Agenda of Franklin Local Board - Tuesday, March 23, 2021

The Chair will open the meeting and welcome everyone present.

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 23 February 2021 as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Women of Waiuku - Waiuku Environmental Sports Hub

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Sue Markram will be attending on behalf of Women of Waiuku to promote the concept of a Waiuku environmental sports hub.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Women of Waiuku are promoting the concept of an environmental sports hub. They wish to address the board further on this topic.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Sue Markram from Women of Waiuku on her attendance and presentation on an environmental sports hub.

8.2 Deputation - Trails in Franklin and North Waikato

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Andrew Sinclair has requested to attend the board meeting to speak about trails in Franklin and North Waikato.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Andrew Sinclair intends to outline a Stage 2 approach and what this may look like.

3. Other attendees may include representatives of Franklin Trails, Te Arahikoi, Franklin and Waikato North Trails Group, Pukekohe Trampling Club, Ngāti te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Andrew Sinclair and other group representatives for their attendance and presentation on trails in Franklin and the North Waikato.

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 - Foreshore protection of Clarks Beach esplanade reserve (Margaret Swift)

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Margaret Swift will be in attendance to present on foreshore protection of the Clarks Beach esplanade reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A short presentation has been provided as background to this deputation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Margaret Swift for her attendance and presentation on foreshore protection of the Clarks Beach esplanade reserve.

9.2 Public Forum - The Tuia programme 2021 - introducing the Franklin Local Board rangatahi

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The Tuia youth mentoring programme rangatahi, Atea Kahukoko, will be in attendance to introduce herself and meet the board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Atea Kahukoko, the Tuia youth mentoring programme rangatahi for the Franklin Local Board, would like to attend the board’s March business meeting to introduce herself and then observe how a local board business meeting is conducted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Atea Kahukoko, the Franklin Local Board Tuia youth mentoring progamme rangatahi, for her attendance.

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.”

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

Local board input into preparation of the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan

File No.: CP2021/01100

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To enable local boards to provide formal input into the preparation of the draft Regional Parks Management Plan 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee initiated the 10-year review of the Regional Parks Management Plan (RPMP) in 2020. Written suggestions from 758 submitters were received on the intention to draft the plan, and in December 2020 a summary was sent to local board members.

3. The main overarching theme in the suggestions is that people highly value the natural, undeveloped nature of the regional parks, particularly in the face of continuing growth of Auckland’s population and urban area. They want to be able to access and enjoy regional parks while at the same time protecting these natural spaces.

4. Track closures to prevent the spread of kauri dieback continue to be a source of frustration and the council received numerous requests for it to do more to re-establish access while protecting kauri. Vehicles on Muriwai Beach, dog control, visitor impacts on wildlife, and the need for greater plant and animal pest control were other sources of concern.

5. People highlighted that regional parks can play a positive role in responding to climate change as natural carbon sinks, with many people suggesting ‘that more trees be planted’. Other suggestions included ways for farming to be more sustainable, regenerative and diverse and for visitor vehicle emissions to be reduced.

6. Submitters also suggested regional parks play an important role in connecting and educating people about nature, Māori heritage, and farming. They suggested volunteering and partnerships could support this role.

7. There was both opposition and qualified support for revenue generation from regional parks. Some suggested donations could be sought to support projects in parks.

8. The next steps are to consider these suggestions in the preparation of the draft RPMP, together with local board input provided through this report, and engagement with mana whenua. Key decisions and issues will be workshopped with the PACE Committee before the draft RPMP is presented for the committee’s adoption and release for public consultation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) resolve formal feedback to inform the preparation of the draft Regional Park Management Plan 2021.

Horopaki

Context

9. The regional parks management plan guides the management and use of regional parks. The regional park network has been managed via an omnibus management plan since 2002 and the 2010 version is still operative. Having a management plan is a statutory requirement under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

10. The PACE Committee initiated the 10-year review of the RPMP^{^[1]} in 2020. The review encompasses 28 regional parks comprising approximately 41,000 hectares of park land.

11. The process for the review is as follows.

12. On 20 August 2020, Auckland Council notified its intention to prepare a new plan and sought written suggestions from the community and organisations, as required under the Reserves Act 1977.

13. During an eight-week consultation period from 1 September to 26 October 2020, comments and suggestions were received from 758 people and organisations along with a petition from 3681 petitioners.

14. Elected members were provided with a summary of the suggestions in December 2020. The summary of suggestions was publicly released in January 2021 and is available on the RPMP review webpage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Summary of suggestions from organisations and the community

15. The suggestions ranged from general comments about what people value about regional parks and the role the parks should play, to comments and suggestions about specific regional parks.

16. Comments included brief suggestions from many different park users, through to multiple-page submissions quoting clauses of the current RPMP and in-depth suggestions from those who have had years of close association with the regional parks. Organisations representing specific recreation, community or conservation interests put forward their members’ views.

Key themes

· Almost universally, people told us they love the natural, undeveloped character of regional parks, and value the ability to freely access natural and open spaces as Tāmaki Makaurau continues to grow.

· Many value native biodiversity for its own sake and want to protect and restore the natural environment.

Issues that the largest numbers of submitters felt strongly about were:

· The impact of kauri dieback related track closures on wellbeing, with requests to improve access while protecting kauri.

· Vehicles on beaches, particularly at Muriwai, drew comment about conflicts with other users and concerns about safety and environmental damage.

· In response to climate change, people saw regional parks as fulfilling the role of a carbon sink. By far the most common suggestion was to ‘plant more trees.’ Other common suggestions were for farming to be more sustainable, regenerative and diverse, and to build cycle trails and bus links between parks and communities so people don’t have to drive.

· Some requested more spaces to take dogs, while others wanted to keep areas dog-free with a greater focus on enforcing dog bylaws.

· Many raised concerns about plant and animal pest infestations and suggested priority go to conservation and pest control and suggested actions to reduce visitor impacts on wildlife.

Other key themes raised by the community and organisations included:

· Requests from many outdoor recreation groups and users (trampers, horse riders, mountain bikers, vehicle-based campers, four-wheel drive recreation, dog walkers and others) for more opportunities to enjoy their activities in more parts of regional parks.

· Regional parks were viewed as the natural place to educate and build connections to nature including through volunteering, and to learn about farming and provide experiences with animals. Suggestions to provide visitor information, nature education, support volunteers and provide a more visible ranger presence were received.

· A petition from 3681 people sought an end to the killing of farmed animals for food production at Ambury and other regional parks, on the grounds that animals deserve to live out their full lives.

· People said they want to understand and connect with the heritage and history of the whenua, particularly its Māori history.

· Commercial use was both opposed and given conditional support, providing it fits into the natural character of the regional parks. Some suggested donations could help fund projects and volunteering could be increased.

· The Waitākere Ranges drew the most comment by far of all the regional parks, including comments on kauri dieback and tracks, and the impact of visitor pressures in many areas.

· The Hūnua Ranges were seen to have considerable untapped potential for active recreation, with many suggestions for horse riding, mountain biking, tramping, day walks and cycle links.

17. Further detail is available in the Summary of Suggestions, published on the RPMP review webpage.

18. Staff are seeking formal feedback from local boards by resolution in local board meetings held in February or March 2021 to help inform the draft RPMP preparation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. Climate change is one of the key topics of the review. We invited comment on the role that regional parks might play in responding to the climate change emergency and many suggestions were received on this topic, as summarised in the section above.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The preparation of the draft RPMP in 2021 involves subject matter experts from many parts of the council including Infrastructure and Environmental Services, Plans and Places, Regional Parks, Community Facilities; as well as council controlled organisations such as Auckland Unlimited, Auckland Transport, and Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Following workshops in early 2021 with those local boards who requested it, this report seeks formal feedback from local boards to be considered in preparation of the draft RPMP.

22. Local boards will have a further opportunity to comment on the draft 2021 RPMP following the public submission process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. We are engaging with mana whenua during the drafting stage of the RPMP. In addition, we have requested region-wide input through the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum. The forum’s response to this request is being considered in February 2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The cost of the plan review will be met within existing Regional Parks and Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships budgets and resources, confirmed in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021.

25. Revising the RPMP does not commit the council to future expenditure. The feedback received during the review and direction in the RPMP will guide priorities within available funding for regional parks.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. The table sets out risks and mitigations relating to the preparation of a draft RPMP in 2021.

Risk	Mitigation
If there is any move back into a higher level of Covid-19 Emergency during the plan drafting period, direct contact methods of engagement with mana whenua and key stakeholders may be disrupted.		· Aim to move engagement to remote methods such as Skype, if necessary. · Consider moving the deadlines if sufficient engagement cannot be undertaken.
The review may raise expectations for a higher level of facilities or services on regional parks.		· Manage expectations regarding the review scope and the relationship between the draft RPMP and the Long-term Plan and annual plan in all communications.
If we do not follow the correct processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and other legislation, the review process could be open to challenge.		· Confirm the legal status of regional park land holdings and check the statutory and other obligations over each land parcel to ensure compliance. · Ensure legal requirements regarding consultation processes are correctly followed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Analysis of the range of suggestions received from the community, feedback from local boards and mana whenua will help to inform the preparation of the draft RPMP in 2021, which will also draw on extensive staff expertise across the council group.

28. Key decisions and issues will be workshopped with the PACE Committee before the draft RPMP is presented for the committee’s adoption and release for public consultation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Mackay - Project Manager

Authorisers

Justine Haves - General Manager Service Strategy and Integration

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

Local Board views on Plan Change 55 (Private) Patumahoe South

File No.: CP2021/01530

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a private plan change by Askew Consultants Limited in relation to 34.5ha of land south of the Patumahoe township

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has received a private plan change from Askew Consultants Limited to rezone some 34.5ha of land south of the Patumahoe township in the in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (AUP).

3. Plan Change 55 seeks to rezone this land from primarily Rural Production to a combination of Residential – Single House, Business – Light Industry and Future Urban. The plan change also seeks to extend the existing Patumahoe Precinct to the land, with amendments requiring the delivery of a proposed transport network, stormwater management device, neighbourhood park and landscaped buffer areas amongst other matters.

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

5. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including private plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.

6. 45 submissions have been received on the plan change. The key themes arising from submissions including the loss of productive land/soils, effects on the local and wider transport network including cumulative effects on transport infrastructure, the design and function of the internal transport network, amenity and character effects on the Patumahoe village, the location of a proposed intersection with Mauku Road and effects on landowners within this area, lack of consultation with Mana Whenua and local landowners, reverse sensitivity effects on surrounding rural activities, how noise and vibration from the adjoining rail corridor will be managed, and whether the plan change boundaries are appropriate.

7. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on private plan change 55. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) provide local board views on private plan change 55 by Askew Consultants Limited in relation to 34.5ha of land at Patumahoe South

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 55

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

Horopaki

Context

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

9. A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than council proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

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

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

12. This report provides an overview of the private plan change, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

13. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board conveys its views on private plan change 55. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Site and context

14. Plan Change 55 to the AUP relates to 34.5ha of land located immediately south of the Patumahoe township (refer to Figure 1). Patumahoe is an established rural township located some 9km west of Pukekohe, consisting of a small town centre surrounded by low density residential activity zoned Residential – Single House.

15. Within the AUP, the plan change land is primarily zoned Rural – Rural Production, except for a small area of land zoned Single House (refer to Figure 2).

16. The land subject to the private plan change request (‘plan change land’) is contained in 26 individual records of title and comprises a range of rural and residential activities including grazing, cropping, horticulture, home occupations and ancillary farming activities as well as numerous dwellings. The land has a gentle contour that falls generally in a southerly direction.

17. Immediately south of the plan change land is the Paerata-Waiuku branch railway line, and beyond that are sites used for industry. The eastern and western extents of the plan change land are bounded by rural uses including horticulture and grazing. The eastern boundary is defined by a natural escarpment. To the north lies the Patumahoe town centre and residential suburbs, separated by Patumahoe Road. Immediately northwest of the plan change land is Patumahoe Domain, an open space accommodating rugby fields.

18. The plan change land is identified within the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (‘NZLRI’) as containing Land Use Capability (‘LUC’) Class 1 soils. LUC Class 1 land is “the most versatile multiple-use land with minimal physical limitations for arable use”2. Class 1 soils fall within the definition of ‘elite soils’ in the AUP. However, the applicant considers that, based on site-specific investigations, the actual classification of the land is a combination of LUC Class 2 and 3, which are considered to have greater limitations for productive uses, and are classified as ‘prime soils’ rather than elite soils in the AUP.

19. The land is bisected by an overland flow path and an associated 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (‘AEP’) flood plain, which follows an east-west alignment.

20. A resource consent application has been approved on land contained within the plan change area and zoned Residential – Single House, at Carter Road (Lot 1 DP169130) for 30 residential allotments.

Figure 1: PC55 Patumahoe South extent (in red) and surrounds

Figure 2: PC55 Patumahoe South extent (in red) and AUP zoning

21. The Auckland Plan 2050 seeks that most of Auckland's anticipated population and dwelling growth over the next 30 years be within the existing urban area. This is reflected within the AUP, which seeks to achieve growth within the framework of a quality compact urban form3.

22. However, both the Auckland Plan and AUP anticipate growth occurring in rural towns and villages. The AUP seeks that “growth and development of existing or new rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled”4 subject to particular criteria being met, whilst the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy outlines that “residential growth in rural Auckland will be focused mainly in the towns which provide services for the wider rural area particularly the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth”5.

23. Central Government has proposed a National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The discussion document informing the NPS-HPL7 proposes national direction on urban expansions on to productive land; and outlines specific considerations for private plan changes that relate to productive land. The NPS-HPL is expected to be gazetted and take effect in the first half of 2021.

Plan change request

24. The proposed plan change seeks to rezone 34.5ha of land at Carter Road, Patumahoe Road and Mauku Road from Rural Production and Single House to a combination of Residential – Single House, Business – Light Industry and Future Urban (refer to Figure 3) in the AUP.

a) the majority of the land is proposed to be zoned Single House to provide for residential activity

b) the Light Industry zone is proposed over land adjacent to the rail corridor, to provide for local employment and as a buffer between residential activity and the rail corridor

c) the Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone is proposed over part of the land to accommodate a neighbourhood park

d) the Future Urban zone is proposed to apply to land east of Patumahoe Road. This land accommodates an existing poultry farm (at 75 Patumahoe Road), and as such is not considered by the applicant to be suitable for immediate urban development.

25. In addition, the plan change seeks to apply the existing Patumahoe Precinct to the land, with amendments relating to:

a) requiring a new roading structure to be delivered in the indicative location shown on a new precinct plan for the plan change area (Precinct Plan 3), prior to new titles being issued, and designed to specific standards proposed (by way of cross sections) within the precinct. This includes forming new access points to Patumahoe Road and Mauku Road, and constructing a pedestrian and walking cycling link along the current alignment of Carter Road where it intersects Patumahoe Road

b) requiring the development of a stormwater management device prior to new titles being issued to detain and treat stormwater arising from new impervious surfaces

c) introducing minimum net site area standards within the plan change area, providing for minimum lot sizes within the Single House Zone of 600m² within 400m of the existing village centre, 800m² generally and 1500m² adjacent to the Paerata-Waiuku railway

d) requiring landscaped buffer areas between the plan change area and adjoining rural land and the rail corridor, and landscaped buffer areas between proposed residential and industrial zones within the precinct

e) requiring a neighbourhood park to be established within the plan change area prior to the occupation of any dwelling located more than 400m from the Patumahoe Domain.

26. The objective of the plan change, as stated by the applicant is to:

achieve a more sustainable and efficient use of the subject land, through the rezoning of rural land (that has limited productivity under its current zoning) to a mix of live and future urban zoning, that will support the growth and development of Patumahoe as a sustainable rural village

Figure 2: Proposed zoning sought under PC55

27. Askew Consultants Limited included technical reports that evaluate traffic, land use capability and productivity, stormwater and flooding, infrastructure, urban design, landscape and visual effects, geotechnical effects, earthworks and archaeological effects. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=84 . Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

· views and preferences of the local board if the local board passes a resolution.

Submissions

28. 45 submissions have been received on PC55. A summary of the relief sought in submissions is outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Summary of submissions received on Plan Change 46

Submissions	Number of submissions
Support/support with amendments	10
Neutral	2
Decline	33

29. The submissions relate to a range of topics and concerns. The key matters arising from submissions are summarised below:

· the loss of productive land/soils, including the applicant’s conclusions on the productivity of the plan change land, the overemphasis of urban growth provisions in the AUP over prime/elite soils

· effects on the local and wider transport network including cumulative effects on transport infrastructure

· the design and function of the internal transport network, and connectivity with the surrounding local network

· how water and wastewater infrastructure will be accommodated and funded, and the how additional water storage capacity will be provided to service the plan change area

· amenity and character effects on the Patumahoe village

· lack of consultation with Mana Whenua and local owners/occupiers

· the location of a proposed road intersecting with Mauku Road and effects of this road alignment on landowners

· reverse sensitivity effects on surrounding rural activities and sufficiency of proposed landscape buffers to address these effects

· the effects of climate change in relation to retaining productive land for food supply

· appropriateness of noise and vibration standards for residential activities (or other activities sensitive to noise effects) close to the adjoining rail corridor, and the drafting of such provisions

· effects of proposed landscaping provisions on the operation and maintenance of the electricity transmission network bisecting the plan change area

· the appropriateness of the plan change boundaries, and whether further properties should be included within the plan change area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. Four submissions directly reference climate change effects, and raise the following concerns:

· further evidence of climate change has been observed since the AUP was completed, which reinforces the need for preserving quality agricultural land close to Auckland

· the removal of quality topsoil and replacing it with residential housing and light industry is counter to the Auckland Council’s own climate change mitigation strategies, particularly given that residents in Patumahoe travel to work by car at higher rates than the Auckland regional average, and therefore future residents in Patumahoe will burn more carbon than the average household

· the soil can be used for horticultural practices and it is a "very good land". It should not be acceptable in the current climate situation the planet finds itself, such land be allowed to be developed into housing

· in the current world of climate change and Covid-19 problems it is imperative that land with a significant ability to sustain food production is retained for this purpose.

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

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

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

32. The local board could consider if the private plan change:

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

· prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change. That is, does the proposed private plan change elevate or alleviate climate risks (eg flooding, coastal and storm inundation, urban heat effect, stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Auckland Transport have canvassed their views through a submission on the plan change. They generally support the plan change request, subject to their concerns being resolved, which include:

· the proposed Future Urban Zone within the plan change area (which is opposed by Auckland Transport)

· the level of information provided on the effects of the plan change on the wider transport network

· the drafting of precinct provisions on the design and function of the proposed internal transport network, and improvements required in the surrounding local network.

34. Watercare Services Limited have also provided their views through a submission on the plan change. Watercare Services Limited are concerned with:

· the water and wastewater capacity and servicing requirements of the proposal, and have sought additional information on matters such as water storage capacity

· the availability of suitable land to accommodate infrastructure upgrades to service the plan change area

· any additional upgrades required to the wastewater network to accommodate additional flows.

35. In the absence of this information to address their concerns, Watercare Services Limited seek that the plan change be declined.

36. Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited will have the opportunity to speak to their views if required at a hearing.

37. Healthy Waters are part of Council’s internal review team, and will assess relevant submissions and provide expert input into the hearing report

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. The private plan change request does not relate to public land for which the local board has decision-making powers.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41. Askew Consultants Limited advised council that it consulted with the iwi authorities that have an interest in this area.

42. The applicant has engaged with the following iwi groups who have expressed an interest in the proposal:

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Maru

· Waikato – Tainui.

43. In response, both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata have prepared Cultural Impact Assessments, which recommend methods for treating stormwater discharges, appropriate planting within the precinct, and implementation of accidental discovery protocols.

44. Iwi authorities were provided direct notice of the plan change upon notification. Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated have submitted to decline the plan change, on the basis of:

· insufficient consultation with Te Ākitai Waiohua, which has cultural interests in Patumahoe as a Mana Whenua iwi

· lack of clarity on productive land and consideration of prime soils in the proposed plan change area

45. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[2]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The costs associated with processing the private plan change request can be recovered from the applicant. The impacts of development associated with the private plan change request on infrastructure (and any associated funding/financing issues) is a matter that will need to be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

· the mechanism for the Franklin Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

49. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[3]} This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sanjay Bangs - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

Local board views on private plan change 45 for 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road

File No.: CP2021/01549

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a private plan change by Stratford Properties Limited for 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, Clevedon.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including private plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[4]}

4. Stratford Properties Limited lodged a private plan change for 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, Clevedon. Private plan change 45 would change the Auckland Unitary Plan by rezoning 9.9 hectares of land from Rural - Rural Coastal to Rural - Countryside Living zone, and applying the existing Clevedon sub-precinct C to the land, with minor amendments.

5. Key themes that have been raised in submissions received on plan change 45 include effects on the rural character and amenity of the area, setting a precedent for future rezoning in the area with no defensible boundary, flooding concerns, extra traffic generated by the proposed plan change and ecological effects on the Wairoa River which is adjacent to the site.

6. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on private plan change 45. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) provide local board views on private plan change 45 by Stratford Properties Limited for 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 45

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

7. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[5]}

8. A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than council proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

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

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

11. This report provides an overview of the private plan change, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

12. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board conveys its views on private plan change 45. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

13. The private plan change applies to 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road. The land is currently zoned Rural – Rural Coastal zone as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road and surrounding area

14. Stratford Properties Limited states the purpose of private plan change 45 is to enable the subdivision and development of the property at 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road for countryside living purposes.

15. Figure 2 below shows the rezoning proposed by Stratford Properties Limited in private plan change 45, to part of 272, 274 and part of 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road (9.9 hectares of land) from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Rural – Countryside living zone.

Figure 2: rezoning proposed to 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road as part of private plan change 45

16. Stratford Properties Limited included technical reports in the private plan change request that evaluate geotechnical, engineering and infrastructure, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal, transport, economic, soil, land use capability, ecological, and landscape visual effects. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=73.

17. The Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

18. Key submission themes are listed below:

· effects on the rural character, landscape, views, and amenity values of the area

· flooding, as a large proportion of the site is within a floodplain

· extra traffic and volume of traffic movements

· ecological impact on the Wairoa River

· precedent for other landowners, resulting in more requests for rural land to be used for housing

· request for lower density development on the site

· request for an archaeological field survey/assessment along with wider iwi consultation.

19. 20 submissions were received.

Table 1: submissions received on plan change 45

Submissions	Number of submissions	Key matters raised
In support	Four	In full support of the plan change without any amendments as the proposal will provide new houses on land at a scale that is being sought after.
In opposition	Twelve	Adverse impact on local character and views - particularly from the submitters’ properties Adverse traffic effects on the local network Impact on flood management Adverse ecological effects on the Wairoa River
In support (with amendments)	Three	Amendments requested include completion of an archaeological assessment, wider consultation with iwi entities, reverse sensitivity concerns of neighbouring property with business using heavy machinery resolved and a request for fewer building sites enabled by the proposed plan change.
Neutral	One	Request to give extra traffic, floodplains and neighboring properties privacy consideration when making a decision on this plan change.

20. Detailed information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from the Council’s website: PC 45 (Private): 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon Kawakawa Road (aucklandcouncil.govt.nz).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. The decision whether to provide local board views:

· will not have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions

· is a decision of short duration.

22. The decision whether to provide local board views will not be impacted by a climate that changes over the lifetime of that decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. Staff from Healthy Waters, Environmental Services and Engineering [in Regulatory Services] will review relevant submissions and provide expert input into the Hearing report.

24. No council-controlled organisation made a submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. The private plan change request is for 272, 274 and 278 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, within the Franklin Local Board area. The site is positioned on the northern side of Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, and located approximately 2.5km from the Clevedon Village. The site adjoins the Wairoa River to the north.

26. This plan change relates to the Franklin Local Board area only.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori People, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). 11,247 residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in the 2018 census results.

30. Stratford Properties Limited advised council that it consulted with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki when it prepared the private plan change. No other iwi authorities have been consulted with directly about the proposed plan change.

31. No iwi authorities made a submission on the proposed plan change.

32. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[6]} The hearing report will also analyse water quality as it may be a particular matter of relevance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. The cost associated with processing the private plan change request is recoverable from the applicant. The impacts of development associated with the private plan change request on transport infrastructure (and any associated funding/financing issues) is a matter that will need to be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

· the mechanism for the Franklin Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

36. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[7]} This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cosette Saville - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

Local board views on a Notice of Requirement for a new primary school and early chilldhood centre at 1043 Linwood Road, Kingseat.

File No.: CP2021/01729

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Franklin Local Board’s views on a Notice of Requirement (NoR) by the Minister of Education for a new primary school and early childhood education centre at 1043 Linwood Road Kingseat.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including NoRs. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[8]}

4. The Minister of Education (MoE), as the Requiring Authority (RA), has served a notice of requirement (NoR) on Auckland Council [the council] for a designation for a designation at 1043 Linwood road, Kingseat. The NoR seeks a designation for educational purposes, including a primary school and early childhood education centre at this address.

5. The NoR was notified on 11 December 2020 and submissions closed on 29 January 2021. Five submissions were received including responses from Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) and Auckland Transport (AT). HNZ and AT support the NoR but, in both cases, suggest additional conditions. The other three submissions were from local organizations/groups and support the designation.

6. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on the NoR. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) provide local board views on the Notice of Requirement for a new primary school and early childhood education centre at 1043 Linwood Road Kingseat.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing (if one is held) on the Notice of Requirement

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

8. The Notice of Requirement is intended to add a new designation to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP [OP]). Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views where any process proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

9. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the (s42a) hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the NoR, along with all submissions.

10. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing [if one is held] to commissioners, who will make a recommendation on the NoR.

11. Following receipt of the recommendation, the Requiring Authority would be required to advise the council, within 30 working days, whether they accept or reject the recommendation in whole or in part. Once the council has received a decision from the Requiring Authority, submitters will be advised and are then given an opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court if they are not satisfied with the outcome. Auckland Council will also have the opportunity at this stage to appeal the decision.

12. This report provides an overview of the NoR and a summary of the key themes in submissions.

13. The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey. Staff cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Notice of Requirement overview

14. This NoR was lodged by the Minister of Education and is for a new primary school and early childhood education centre at 1043 Linwood Road Kingseat.

15. The general locality of the site is shown in Figure 1 below, with the land to be designated shown as diagonal hatching. The site comprises approximately 4.4 ha in area, is rectangular in shape and has a road frontage on Linwood Road of 140m.

16. The site is owned by the Crown having been acquired from Kingseat Village Ltd. Kingseat Village Ltd have retained approximately 4ha of land which the MoE understands is intended to be developed for residential purposes. This area of land includes a 20m access strip on the eastern boundary of the school site which is within the single house zone (labelled as A) with the balance being zoned for Open Space – Active Sport and Recreation zone (labelled as B). Land to the east of the access strip is also zoned for Open Space – Active Sport and Recreation zone (labelled as C). This has been acquired by the council for future sport and active recreation development.

Figure 1: General location of the site at 1043 Linwood Road and surrounding area – the area to be designated is shown as diagonally hatched.

Figure 2 – NoR 1043 Linwood Road – zoning and surrounding area

17. The site is currently used as a rural residential site as well as an equestrian training business. The land is generally gently sloping and is characterized by paddocks, equestrian type facilities and a dwelling.

18. The adjacent sites are generally rural residential or pastoral farming in nature, with a horticultural site to the west. A small cluster of houses and a shop are located to the west of the site at the Kingseat/Linwood Rd intersection. The former Kingseat Hospital site is located west of Kingseat Rad and is now utilized for a range of uses including housing and some commercial activity. The Kingseat Village area has been zoned for urban purposes in the AUP:OP with a commercial centre around the Kingseat Rd/McRobbie Road/Linwood Rad intersection to the west of the school site and a mix of residential (Mixed Housing Suburban, Single House zone) and Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone. See Figure 2 above.

19. The access to the proposed school site is from Linwood Road and it is anticipated that the standard of the road and speed limit will change as urban development of the Kingseat area progresses and before the school is opened. It must be noted that the development of the school will not occur until urban development in the area generates sufficient demand.

20. The site is subject to some overland flow paths and limited flood plain area located towards the south-west corner of the site.

21. The Minister of Education included technical reports that evaluate traffic, engineering (geotechnical), contamination and ecological effects with their application. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at the following link.

22. Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

· views and preferences of the local board if the local board passes a resolution

23. The NoR was notified on 11 December 2020 and submissions closed on 29 January 2021.

Submissions received

24. Submissions were made by five people/organisations as set out in Table 1 below

Table 1: Submissions received on NOR for 1043 Linwood Road, Kingseat

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support [with conditions]	2
In support	3

25. Three local groups/organizations supported the NoR and noted that it “would be an integrated feature of the Kingseat Village community” and will provide “greater walkability“ for Kingseat residents.

26. The other two submitters, HNZ and AT both supported the NOR subject to matters in their submission being addressed through conditions on the designation. AT’s conditions relate to vehicle access, parking requirements, school travel plan and onsite pick-up and drop-off. HNZ’s conditions and advice note relate to the Accidental Discovery Protocol and a photographic record of farming activities and land parcel boundaries.

27. AT and HNZ have discussed these conditions and have now agreed to a set of conditions along with an advice note with MOE.

28. Information on individual submissions and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, will be reported in the hearings report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. The decision whether to provide local board views:

· will not have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions

· is a decision of short duration

30. The decision whether to provide local board views will not be impacted by a climate that changes over the lifetime of that decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. Staff from Healthy Waters, Contaminated Land and Engineering (in Regulatory Services), Heritage and Ecology will provide expert input into the Hearing report.

32. The key matters raised by AT and HNZ in their submissions are noted above in paragraph 26.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The Notice of Requirement falls within the Franklin Local Board area.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

34. MoE have indicated that they engaged with the local board in June 2020 prior to lodgement. Feedback at that stage was informal; restrictions on delegations prevent that informal feedback from being the views of the local board.^{^[10]}.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the NoR, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori people, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world view). 11,247 residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in the 2018 census results.

37. MoE have engaged with local iwi to help identify key cultural issues associated with the project and address any potential effects this may raise. One iwi requested further engagement as part of the designation around the re-use of materials from the house, testing of the pond for contaminants, retaining the overland flow path and cultural monitoring of topsoil. These matters will be addressed through the outline plan and regional resource consents phase of the project as part of the detailed design and project construction. Continued engagement with iwi to allow early input will occur as design detail progresses.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications with the local board providing its views.

39. The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a Notice of Requirement cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[11]} This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

42. The planner will advise the local board of the recommendation and decision on the NoR by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Leddra - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

Approval for one new private road name and the extension of an existing public road at 26, 42 & 44 Collingwood Road, Waiuku

File No.: CP2021/02035

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 26, 42 & 44 Collingwood Road, Waiuku.

2. Formal approval is also sought to name a new section of public road as ‘Hamilton Drive’, this being an extension of the existing public road ‘Hamilton Drive’ in Waiuku.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

4. On behalf of the developer and Applicant, Graham Dickey of Boundary Road Partnership Limited, agent Ann-Maree Gladding of Tripp Andrews Surveyors Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the Local Board.

5. Any of the seven proposed road name options presented below would be acceptable for the local board to approve for use in this location, having been assessed against the Guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the Standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region in any close proximity. Mana Whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the Guidelines.

6. Formal approval from the local board is also required to enable the continuation of the name ‘Hamilton Drive’ from the existing road into the newly extended section of the same road, which connects to form one continuous stretch of public road.

7. Upon consultation with mana whenua, Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua provided four road name options, which the applicant has adopted and are presented below.

8. The proposed names for the new private road (COAL) at 26, 42 & 44 Collingwood Road are:

· Manga Toitoi Place (Preferred suggestion by Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua)

· Mamaku Place (Suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua)

· Harakeke Place (Suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua)

· Mānuka Place (Suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua)

· Carbon Place (Applicant Proposed)

· Alloy Place (Applicant Proposed)

· Oxide Place (Applicant Proposed)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) approves the name Manga Toitoi Place (Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua and Applicant’s preferred name) for the new private road, a commonly owned access lot, created by way of subdivision at 26, 42 & 44 Collingwood Road, Waiuku, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60318108 and SUB60317687).

b) approves the name Hamilton Drive for a new section of public road, being an extension of the existing public road ‘Hamilton Drive’ providing access to the new subdivision at the end of this road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60318108 and SUB60317687).

Horopaki

Context

9. Resource consent reference BUN60318108 (subdivision reference number SUB60317687) was issued in February 2020 for the construction of 38 new residential freehold units, two commonly owned access lot (COAL) and a new public road connecting with existing Hamilton Drive.

10. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachment A.

11. In accordance with the Standards, any road including private ways, COALs, and right of ways, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

12. Therefore, in this development, only one of the new COALs requires a road name because it serves more than five lots. The other COAL, although serving more than five lots, does not need to be named as LINZ’s ‘Guidelines for addressing in-fill developments’ can be applied and infill street numbering can be used instead. This can be seen in Attachment A, where the COAL that requires a name is highlighted in yellow.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region. The 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

14. The Guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Maori names being actively encouraged:

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

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

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

15. Theme: Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua suggested to continue an existing theme in the area in which roads are named after native trees, i.e. Rātā Street, Tōtara Street, Nīkau Place and Mataī Street to name a few. The Applicant chose additional names to reflect the use of the Waiuku Steel Mill (established 1968) in the area.

16. The names, as suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua and the Applicant, are as detailed in the table below:

Proposed name

Meaning (Te Reo Māori names as described by Ngāti Te Ata and English names as described by the Applicant)

Manga Toitoi Place (Ngāti Te Ata Waihoua preferred)

The name of the headland at the end of Racecourse Road is called Manga toitoi, where the Waiuku awa and a small stream divides and passes behind Knight and Dickey depot.

Mamaku Place

(Alternative 1)

Te Reo Māori word meaning: (noun) black tree fern

Harakeke Place

(Alternative 2)

Te Reo Māori word meaning: (noun) New Zealand flax

Mānuka Place

(Alternative 3)

Te Reo Māori word meaning: (noun) Tea-tree

Carbon Place

(Alternative 4)

Carbon (from Latin ‘carbo’, which means ‘coal’) is a chemical element with the symbol ‘C’ and atomic number 6.

‘Carbon steel’ is a special type of steel.

This name reflects the use of the Waiuku Steel Mill in the area.

Alloy Place

(Alternative 5)

An alloy is an admixture of metals, or a metal combined with one or more other elements. Steel is an alloy of iron with low amounts of carbon.

This name reflects the use of the Waiuku Steel Mill in the area.

Oxide Place

(Alternative 6)

An oxide is a chemical compound that contains at least one oxygen atom and one other element in its chemical formula.

‘Black oxide’ is a conversion coating for stainless steel. It is used to add mild corrosion resistance, for appearance, and to minimize light reflection.

This name reflects the use of the Waiuku Steel Mill in the area.

17. Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the Guidelines and the Standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

18. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

19. Road Type: ‘Place’ is an acceptable road type for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the COAL.

20. Consultation: mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. To aid local board decision making, the Guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate. The Guidelines identify the process that enables mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications and in this instance, the process has been adhered to.

25. On 15^th January 2021 mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the Guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

• Ngāti Tamaoho

• Te Ākitai Waiohua

• Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

• Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

• Ngāti Maru

• Waikato-Tainui

26. A response from Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua was received, inviting the Applicant to discuss shared naming options. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua discussed potential names with Kaumātua, and presented four names which have been adopted by the Applicant.

27. A response was also received from Te Ahiwaru Waiohua, who wanted to see Te Reo Māori name options considered, and supported the names provided by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. There are no significant risks to Council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key component of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site & Location Plans	43

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrea Muhme - Planner

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2021/02033

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the process for appointing elected members to attend the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference taking place from 15 to 17 July 2021, appoint delegates to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and provide process information regarding remits and awards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2021 LGNZ Conference will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021. The conference programme is appended as Attachment A.

3. Due to reductions in the Emergency Budget (current financial year) and risks associated with uncertainty of alert levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of members who will be able to attend the LGNZ conference this year is limited.

4. After considering a number of options (detailed in attachment B), staff recommend an option that enables a representative Auckland Council delegation to be funded from the reduced budget as follows:

· elected members with a formal role as Auckland Council representatives to LGNZ

· six additional local board members to be selected from the local board clusters.

5. The estimated cost of attending the conference (registration, travel and accommodation) is $2,410 per person, bringing the total for the recommended option to $38,560.

6. As in previous years, elected members may use their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation to attend the conference. The IDB allocation has also been reduced under the Emergency Budget to $1,500 per member per electoral term. It is therefore not sufficient to cover the total cost of a member’s attendance. Members who wish to take up this opportunity would need to cover the shortfall themselves, approximately $900.

7. Auckland Council is entitled to four delegates at the AGM. These delegates are appointed by the Governing Body. Staff recommend that the four delegates include Mayor Phil Goff (as presiding delegate), Chief Executive Jim Stabback, and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees.

8. The adoption of remits at the AGM and the 2021 LGNZ Excellence Awards are elements of this event. This report outlines the Auckland Council process for deciding Auckland Council remits and council positions on the conference remit, as well as a consolidated process for Auckland Council entries to the awards. The LGNZ Auckland Zone meeting, which is attended by representatives of local boards and the governing body is the forum that will coordinate these discussions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) note the budget constraints in the current financial year and the recommended process for the appointment of attendees and delegates to the Local Government New Zealand 2021 Conference and Annual General Meeting in Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021

b) endorse the selection of one local board representative per cluster through the Local Board Chairs’ Forum and agree to put nominations for cluster representatives through the local board chair for consideration at their April 2020 meeting.

c) note the process to submit remits to the Annual General Meeting and entries for the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Excellence Awards has been communicated to elected members on 2 March 2021

d) confirm that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy

e) note that all local board members who are appointed to attend the conference will be confirmed to the General Manager Local Board Services by 15 April 2021 at the latest to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand

f) note that any member who wishes to attend the conference using their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation will need to subsidise the cost and must contact the General Manager Local Board Services by 8 April 2021 to make the necessary arrangements.

g) note that the Governing Body will be appointing delegates to the 2021 LGNZ Annual General Meeting at their 25 March 2021 meeting, with the recommendation being to appoint Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate, and to appoint Chief Executive Jim Stabback and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees as delegates.

h) note that conference attendees can attend the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting in an advisory capacity provided their names are included on the Annual General Meeting registration form, which will be signed by the mayor.

Horopaki

Context

9. LGNZ is an incorporated society of local government organisations whose primary objective is to represent and advocate for the interests of local authorities in New Zealand. LGNZ champions policy positions on key issues that are of interest to local government and holds regular meetings and events throughout the year for members. The schedule of meetings includes an annual conference and meetings of local government geographical clusters (known as LGNZ zones) and sectors.

10. LGNZ is governed by a National Council made up of representatives from member authorities as outlined in the constitution. Some of its work is conducted through committees and working groups which include representatives from member authorities.

11. Elected members who have been formally appointed to LGNZ roles including members who are involved in advisory groups are:

Name	LGNZ role
Mayor Phil Goff	National Council representative for Auckland Auckland Council representative on the Metropolitan Sector Group
Councillor Pippa Coom Local Board Chair Richard Northey	National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by Governing Body) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by local boards) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector
Councillor Alf Filipaina	Auckland Council representative on Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere
Local Board Member Nerissa Henry	Auckland Council representative on Young Elected Members
Councillor Angela Dalton Local Board Deputy Chair Danielle Grant	Auckland Council representatives on Governance and Strategy Advisory Group
Councillor Richard Hills Local Board Member Cindy Schmidt	Auckland Council representatives on Policy Advisory Group

Auckland Zone

12. LGNZ rules were amended in 2019 to allow Auckland Council, with its unique governance arrangements, to be set up as its own Zone, rather than be part of LGNZ Zone 1 with Northland councils.

13. Auckland Zone meetings are scheduled on a quarterly basis. These meetings are co-chaired by the two Auckland representatives appointed to the LGNZ National Council by the Governing Body (Councillor Pippa Coom) and local boards’ (Chair Richard Northey) and attended by appointed representatives of local boards and members of the Governing Body.

14. The meetings of Auckland Zone are open to all elected members. The zone meetings receive regular updates from LGNZ Executive as well as verbal reports from Auckland Council elected members who have an ongoing involvement with LGNZ.

15. The zone meetings provide an opportunity for council to have discussions across governing body and local boards on joint advocacy issues including remits and other shared priorities that fall within LGNZ’s mandate.

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2021

16. The 2021 LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Waiharakeke Blenheim, from 15 to 17 July 2021.

17. This year, the conference programme has the theme “Reimagining Aotearoa from community up”. The programme is available online on the LGNZ website and is appended as Attachment A.

18. The AGM takes place on the last day of the conference from 9.30am to 12.30pm. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

19. Due to the restriction following the COVID-19 crisis, the 2020 conference was postponed and Auckland Council only sent two delegates to the AGM. The two delegates who attended the AGM via remote/electronic attendance were Mayor Phil Goff and Councillor Pippa Coom.

20. In addition to the official delegates at the AGM, LGNZ allows conference participants to attend the AGM as observers but requires prior notice. Nominated attendees to the conference will be invited to register as observers to the AGM.

Remits (for consideration at the AGM 2021)

21. LGNZ invites member authorities to submit remits for consideration at the AGM on 17 July 2021 and entries for consideration for the LGNZ Excellence Awards, to be announced at the conference dinner on 16 July 2021.

22. Proposed remits should address only major strategic ‘issues of the moment’. They should have a national focus, articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level. They should relate to significant policy issues that, as a council, we have not been able to progress with central government through other means.

23. On 2 March 2021, elected members were sent detailed information inviting proposals for remits to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021. Remits that are agreed on at the zone meeting will be submitted by the due date.

24. The June 2021 meeting of the Auckland Zone will review all the remits that will be discussed at the AGM with a view to recommending a council position that the Auckland Council delegates will advocate at the AGM.

LGNZ Excellence Awards 2021

25. LGNZ also invites member authorities to submit entries for consideration for the LGNZ Excellence Awards, to be announced at the conference dinner on 16 July 2021.

26. The LGNZ Excellence Awards recognise and celebrate excellent performance by councils in promoting and growing the well-being of their communities. The awards are judged on a combination of general and specific criteria, incorporating best practice and components from the CouncilMARK™ excellence programme’s four priority areas. The awards categories for 2021 are:

· Creative New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Cultural Well-being

· Martin Jenkins EXCELLENCE Award for Economic Well-being

· Air New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Environmental Well-being

· Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities EXCELLENCE Award for Social Well-being

· In addition, one or more individuals will be awarded the Te Tari Taiwhenua Internal Affairs EXCELLENCE Award for Outstanding Contribution to Local Government, and Fulton Hogan will also select the Local EXCELLENCE Award from among the finalists.

27. The email to elected members on 2 March 2021 also outlined detailed information inviting potential awards entries to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021 so that entries from Auckland Council can be coordinated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Overall costs per attendee

28. The estimated total cost of attendance to the conference is $2,410 per person, distributed as follows (all costs are GST inclusive):

Registration (early bird)	$1,400
Accommodation* @ $190 per night x 3 nights	$570
Flights**	$280
Miscellaneous***	$160
Total	$2,410

* based on average cost of Blenheim hotels.

** flights may range from $49 one way (take on bag only) to $199 for a 5pm flight (with a checked bag). $280 is as per 2020 budgeting.

*** for travel to and from airport and reasonable daily expenses under the EM Expenses policy

Options

29. Staff considered several options (Attachment B) that ensure a fair balance of representatives across the governing body and local boards while keeping within budget. The key considerations that were applied to selecting the staff preferred option are:

a) the available budget for the LGNZ conference attendance is only $40,000

b) the cost of attendance per person (registration, travel, accommodation) is estimated at $2,410

c) with the uncertainty to public events and gatherings posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is a possibility the COVID-19 alert levels may not be favourable in July 2021. If this is the case, cancellations will not recoup all monies spent. Staff estimate that although this risk may be lower in July, it will continue to exist

d) ensure fair representation from local boards given the inability to accommodate 21 representatives

e) empowering elected members who have a formal involvement with LGNZ to be prioritised for attendance to maximise their ongoing contributions on behalf of Auckland Council

30. Staff recommend Option B which will cost $38,560 and fund attendance of 16 elected members including:

· all members who have been formally appointed or nominated to LGNZ National Council, subsidiary bodies and advisory groups (10 members)

· a representative from each of the 6 local board clusters – North, South, West, Central, Islands and Rural (6 members).

31. This is not the cheapest option but is the one that enables a wider representation from local boards. The more expensive options which allow for one representative per local board cannot be accommodated as it will exceed the available budget.

32. Local boards have an existing method for choosing a limited number of representatives. This approach utilises informal cluster groups based on geographic locations and unique characteristics (North, South, West, Central, Island, Rural) and involves local board chairs liaising with and agreeing with others in their cluster on their representative.

33. There is an opportunity to select local board representatives using this methodology at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum on 12 April 2021.

Use of IDB to fund additional attendees

34. Elected members who wish to attend the LGNZ conference and are not nominated or appointed can still attend using their IDB. As IDB entitlements are $1500 per elected member per term and the cost of attendance is approximately $2410, these elected members will need to meet the cost difference.

35. It is recommended that elected members who wish to attend and can pay the difference are included in the group booking for accommodation and travel. Any elected member who wishes to take up this opportunity is encouraged to liaise further with the Kura Kāwana team.

36. LGNZ are working on introducing some form of virtual attendance to the conference but the details are still to be confirmed.

37. As per previous years, LGNZ will make some session recordings available online after the conference.

Delegates for the Annual General Meeting

38. In line with previous years, staff recommend that AGM delegates are appointed from within the attending members as follows:

· Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate

· Chief Executive Jim Stabback

· up to two additional delegates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. This report is procedural in nature, however the key impact on climate is through supporting attendance at a conference by means of air travel. A conservative approach to conference attendance would help reduce this impact.

40. Estimates for emissions associated with travel to Blenheim or travel within Auckland for local meetings have not been calculated at the time of writing this report. Emissions, when known, can be offset through a verified carbon offset programme at a small cost.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. LGNZ is an incorporated body comprising members who are New Zealand councils. Council-controlled organisations are not eligible for separate membership. However, remits can cover activities of council-controlled organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. LGNZ advocates for issues that are important to local government. Many of these issues are aligned with local board priorities. As such, there is interest from local boards in contributing to the work of LGNZ and in identifying and harnessing opportunities to progress other advocacy areas that local boards may have.

43. Each local board has a nominated lead who represents them at Auckland Zone meetings and is involved in discussions about LGNZ matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. LGNZ advocates on a variety of issues that are important to Māori, including Māori housing, various environmental issues and Council-Māori participation and relationship arrangements. In addition, LGNZ provides advice including published guidance to assist local authorities in understanding values, aspirations and interests of Māori.

45. The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a member of the sub-committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. Staff considered options to reduce the financial impact of the attendance to the conference, in line with the budget restrictions imposed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

47. The costs associated with conference attendance, travel and accommodation within the recommended option can be met within the allocated Kura Kāwana (Elected Member development) budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The key risk is of delayed decision-making which can impact costs and registration choices. The sooner the registration for the nominated members can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference, flights and accommodation, all done via bulk-booking.

49. A resurgence of COVID-19 in the community and a change of alert level might prevent elected members from travelling to attend the conference. LGNZ is keeping an active review on the COVID-19 situation and will update directly to registered participants should a change affect the delivery of the conference. LGNZ is still working through a number of scenarios and how these would affect their decision to proceed as planned, postpone, cancel or switch delegates to virtual attendance, with the final decision resting with the National Council on the basis of the information available at the time.

50. In the current COVID circumstances, the reputational risk associated with any financial expenditure is heightened and there is high scrutiny from the public on the council’s expenses. The recommendation to limit the number of members attending the conference mitigates this risk to a certain degree.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. Once representatives are confirmed to attend, the Manager Governance Services will coordinate all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	LGNZ Conference 2021 programme	53
b ⇩	Options for attendance	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

Franklin Local Board

23 March 2021

The Franklin Local Board achievement report 2019/2020 financial year

File No.: CP2021/02124

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the board an overview of the achievements for the 2019/2020 financial year set against the Franklin Local Board Plan 2017 outcomes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Franklin Local Board Plan 2017 (the plan) sets out the aspirations, required outcomes and priorities for the Franklin community over a three-year period, including projects and areas of advocacy that the board undertakes on behalf of the community.

3. The local board developed 5 outcomes in the plan and attachment A highlights some of the achievements that the local board has delivered to the community that it serves in the 2019/2020 financial year.

4. The local board agreement was entered into with the governing body, which included areas for advocacy and budgets to deliver key projects and initiatives in the local board plan.

5. As part of the local board agreement, a list of advocacy initiatives was developed, identifying each area of advocacy and the entity that the board will advocate to for the progression of initiatives, generally either the governing body or a council-controlled organisation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the Franklin Local Board term achievements 2019/2020 report (attachment A).

Horopaki

Context

6. The Franklin Local Board Plan 2017 (the plan) sets out the aspirations, required outcomes and priorities for the Franklin community over a three-year period.

7. The board undertook community consultation to develop the local board plan, which it adopted in September 2017. The plan contained the following aspirational outcomes for the Franklin community:

· A well-cared for natural environment - enhance, protect and maintain our diverse natural environment and make sure it is able to be enjoyed

· A thriving local economy - Franklin has a strong economy that attracts people to live, work locally and visit its attractions

· An improved transport system - continue to work towards better public transport and safer roads in Franklin

· Growth is dealt with effectively - make full use of existing outdoor space and community facilities before developing new

· Communities feel ownership and connection to their area - support community participation in helping to shape peoples’ quality of life, creativity, health and wellbeing.

8. This report highlights the local board achievements during the 2019/2020 financial year set against the 5 outcomes in the local board plan 2017.

9. Over this 2019/2020 financial period many of the projects and advocacy initiatives have been affected by the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) but the board has many achievements that need to be acknowledged and celebrated (see Attachment A). Some of these achievements include:

· the Pest Free Franklin programme that involves council staff working to empower community groups on pest control

· a collaborative project across council departments to enhance the sense of community pride in McShane Reserve, Pukekohe, using the playground renewal as a catalyst. It delivered a playground to the community that was well received and had a wonderful opening that was attended by the local schools.

· the Hunua Trail received New Zealand Heartland Trail status in 2018. The Aspirational Hunua Trail Plan was endorsed by the board in March 2019 and by the Governing Body in July 2019.

· Kahawairahi Drive Reserve playground was completed in December 2019 with plenty of fun things for the community to enjoy.

· adopted the Franklin Maori Responsiveness Action Plan in June 2019, which includes key aspirations and priorities for Maori in the Franklin area, ways to build stronger relationships and share information.

· the Franklin Youth Advisory Board (FYAB) planned and held the Franklin Youth Talent Show on 17 August 2019 with 15 acts, 12 community sponsors and approximately 100 people in the audience

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. No analysis and advice has been included in this report because the purpose of this report is to highlight the achievements through the local board work programme for the 2019/2020 financial year

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. Attachment A to this report outlines the work that the local board has supported through its work programme that mitigate climate change with various projects of waste minimisation, community education, waterway protection funds and riparian planting to name a few. These projects come out of the Local Board Plan 2017 outcome to support a well-cared for natural environment and to enhance, protect and maintain our diverse natural environment and make sure it is able to be enjoyed

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. To deliver the outcomes in the plan the local board has worked with various Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) to deliver in the community, including with Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Auckland Transport (AT).

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. To deliver the outcomes in the plan the local board has worked with various Council departments to deliver give direction to the work and monitor progress.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. The local board has included working with mana whenua and Māori through various projects and initiatives, for example Te Kete Rukuruku.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. This report highlights the achievements for the 2019/2020 financial year (attachment A) consequently no budget discussions are required.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

16. The report highlights the achievements for the 2019/2020 financial year (attachment A) so there are no risks and mitigations to be considered within this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17. No next steps are required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Franklin Local Board Achievement report 2019/20	65

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Orrin Kapua - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work calendar March 2021	85

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Franklin Local Board workshop record February 2 2021	91
b ⇩	Franklin Local Board workshop record February 9 2021	93
c ⇩	Franklin Local Board workshop record February 16 2021	95
d ⇩	Franklin Local Board workshop record February 23 2021	97

[1] The 2010 Regional Parks Management Plan is available online via this link.

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

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

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

[7] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D.

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

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

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

[11] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D.

Chairperson	Andrew Baker
Deputy Chairperson	Angela Fulljames
Members	Malcolm Bell
	Alan Cole
	Sharlene Druyven
	Lance Gedge
	Amanda Kinzett
	Matthew Murphy
	Logan Soole

Author	Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura