiake estuary/creek bank is subject to slow erosion along the length of the boardwalk which is evident when visiting the site. This is visually monitored by the Coastal and Geotechnical Services team within Auckland Council.

57.    A discussion also took place around the possible implications of rising sea levels on the boardwalk, to understand whether options such as lowering the boardwalk could be achieved. 

58.    A Senior Coastal Specialist visited Waiake Beach on 22 October 2020 during a time that was forecasted to have the highest perigean-spring tides (as per National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)). The tide at the time would indicate how future rising sea levels may impact on the boardwalk. The photos below show the height of the tide on the day.

Image 8: Waiake Beach boardwalk on 22 October 2020 during high tide.

 

59.    With the projected sea level rise the current boardwalk will become inundated during elevated water levels and spring tides with increasing frequency. The option to lower the boardwalk would mean unavailability of access during high-tides, which would not be acceptable.

60.    The option to raise the boardwalk in future to avoid access restriction from tidal water has also been discounted, as the current clearance height of the underpass is 2.2m. Decreasing the clearance height would introduce a new health & safety risk for boardwalk users hitting their head on the underpass (similar to the issue with the tree limb currently).

61.    Another assumption that can be made based on the observed tide levels, is that the shed in its current location would be subject to increased erosion in future and possible flooding. This is already evident in the current damage to the foundations, refer below image. Due to this, the current location of the boat shed is considered unsuitable should a new shed be proposed in future.

 

Image 9: Damage from coastal erosion, Waiake Beach boat shed

 

62.    In addition to the coastal assessment, the Coastal and Geotechnical Services team completed an inspection of the boardwalks’ condition with the following findings:

•      A total of five defects were identified, with only one being urgent which is the repairs to the bearers that were damaged due to vandalism (fire damage).

•      The boardwalk poses no coastal defense function.

•      Overall, the boardwalk is in a satisfactory condition and a renewal is currently not required. Maintenance is required for some bearers and additional timber piles should replace the undermined concrete footing.

63.    The inspection report also documents the undermining of the shed’s foundation and recommends any future solution for the boardwalk should be made in conjunction with a decision on the shed. If a renewal of the boat shed were to take place it should consider relocation to avoid issues such as coastal erosion, flooding and others.

Auckland Council Risk Assessment

64.    A Community Facilities health and safety risk assessment, regarding the impact on the wider public when visiting the northern end of Waiake Beach, specifically relating to the shed and/or the boardwalk, was undertaken by the Manager Health and Safety, to determine the appropriate actions that should be taken to eliminate or minimise identified risks.

65.    The risk assessment was also requested by the Legal Services team to allow further investigation whether Auckland Council is meeting its general duty of care to the public.

 

 

 

66.    The assessment lists a total of five key risks as follows:

Risk description

Inherent Risk

Residual Risk

Injury from low hanging limb

Medium

Low

Harm due to entrapment at the underpass during night

Medium

Low

Delayed repairs to boardwalk could lead to injury

Low

Low

Weight of tree limb will cause failure of shed’s structural integrity

Medium

Not applicable
Risk eliminated (if shed removed)

Damage / removal of tree may lead to increased coastal erosion damage for reserve and its assets

Medium

Low

 

67.    To achieve the decrease in residual risk a number of solutions are already in place but additional ones were identified for implementation, which are described below:

•        Improve signage to promote boardwalk as “nature walk” and encourage the use of the pedestrian zebra crossing as alternative

•        Schedule repairs to the boardwalk substructure

•        Remove the shed

•        Update tree management plan to include more frequent monitoring of descending limbs. If risk rating changes, provide predefined actions for increase in inherent risk (e.g. cut the limb).

68.    The risk assessment, which includes an earlier investigation into similar cases across Auckland, is attached to this report as Attachment D - Waiake Beach Risk Assessment 14 January 2021.

Auckland Council – Tree Management Consideration

69.    There are a large number of bush reserves with walking tracks that have low branches or other natural impediments to a track. The below images show an example of Pōhutukawa trees at Albert Park in Central Auckland.

 


Image 10: Example of a descending tree limb in Albert Park, Auckland Central, actively monitored.

 

70.    The Auckland Council Arboriculture team assess each tree separately and a decision is made on how to proceed, and whether a tree limb is trimmed or monitored.

71.    In the case of the tree in question at Waiake Beach Reserve, trimming the limb will require a cut very close to the tree’s trunk, this is not supported by the Auckland Council arboriculture team, as they believe there will be an increased risk of the tree decaying.

72.    To eliminate this risk, signage has been installed as a preventive measure. Monitoring has also been increased to ensure the tree and limbs remain healthy and that the applied measures remain effective and adequate.

73.    The risk assessment confirmed that the risk from the low hanging tree limb is low, given the signage on site would be improved.

Legal Advice

74.    The advice requested to better understand potential implications on liability for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Auckland Council, was submitted to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 29 October 2020.

75.    The legal advice indicates that Auckland Council is considered a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) which has a primary duty of care when undertaking any works within the reserve. As the outlined situation does not apply to any works being undertaken but is seen as ‘everyday life’, this does not apply here.

76.    In ‘everyday life’ Auckland Council “…owes a duty of care to the public to ensure that no hazards occurring on its land cause foreseeable loss or harm. This duty requires council to take all reasonable steps to remove or reduce those hazards. “ (Legal Advice, page 3, section 2.10).

77.    To assess whether Auckland Council had breached this duty of care, Legal Services requested that the following actions be carried out:

•      Consult with suitably qualified experts, including a health and safety expert, an arborist and an engineer

•      Conduct a risk assessment to evaluate the risks

•      Decide what actions are going to be taken to remove or reduce the hazards

•      Create a management plan to record the actions

78.    The first three actions have been carried out and a copy of the risk assessment was provided to Legal Services. The fourth action will be completed once the outcomes from this report have been confirmed.

Have Your Say – feedback from the community

79.    Consultation with the public was undertaken during the period 09 to 27 November 2020. The results of the consultation were shared with the local board on 11 December 2020.

80.    A total of 163 responses were received. 140 of these were submitted from the residents of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area, with the remaining 23 responses received from residents of other local board areas.

81.    A range of views were received along with a large number of comments. There was strong support for protection of the overall tree and the natural environment at Waiake Beach Reserve.

82.    Of the respondents, 66.3 per cent say the low hanging tree affects their use of the boardwalk. The comments indicate the effects are not only a perceived safety hazard but also inconvenience when using the boardwalk.

83.    The majority of respondents (79.3 per cent) use the boardwalk “always” or “usually” when visiting the reserve. This means that despite the tree limb causing a hindrance, the boardwalk is still heavily used.

84.    The consultation also confirms that 24.5 per cent of respondents use the pedestrian crossing regularly (“always” or “usually”). This could indicate that the use of the pedestrian crossing could be promoted further as alternative to the boardwalk. However, this may require some improvements to the crossing to assist with vehicular traffic. At present 73.6 per cent of the respondents prefer to use the boardwalk for safety reasons.

85.    The responses relating to the trimming of the tree limb were mixed. The responses could be interpreted in favour of trimming the tree to improve safety and convenience, as well as in favour of not trimming the limb and focusing on the maintaining the natural environment and the health of the tree. Staff have taken this into account while confirming options.

Option analysis

86.    Based on the above investigations, assessments and reports, a number of options have been identified and these are outlined in the tables 1 and 2 below.

Table 1 – Remediate access to the boardwalk

 

Implementation

Assessment

Recommendation

Option 1

Do nothing / Accept restricted access

The risk assessment shows that the inherent risks can be mitigated to an acceptable level with the correct solutions applied such as a change to the onsite signage.

The option of doing nothing is not recommended, as it would see the promotion of the boardwalk as an underpass continued and not provide all relevant information.

Option 2

Update signage and accept restricted access by not removing tree limb


The risk assessment indicates that the tree limb poses only a low risk, and that the majority of users can continue to use the boardwalk.

The risk that the tree would be damaged by the limb removal would be avoided and the tree can continue to provide maximum protection from coastal erosion for the reserve and assets within.

Inundation of the boardwalk from high tides can be expected and would also restrict access to the boardwalk in future. 

 

 

This option is the preferred option as it would see the tree limb remain in place and accept the access restriction for some of the public.

This practice follows the standard operating procedures applied across reserves and parks in Auckland.

The risk for possible injury from the tree limb will be addressed through improvement of the onsite signage. The signage will clearly indicate the alternative pedestrian crossing for those that are unable to bend low. Signage to warn about the low hanging tree will also be installed closer to the entrance points of the boardwalk to make it easier to choose the alternative route.

Should the decision for the future of the boat shed recommend removal or relocation, the space on the other side of the tree would become accessible. Allowing boardwalk users to enter the reserve via the lawn and avoid the low-hanging branch which would eliminate the need to remove it.

A future boardwalk renewal could include the re-alignment of the boardwalk (via the current shed location) which would also eliminate influences from the tree’s limbs on the boardwalk.

Option 3

Remove the tree limb and restore full access to the boardwalk

 

This will require staff to apply for a resource consent to remove the tree limb and re-instate full access to the boardwalk.

To progress such a resource consent application, further arboricultural assessment would be required to assess the damage / condition of the tree (in particular the limb in question) given the unauthorised trimming undertaken by the unknown member of the public. That assessment would need to be clear if it supported the further removal of the limb and if so, what best arboricultural practice would be.

Whilst a significant amount of consultation has already been conducted, due to the public interest in the tree there is a chance the application may need to be publicly notified and a more formal consultation process as set out in the Resource Management Act 1991 followed. If this is the case the time to process the consent can increase to 6-12 months and cost between $5,000 and $15,000.

 If the application was not publicly notified it will likely be processed faster and at a lower cost of about $2,000 to $3,000.

Given many other trees across Auckland are displaying the same issues and are effectively managed through increased monitoring by the Auckland Council Arborist Team, it is proposed to apply the same measures in this situation.
If alternative risk treatments are applied in this case, there is a chance that future issues in other reserves may have to be handled differently to avoid potential liabilities caused through the interpretation of Auckland Council’s duty of care to the public.

This option is not recommended.

 

Table 2: Options to refurbish boat shed

 

Implementation

Assessment

Recommendation

Option A

Do nothing – leaving the shed in its current state

If this option were to be considered, access for the club would have to be removed due to the related health and safety risk, and the lack of a lease agreement.

This option is not recommended due to the high risk identified in relation to the condition and use of the shed.

Option B

Remove the shed and re-instate lawn

Based on the structural assessment and implications from coastal erosion, the best way to eliminate the risk related to this shed is its demolition and the area re-instated as lawn.

This would have a likely positive impact on the use of the boardwalk. On the one hand this will eliminate the need for access to the boardwalk to take boats out to the beach area and thereby reducing the risk of people potentially at risk of hitting their heads on the tree limb.

On the other hand, this will free up space to enter the reserve via the lawn and avoid the low hanging limb altogether. At this stage, actions can be put in place to better manage the descent of the trees other limbs and ensure that access via this side remains unrestricted in future.

Creating an asset within a reserve for the sole use of a club that does not currently have an existing lease cannot be justified within the current financial climate.

The removal of the boat shed and re-instatement of the area with grass is considered the most appropriate and cost-effective option to eliminate the risk relating to the shed’s current condition.

Option C

Renew the shed and rebuild in a new location

Generally, the same benefits as outlined in Option B would apply.

The additional value in renewing the boat shed would be the support of the local sailing community, more specifically the members of the Torbay Sailing Club.

If this option were considered, the location for a new shed would have to be investigated further. The most suitable places would either be close to the current location, but further away from the creek, or within Aicken Reserve, adjacent to the Torbay Sailing Club.

Any future use of a new shed would have to be documented in a formal lease agreement.

As outlined under Option B, due to the related costs and minimal benefits for the wider community this option is not recommended.

 

 

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

87.    In June 2019, Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and made a commitment to the community to look at ways how climate implications can be considered in everything that council does.

88.    By removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, trees form an integral part in fighting the effects of climate change. The recommended option acknowledges the importance of the pōhutukawa trees at Waiake Beach in this context.

89.    A mitigation of the effects of sea level rise can also be achieved by allowing the coastal environment to develop as intended and creating asset solutions that support this.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

90.    The Parks and Places Specialist from Park, Sports and Recreation, the Facilities Manager, Senior Urban Forest Specialist, Senior Community Lease Advisor, Land Use Advisor, as well as the Health and Safety Manager from Community Facilities provided input into the investigation of options for the issues outlined in this report.

91.    Views were sought throughout the investigation phase to ensure the implications of findings and developed options were assessed consistently and completely.

92.    Legal implications were also assessed by the legal team within Auckland Council to better understand Auckland Council’s role and responsibilities towards the safety of the public in this matter.

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

Local impacts and local board views

93.    A number of inquiries regarding the tree limb were raised by the public and these were heard by the board at a workshop on 15 October 2020.

94.    Public consultation was undertaken in November 2020 and the responses indicate that there is a strong support for the natural environment and the Pōhutukawa tree. The boardwalk is a well-loved local asset and forms an important part of the reserve.

95.    The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is very invested in finding the best option for the future of the assets and the provided level of service at Waiake Beach Reserve.

96.    The local board has supported the decision-making process by undertaking site visits and requesting that public consultation be undertaken to further clarify the views of the community on the matter.

97.    Following the deputation at the October 2020 workshop the local board resolved to seek legal advice in relation to the removal of the tree limb and the possible health and safety risk created by it. The local board voiced a general inclination towards the removal of the tree limb based on feedback received at the time.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

98.    Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context.

99.    These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and local board Plans.

100.  Iwi were invited to partake in the wider community consultation and share their views on the matter.

101.  In response, a cultural values assessment (CVA) was received by local board member Julia Parfitt from Ngāti Whātua on 18 November 2020. Ngāti Whātua are in support of the trimming of the tree. If the tree were to be trimmed, the wood should be made available to an artist for a carving. The CVA submission has been attached to this report as Attachment E – CVA submission Ngāti Whātua.

102.  No other CVA submissions were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

103.  As part of the Community Facilities work programme, funding was allocated to the renewal of the boardwalk as follows:

Funding source

Funding

2020/21

Funding

2021/22

Funding

2022/23

Total funding allocated

Long Term Plan (LTP) Capex

$ 0.00

$ 20,000.00

$ 80,000.00

$ 100,000.00

 

104.  The use of the above outlined funding is subject to the options to be applied moving forward.

105.  The project was identified as part of the risk adjustment programme which allowed staff to commence their investigations in FY21.

106.  Actual costs to date are $ 8,592.00 associated with the investigation and public consultation, as well as the completion of specialists’ assessments.

107.  Rough cost estimates for the implementation of the above outlined options are indicated below. These will be subject to confirmation of the preferred option and more detailed scoping.

Option

Estimated implementation cost

Boardwalk and tree limb

Option 1 – Do nothing

 

$ 0.00

Option 2 - Update signage and accept restricted access by not removing tree limb. Complete repairs to boardwalk.

 

·      Signage

·      Boardwalk repairs

$6,000.00 - $10,000.00

$ 35,000.00 TBC

Option 3 - Remove the tree limb and restore full access to the boardwalk. Complete repairs to boardwalk.

·      non-notified resource consent application

·      notified resource consent application

·      Boardwalk repairs

$2,000.00 - $3,000.00

 

$5,000.00 - $15,000.00

 

$ 35,000.00 TBC

Boat Shed

Option A – Do nothing

 

$ 0.00

Option B – Removal of shed

 

$ 20,000.00 - $ 25,000.00

Option C – Renewal of shed in new location

 

$ 80,000.00 - $ 90,000.00

 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

108.  A detailed risk assessment has been prepared to incorporate the risks related to the issues identified in this report, please refer to Attachment D – Waiake Beach Risk Assessment.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

109.  Local Board decisions to be actioned.

110.  A response will be prepared to be uploaded on the Have Your Say page to inform respondents of the consultation about the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Arboricultural Assessment

61

b

Structural Assessment Shed

73

c

Waiake boardwalk condition assessment

81

d

Waiake Beach Risk Assessment 14 January 2021

101

e

CVA submission Ngāti Whātua

103

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Barbara Heise – Senior Project Manager, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2021/01056

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To present to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with a governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.      This report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that will come before the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

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

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

· clarifying what advice is required

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.      The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the governance forward work calendar for February 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Programme February 2021

109

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Gemma Kaldesic - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

New road name in the BAA Land Holdings Limited subdivision at 15 Newman Road, Stillwater

File No.: CP2021/00472

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To approve one new private road name in the BAA Land Holdings Limited subdivision at 15 Newman Road, Stillwater.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.      The applicant, BAA Land Holdings Limited, has submitted the following names for the new private road serving the subdivision at 15 Newman Road, Stillwater.

 

Preferred Name

Alternative Names

Johnson Place

Andrew Hardie Lane

 

Ellis Thorburn Place

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      approve the name “Johnson Place” for the new private road in the BAA Land Holdings Limited subdivision at 15 Newman Road, Stillwater in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.      The subdivision at Stillwater has been approved and the council reference is BUN60318788.

5.      A condition of the subdivision consent was to suggest to council names for the new private road.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6.      The Auckland Council road naming guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

 

7.      Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

·      A historical or ancestral linkage to an area

·      A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature

·      An existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area

·      The use of Māori names is actively encouraged.

 

8.      The applicant has submitted the following names and their meaning for consideration.

Preferred Names

Historical Linkage

Johnson

Previous landowner was William Harvey Johnson - 1904-1910

Andrew Hardie

Landowner – 1904 - 1910

Ellis Thorburn

Landowner - 1940

 

9.      The area is in a transitional state as it moves from a moderate sized rural site, to a site that will contain Business – Light Industry, Residential – Large Lot and Rural Countryside Living lots. The proposed subdivision is considered to maintain this transitional character.

10.    Consent from the wife of William Harvey Johnson for the use of “Johnson” for the new road name has been obtained.

11.    Consent from the maternal nephew of Ellis Thorburn, Kelvin Neville, has been obtained for the use of his uncle’s name.

12.    The applicant has made every effort to obtain consent from family members of Andrew Hardie but was unsuccessful. This included contacting the Silverdale Genealogical Society and the Silverdale Facebook Community Page.

13.    The local iwi has been contacted for their comment. No responses were received within the allowed timeframe.

14.    The officer acknowledges that where possible the use of Maori names is encouraged in the Auckland Plan.

15.    Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that the proposed road names are unique and acceptable.

16.    The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s choices.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18.    The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on any council groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.    The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.    The naming of roads is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. To aid local board decision making, the “Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines” includes:

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

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

21.    The road names proposed in this report have been provided to all mana whenua for consideration through council’s central facilitator. In this instance no feedback was received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

23.    The road naming process does not raise any other financial implications for the Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Newman Road Stillwater Locality Map

115

b

Newman Road Stillwater Scheme Plan

117

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove – Subdivision Advisor, Orewa

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 9.1      Attachment a    Public Forum 18 February 2021_Peter Garrett       Page 121


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

18 February 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



[1] In Council’s Events Policy, major events have a regional, national and international profile.

[2]    Local board information on people who gave feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events is unknown.