I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday 17 March 2021 3.00pm Warkworth
Town Hall, |
Rodney Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Phelan Pirrie |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Beth Houlbrooke |
|
Members |
Brent Bailey |
|
|
Steve Garner |
|
|
Danielle Hancock |
|
|
Tim Holdgate |
|
|
Louise Johnston |
|
|
Vicki Kenny |
|
|
Colin Smith |
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
Robyn Joynes Democracy Advisor
12 March 2021
Contact Telephone: +64 212447174 Email: robyn.joynes@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Board Member |
Organisation |
Position |
Brent Bailey |
Central Shooters Inc Auckland Shooting Club Royal NZ Yacht Squadron |
President Member Member |
Steven Garner |
Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club Sandspit Yacht Club Warkworth Gamefish Club |
President Member Member |
Louise Johnston |
Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society |
Treasurer |
Vicki Kenny |
International Working Holidays Ltd Nannies Abroad Ltd Waitemata Riding Club National Party Helensville Electorate |
Director/Owner/CEO Director/Owner/CEO Member Treasurer |
Danielle Hancock |
Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association Pest Free Kaukapakapa New Zealand Biosecurity Services Limited |
Member
Pest Free Coordinator Operations Manager |
Tim Holdgate |
Landowners Contractors Protection Association Agricultural & Pastoral Society - Warkworth |
Vice Chairman
Committee member |
Beth Houlbrooke |
Kawau Island Boat Club |
Member |
Phelan Pirrie |
Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade Grow West Ltd North West Country Incorporated |
Officer in Charge Director Manager |
Colin Smith |
|
|
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
8.1 Deputation: Leigh Penquin Project 5
8.2 Deputation: Omaha Shorebird Protection Trust 6
8.3 Deputation: The Forest Bridge Trust 6
8.4 Deputation: Curry's Bush Reserve Waharoa Project 6
9 Public Forum 6
10 Extraordinary Business 7
11 Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate March 2021 9
12 Auckland Transport - Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Footpaths Report March 2021 17
13 Local board input into preparation of the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan 23
14 Local board views on a Notice of Requirement for a Designation for 'Argent Lane Extension Project' - road realignment and upgrading between Old Pine Valley Road and the Silverdale Motorway Interchange in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) 29
15 Development of children’s playground within Stage 2D, Milldale Subdivision, Pine Valley 63
16 Divestment of Auckland Council carpark at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth 83
17 2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 91
18 Approve the appointment of project leads for the Rodney Local Board 107
19 Rodney Ward Councillor update 117
20 Rodney Local Board workshop records 123
21 Governance forward work calendar 133
22 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
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.
That the Rodney Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday 17 February 2021, as a true and correct record.
|
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
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 Rodney 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.
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. A deputation request has been received to provide an update on the Leigh Penguin Project.
|
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) thank the Leigh Penguin Project group for their presentation.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. The Omaha Shorebird Protection Trust has requested a deputation to update the local board on their activities.
|
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) thank the Omaha Shorebird Protection Trust for their presentation.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. The Forest Bridge Trust has requested a deputation to discuss their plans are for 2021. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) thank The Forest Bridge Trust for their presentation. |
Attachments a Deputation: The Forest Bridge Trust presentation....................................... 139 |
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. The Curry’s Bush Reserve Waharoa Project group has requested a deputation to update the local board on the Curry’s Bush Reserve Waharoa Project.
|
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) thank the Curry’s Bush Reserve Waharoa Project group for their presentation.
|
Attachments a Curry's Bush Reserve Waharoa Project presentation................................. 145 b Curry's Bush Reserve Waharoa Project - Rodney College Statement....... 153 |
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
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.”
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate March 2021
File No.: CP2021/02129
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To update the Rodney Local Board on the programme being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. This report provides general information about the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate including:
· a financial summary of the funds collected and expended
· a summary of expenditure against planned funding allocation
· an overview of the expenditure proportionately by subdivision
· a summary of expenditure by project type including expenditure on bus services, park and ride facilities, footpaths and bus stops
· an update on investigation and construction for projects.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) receive the Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.
Horopaki
Context
3. In May 2018, the Rodney Local Board recommended (Resolution number RD/2018/61) that the Governing Body approves a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area. The recommendation was accepted, and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate (RLBTTR) is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (2018 – 2028).
4. Auckland Council receives the rates payments and Auckland Transport administers the fund on behalf of the local board.
5. The RLBTTR is ring-fenced for transport projects in the Rodney Local Board area that are not included in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028. It was established on the basis that the fund is to support:
· new bus stops and bus services
· new park and ride community hub facilities
· new footpaths.
6. The targeted rate must be spent on these items and a material change to spending priorities may require further public consultation.
7. The rate was also established on the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receive a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equated to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision.
8. The Rodney Local Board monitors the performance of the projects and as the projects develop and firmer cost estimates are prepared it is expected that ongoing decision making is required to ensure that the projects proposed are delivering the best outcomes for the community and that proportionality is maintained between each subdivision.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
9. The below table outlines the total amount of targeted rate collected to date:
Total amount collected to date (2018-Expected to June 2021) |
||||
Subdivision |
FY 2018/19 |
FY2019/20 |
FY2020/21 |
TOTAL |
Wellsford |
$ 409,316 |
$ 424,435 |
$ 436,922 |
$ 1,270,673 |
Warkworth |
$ 1,684,970 |
$ 1,749,130 |
$ 1,800,590 |
$ 5,234,690 |
Kumeū |
$ 1,725,826 |
$ 1,790,282 |
$ 1,842,953 |
$ 5,359,061 |
Dairy Flat |
$ 362,865 |
$ 376,565 |
$ 387,644 |
$ 1,127,074 |
TOTAL |
$ 4,182,977 |
$ 4,340,412 |
$ 4,468,109 |
$ 12,991,498 |
10. The below table outlines the entire programme total amounts of targeted rate spent to date per subdivision:
Total expenditure to date (2018 - Jan 2021) |
|||
Subdivision |
Expected Revenue Collected to June 2021 |
Expended to January 2021 |
Balance |
Wellsford |
$ 1,270,673 |
$ 432,789 |
$ 837,884 |
Warkworth |
$ 5,234,690 |
$ 1,047,659 |
$ 4,187,031 |
Kumeū |
$ 5,359,061 |
$ 3,147,424 |
$ 2,211,637 |
Dairy Flat |
$ 1,127,074 |
$ 552,022 |
$ 575,052 |
TOTAL |
$ 12,991,498 |
$ 5,179,893 |
$ 7,811,605 |
11. Please note expended figures above are the spent-to-date per subdivision including park and rides, footpaths, new bus stops and new bus services.
Proportional spending by subdivision
12. Current programme actuals spent and expected expenditure allocation by project per subdivision:
Expended Projects to Date |
Total (Actual Expended and Allocated Fund) |
% Spent Against Overall Programme |
||||
Subdivision |
Bus Stops |
Park and Rides |
Bus Route Services |
Footpaths |
Per Subdivision |
Per Subdivision |
Wellsford |
$ 19,987 |
$ 0 |
$ 411,664 |
$ 1,138 |
$ 432,789 |
4% |
Warkworth |
$ 0 |
$ 631,065 |
$ 411,664 |
$ 4,930 |
$ 6,047,659 (includes $5m allocated for park and ride construction) |
59% |
Kumeū |
$ 339,776 |
$ 270,456 |
$ 2,532,261 |
$ 4,930 |
$ 3,147,424 |
31% |
Dairy Flat |
$ 39,974 |
$ 0 |
$ 510,404 |
$ 1,643 |
$ 552,021 |
5% |
TOTAL |
$ 399,737 |
$ 901,521 |
$3,865,994 |
$ 12,641 |
$ 10,070,500 |
100% |
13. Given the local board has the facility to borrow against future income from the targeted rate it is also important to understand a high-level estimate of future income per subdivision:
|
Wellsford |
Warkworth |
Kumeū |
Dairy Flat |
No of SUIPs* |
3,253 |
13,390 |
13,715 |
2,884 |
Per year at $150 per SUIP |
$487,950 |
$2,008,500 |
$2,057,250 |
$432,600 |
Estimated income for remaining 7 years |
$3,415,650 |
$14,059,500 |
$14,400,750 |
$3,028,200 |
Actual income from 2018 |
$1,270,673 |
$5,234,690 |
$5,359,061 |
$1,127,074 |
Total estimated income by subdivision |
$4,686,323 |
$19,294,190 |
$19,759,811 |
$4,155,274 |
* These figures are from February 2020.
14. The current total expenditure and the estimated total income is highlighted below. Please note these are high-level estimates to give the local board an indication of how the actual spend of the targeted rate is tracking against future income.
Total Expenditure and Estimated Income |
||
Subdivision |
Current expended (2018 – Jan 2021) |
Estimated total subdivision income by 2028 |
Wellsford |
$ 432,789 |
$4,686,323 |
Warkworth |
$ 1,047,659 |
$19,294,190 |
Kumeū |
$ 3,147,424 |
$19,759,811 |
Dairy Flat |
$ 552,022 |
$4,155,274 |
Expenditure by project type
15. The targeted rate is split into:
· service costs for ongoing activities – this includes the bus services, maintenance of facilities and any land rents
· project costs for building infrastructure - this includes bus stops, footpaths, park and ride facilities.
16. The table below outlines the overall expenditure by services and projects:
Cost |
Spent to date |
Bus Services |
$ 3,865,994 |
Park and ride facilities (Investigation, Detailed Design, Construction) |
$ 901,521 |
Bus Stops |
$ 399,737 |
Footpaths |
$ 12,641 |
Rents (future costs when leasing land for park and ride) |
$ 0 |
Total |
$ 5,179,893 |
17. Auckland Transport is currently investigating if there are any operational costs to the new bus stops.
Expenditure on Bus Services
18. The table below outlines patronage numbers from the new bus services:
Service |
Total boardings (Mar19 - Jan21) |
January 2021 Boardings |
Helensville to Silverdale service Route 126 |
21,980 |
835 |
Westgate to Albany - Dairy Flat Service Route 128 |
105,381
|
4,772
|
Wellsford to Warkworth Service Route 998 |
19,989 |
1,493 |
19. It is expected to have an average of 16 per cent lower patronage boarding rate during the holiday month of January for bus service routes 126, 128 and 998.
20. Please note that February 2021 patronage figures were not released at the time of submitting this report.
21. The table below outlines the total amount spent on bus services since the beginning of its life service:
Service |
Subdivision |
Total Expenditure |
January 2021 Expended |
Helensville to Silverdale Bus Route 126 |
Kumeū |
$ 2,532,261 |
$108,718 |
Westgate to Albany Bus Route 128 |
Dairy Flat |
$ 510,404 |
$ 23,734 |
Wellsford to Warkworth Bus Route 998 |
Wellsford |
$ 411,664 |
$ 17,855 |
Warkworth |
$ 411,664 |
$ 17,855 |
|
Total |
|
$ 3,865,994 |
$ 168,162 |
Expenditure on Park and Ride Facilities
22. The table below outlines the total costs of detailed design of park and ride facilities:
Facility |
Subdivision |
Spent to date |
80 Great North Road, Warkworth |
Warkworth |
$ 631,065 |
37 Main Road, Kumeū |
Kumeū |
$ 270,456 |
Total |
|
$ 901,521 |
23. Total expended figures in the table above are actual costs spent to date that includes design and project management costs.
Expenditure on Bus Stops
24. One pair of new bus stops were resolved in at the November 2020 local board business meeting to design and deliver 564/571 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway bus stops.
25. Auckland Transport allocated resources to implement Coatesville-Riverhead Highway bus stops and the design is underway.
26. The table below outlines historical amounts spent on new bus stops from March 2019:
Cost |
Spent to date |
Detailed Design and Project Delivery |
$18,000 |
Construction |
$381,736.58 |
Total |
$399,737 |
Expenditure on Footpaths
27. The local board resolved in November 2020 to fund the design and delivery of a number of footpaths for various subdivisions.
28. The table below outlines the resolved footpath locations and progress to date.
Footpath Projects |
Subdivision |
Update |
Hudson Rd |
Warkworth |
Contractor appointed and construction started in January 2021 |
Omaha Drive |
Warkworth |
Detailed design is near completion |
Dairy Flat Highway (outside Dairy Flat School) |
Dairy Flat |
Detailed design is near completion |
School Road |
Wellsford |
Started design stage |
Alice Street, (Riverhead) |
Kumeū |
Started design stage |
Leigh Road |
Warkworth |
Started design stage |
Coatesville Riverhead Highway |
Dairy Flat |
Started design stage |
Rodney Street |
Wellsford |
Started design stage |
Newton Road (Riverhead) |
Kumeū |
Started design stage |
Rodney Street |
Wellsford |
Started design stage |
Goodall Road |
Warkworth |
Design stage starting July 2021 |
Puhoi Road |
Warkworth |
Design stage starting July 2021 |
Dairy Flat Highway (link from the school to Postmans Road) |
Dairy Flat |
Design stage starting July 2021 |
Update on Investigation Projects
29. There is currently one park and ride facility being investigated at Kumeū Showgrounds.
30. The table below has an update on that project and investigation:
Facility |
Subdivision |
Update |
Kumeu Showgrounds, Kumeū |
Kumeū |
Estimated number of carparks is 130.
Investigation started 30 September 2020.
Investigation work is currently under review by AT planning department. |
Update on Design Projects
31. The table below outlines park and ride facilities that are under detailed design:
Facility |
Subdivision |
Update |
80 Great North Road, Warkworth |
Warkworth |
Designed number of carparks is 137 Estimated construction cost is $5m. Construction scope tender has been released to the market. Construction tender evaluation is planned in March 2021. Resource consent for site construction is under review by Auckland Council. |
37 Main Road, Kumeū |
Kumeū |
Estimated number of carparks is 40 Estimated construction cost is $1,560,000. Detailed design is completed. This site is currently on hold. AT is investigating other options. |
Update on Construction Projects
32. There is currently planned construction to deliver the Warkworth park and ride. The scheduled start date for this construction is expected to start following resource consent approval.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
33. The RLBTTR contributes to the LTP 2015-2025 outcome of: “A green Auckland – By reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and green-house gas emissions.”
34. The RLBTTR also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and Council’s priorities.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
35. The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this update report.
36. The proposed decision of receiving this update report has no impacts on the wider council group.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
37. Local board views were sought and have been included in the formulation of this update report.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
38. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
39. There are no financial implications in receiving this report.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
40. Auckland Transport providing regular updates on the RLBTTR, and separate decision reports on specific projects, is a mitigation to ensure the local board is fully informed before making any decisions with regards to the fund.
41. It should be noted that the planned construction costs for the park and ride in the Warkworth subdivision at $5m meets one hundred per cent of the entire planned amount for park and rides for all subdivisions as part of the targeted rate.
42. To conform with the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equates to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision, AT and the local board will have to actively monitor the spend to ensure that spend is equitably distributed.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
43. Auckland Transport will provide a further report to the Rodney Local Board at its June business meeting.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Susan Barakat - Principal Project Manager North/ West - Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Tarun Ahuja - Delivery Manager North/West - Auckland Transport Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Auckland Transport - Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Footpaths Report March 2021
File No.: CP2021/02128
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek a resolution from the Rodney Local Board to approve the projects they wish Auckland Transport to deliver from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. This report covers:
· a summary of the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate
· a timeline of the local board’s decision making with regards to the allocation of funding to footpaths
· a summary of Auckland Transports advice on footpath projects that the local board wishes to progress
· advice on the financial implications of these decisions.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) receive the Auckland Transport Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Footpaths March 2021 Report
b) request that Auckland Transport deliver the following footpath projects through the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate:
i) Albert Street Footpath (Warkworth) – allocate $172,000
ii) Cambridge Road Footpath (Kumeū) – allocate $453,000
iii) Duke Street Footpath (Kumeū) – allocate $282,000
iv) King Street Footpath (Kumeū) – allocate $238,000
v) Matua Road Footpath (Kumeū) – allocate $630,000
vi) Pakiri Road Footpath (Warkworth) – allocate $502,000
vii) Princes Street Footpath (Kumeū) – allocate $198,000
viii) Queen Street/York Terrace (Kumeū) – allocate $335,000
ix) Waimauku Station Road (Kumeū) – allocate $196,000
x) Wech Drive (Warkworth) – allocate $543,000
c) approve the use of up to $60,000 for the investigation of possible new footpath sites to be considered across the Rodney area to be allow the optimal allocation of the remaining footpath funds.
Horopaki
Context
The Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate
3. In May 2018, the local board recommended (resolution number RD/2018/61) that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area. The recommendation was accepted and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate (RLBTTR) is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (2018 – 2028).
4. The local board are decision makers for funds raised through the rate, Auckland Council receives the rates payments, and Auckland Transport (AT) provides technical advice and administers the funds on behalf of the local board.
5. The local board has a project lead for the targeted rate funds, who acts as the day-to-day contact for AT.
6. The RLBTTR is ring-fenced for transport projects in the Rodney Local Board area that are not included in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028. It was established on the basis that the fund is to support:
· new bus stops and bus services
· new park and ride community hub facilities
· new footpaths.
7. The rate was established on the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equate to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision.
8. As the projects develop and firmer cost estimations are prepared, changes will be required to the projects proposed within each subdivision to ensure proportionality is maintained. The Rodney Local Board monitors the performance of the projects and determines whether to re-prioritise its expenditure based on the stated purposes of the funds raised.
Summary of Local Board Decision Making on the Transport Targeted Rate
9. The RLBTTR was established with a number of projects identified for delivery. Following establishment, a process was begun to create a delivery programme for the list of footpaths.
10. On 15 August 2019 the local board requested (resolution number RD/2019/101) that Auckland Transport draft a programme of works to deliver footpaths by using the targeted rate for discussion by the local board at a workshop after February 2020.
11. In November 2020 the local board resolved (resolution number RD/2020/162) that Auckland Transport was to allocate RLBTTR and Local Board Transport Capital funding to Hudson Road and Dairy Flat School footpaths. Also, that Auckland Transport was to allocate RLBTTR funding to:
· Alice Street (Riverhead) foothpath – allocate $474,000
· Coatesville Riverhead Hwy (Dairy Flat) footpath – allocate $340,000
· Dairy Flat Highway (Dairy Flat) footpath – allocate $440,000
· Hudson Rd (Warkworth) footpath – allocate $398,000
· Newton Road (Riverhead) footpath – allocate $763,000
· Omaha Drive (Omaha) footpath – allocate $645,000
· School Road (Wellsford) footpath – allocate $257,000
12. In December 2020 the local board resolved (resolution number RD/2020/181) that Auckland Transport deliver the following footpath projects:
· Dairy Flat Highway Footpath (Dairy Flat) - allocate $1,007,000
· Goodall Road Footpath (Warkworth) – allocate $458,000
· Leigh Road Footpath (Warkworth) – allocate $363,000
· Puhoi Road Footpath (Warkworth) – allocate $757,000
· Rodney Street (Wellsford) – allocate $1,426,000.
13. That Auckland Transport undertakes site assessment and cost estimation for the following footpath projects to refine Priority Two footpath sites:
· Albert St footpath (Warkworth)
· Cambridge Road footpath (Kumeū)
· Duke Street footpath (Kumeū)
· King Street footpath (Kumeū)
· Mahurangi East Road footpath (Warkworth)
· Matua Road footpath (Kumeū)
· Pakiri Road footpath (Warkworth)
· Princes Street footpath (Kumeū)
· Queen Street footpath (Kumeū).
14. That Auckland Transport complete footpath investigation, including refining footpath design scope requirement and provision of engineer’s estimate, for the following Priority Three footpath sites at a cost of up to $60,000:
· Kaipara Coast Highway Footpath (Kumeū)
· Ahuroa Road footpath (Warkworth)
· Point Wells Road footpath (Warkworth)
· Kahikatea Flat Road footpath (Kumeū)
· Kaipara Coast Highway Footpath (Kumeū)
· Motutara Road footpath (Kumeū)
· Princes Street footpath (Kumeū).
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
15. Following direction from the project lead, Auckland Transport has also undertaken site assessment and cost estimation for the following footpath projects:
· Waimauku Station Road footpath (Kumeū)
· Wech Drive footpath (Warkworth)
16. The cost estimate for the above footpath projects is as follows:
Road Name |
Section |
Subdivision |
Rough Order of Cost |
Albert Street |
Seatoun to No. 15 (walkway) |
Warkworth |
$172,000 |
Cambridge Road |
Duke to Queen to Alice St |
Kumeū |
$453,000 |
Duke Street |
No. 2 to No. 20 |
Kumeū |
$282,000 |
King Street |
Full length |
Kumeū |
$238,000 |
Matua Road |
No. 117 to Tapu |
Kumeū |
$630,000 |
Pakiri Road |
No. 21 to Sawmill Cafe |
Warkworth |
$502,000 |
Princes Street |
No. 1 to No 17 |
Kumeū |
$198,000 |
Queen Street/York Terrace |
No. 59 Queen St to No 8 York |
Kumeū |
$335,000 |
Waimauku Station Road |
No. 93 to Cane Road |
Kumeū |
$196,000 |
Wech Drive |
Full length |
Warkworth |
$543,000 |
Total value of projects recommended for approval |
|
$3,549,000 |
17. These footpath projects are now ready for the local board to approve for design and construction. Resolutions to this effect are included in the recommendations of this report.
18. At the workshop on 10 February 2021 the local board requested Auckland Transport to seek approval at its next business meeting to initiate wider investigation work for the remaining Priority Three footpath allocation list. This would provide the local board with an updated and optimised list of sites to consider for their final tranche of footpaths.
19. The work would utilise the current local board priority list and AT’s prioritised list of footpath requests in Rodney as a base starting point.
20. This investigation work would incorporate a high-level overview of key “missing” sections of footpaths that are being created by adjacent developments, particularly in the high-growth areas.
21. This would allow a review and prioritisation of a wider range of footpaths than just the current Priority Three paths listed in point 14 above. A number of the existing Priority Three paths are estimated to be very high cost and with limited expected usage.
22. The outcome will be an updated list of footpaths in a prioritised order and broken down by subdivision. The top 20 sites would also receive a high-level site assessment and cost estimation. The result will allow the local board to choose which sites to proceed with using these funds, and also provide information that they could use if they choose to fund some of the sites in future Local Board Transport Capital Fund allocations.
23. It is expected that this investigation work, preparation of high-level plans, identifying new sites, site assessments and costings and preparing a report may take up to 10 weeks and cost up to $60,000.
24. A request to proceed with this is included as a resolution in this report.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
25. The RLBTTR contributes to the Long-term Plan outcome of: “A green Auckland – By reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and green-house gas emissions.”
26. The RLBTTR would also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
27. The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this update report.
28. The proposed decision of receiving this update report has no impacts on the wider council group.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
29. The local board are decision makers for funds raised through the RLBTTR, Auckland Council receives the rates payments, and Auckland Transport provides technical advice and administers the funds on behalf of the local board.
30. Workshops were held so the local board could give AT direction on the RLBTTR on:
· 20 March 2020
· 20 September 2020
· 10 February 2021.
31. Auckland Transport also receives regular guidance from the programme lead.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
32. The proposed decision of receiving this report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
Overall RLBTTR budget implications
33. The proposed footpaths for delivery are as follows:
Footpath |
Subdivision |
Rough order of cost |
Cost per subdivision |
Albert Street |
Warkworth |
$172,000 |
$1,217,000
|
Pakiri Road |
$502,000 |
||
Wech Drive |
$543,000 |
||
Cambridge Road |
Kumeū |
$453,000 |
$2,332,000 |
Duke Street |
$282,000 |
||
King Street |
$238,000 |
||
Matua Road |
$630,000 |
||
Princes Street |
$198,000 |
||
Queen Street/York Terrace |
$335,000 |
||
Waimauku Station Road |
$196,000 |
34. Given the local board has the facility to borrow against future income from the targeted rate it is also important to understand a high-level estimate of future income per subdivision:
Subdivision |
Current approved footpaths spend |
Proposed additional footpath spend March 2021 |
Expected total spend |
Estimated total subdivision income by 2028 |
Wellsford |
$1,677,000 |
$0 |
$1,677,000 |
$4,686,323 |
Warkworth |
$2,621,000 |
$1,217,000 |
$3,838,000 |
$19,294,190 |
Kumeū |
$1,239,000 |
$2,332,000 |
$3,571,000 |
$19,759,811 |
Dairy Flat |
$1,787,000 |
$0 |
$1,787,000 |
$4,155,274 |
35. To conform with the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equate to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision, AT and the local board will monitor the spend in all project areas to ensure that spend is equitably distributed.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
36. Auckland Transport provides regular updates on the RLBTTR with separate decision reports on specific projects. This is to ensure that the local board is fully informed before making any decisions with regards to the fund.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
37. Following direction from the local board Auckland Transport will take appropriate steps to enact that direction.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Susan Barakat – Principal Project Manager North/West Ben Halliwell - Elected Member Relationship Manager Neil Prendiville – Project Support Manager |
Authorisers |
Tarun Ahuja – Delivery Manager North/West Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Local board input into preparation of the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan
File No.: CP2021/01104
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 Committee initiated the 10-year review of the Regional Parks Management Plan 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 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 Regional Parks Management Plan, together with local board input provided through this report, and engagement with mana whenua. Key decisions and issues will be workshopped with the Parks, Arts, Community and Committee before the draft Regional Parks Management Plan is presented for the committee’s adoption and release for public consultation.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney 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 (RPMP) 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 Parks, Arts, Community and Committee (PACE) 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 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 has indicated its interest in being involved in this review.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
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.
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 Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Local board views on a Notice of Requirement for a Designation for 'Argent Lane Extension Project' - road realignment and upgrading between Old Pine Valley Road and the Silverdale Motorway Interchange in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part)
File No.: CP2021/01691
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To invite the Rodney Local Board’s views on two Notices of Requirement for new designations for the ‘Argent Lane Extension Project’ which provide for the formation, realignment and upgrades of the arterial road between Old Pine Valley Road and the Silverdale Motorway Interchange in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) under Section 168 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2. The individual Notice of Requirements are:
● Notice of Requirement 1 - Pine Valley Road north realignment
● Notice of Requirement 2 - Pine Valley Road south and Dairy Flat Highway.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. Decision-makers on a Notice of Requirement to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views if the local board choose to provide their views.
4. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including Notice of Requirements in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
5. Auckland Transport, as the requiring authority, has served two notices of requirement on Auckland Council pursuant to section 168, of the Resource Management Act 1991 for arterial road formation, realignment and upgrade at:
· 10 Old Pine Valley Road (Sec 7 SO 315843, Sec 8 SO 315843, Pt Lot 5 DP 136559)
· 36 Old Pine Valley Road (Lot 6 DP 136559)
· 1687 Dairy Flat Highway (Lot 1 DP 131154)
· 1700 Dairy Flat Highway (Pt Lot 1 DP 68886)
· 1731 Dairy Flat Highway (Sec 5 SO 315843, Sec 6 SO 315843, Pt Lot 1 DP 101886)
· 1732 Dairy Flat Highway (Pt Lot 2 DP 68886)
· Sec 6 SO 308591, Dairy Flat Highway.
6. The Notice of Requirements were limited notified (under delegated authority) to all the adjoining landowners on 20 December 2020.
7. The submission period closed on 29 January 2021.
8. Three submissions have been received. The broad themes raised in the submissions are set out in paragraph 33. Copies of the submissions are provided in Attachment A to the agenda report.
9. This report is the mechanism for the local board to provide its views on the Notice of Requirements. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey. Any local board views should be those of the local board.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) provide its views on two Notices of Requirement providing for formation, realignment and upgrades of the arterial road between Old Pine Valley Road and the Silverdale Motorway Interchange in the (Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)
b) if considered necessary, 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
10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.[2]
11. A Notice of Requirement is intended to add a new designation to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views where any process proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.
12. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the section 42A report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the Notice of Requirement, along with all submissions.
13. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who will make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement.
14. Following receipt of the recommendation, Auckland Transport is 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 Auckland Transport, 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.
15. This report provides an overview of the Notice of Requirements, and a summary of the key themes in submissions.
16. 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
17. Auckland Transport as the requiring authority, has lodged two notices of requirement (NoR) for designations for the ‘Argent Lane Extension Project’ for realignment and upgrade of the arterial road between Old Pine Valley Road and the Silverdale Motorway Interchange in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) (AUP) under Section 168 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
The individual NoRs are:
● Notice of Requirement 1 - Pine Valley Road north realignment
● Notice of Requirement 2 - Pine Valley Road south and Dairy Flat Highway.
18. The objectives for NoR1 and NoR2 are:
· to provide a section of arterial road between Argent Lane (Milldale) and Pine Valley Road (Dairy Flat) which is direct and future proofed for planned urban growth
· to provide for safer and more resilient road connections to/from the existing and proposed road network
· to enable connections and accessibility to social and economic opportunities within Milldale, Silverdale and future development within the Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan area
· the realignment and upgrade of Pine Valley Road south of Old Pine Valley Road, to connect and form a direct route between the Argent Lane Extension north of Old Pine Valley Road and Dairy Flat Highway.
19. The proposal involves a two-stage approach. Stage one involves realignment, formation and upgrades to Pine Valley Road to operate as a two-lane collector road from the proposed roundabout intersection with Old Pine Valley Road and the Argent Lane Extension through to Dairy Flat Highway. It would also involve upgrading of the Dairy Flat Highway intersection and upgrading Dairy Flat Highway to provide an additional eastbound lane.
20. Stage two would later involve upgrading the route from Old Pine Valley Road to Dairy Flat Highway as a four-lane arterial road.
21. The boundaries of the proposed NoRs are shown in the attached plans.
22. The locality plan for the application is shown in Figure 1 below. The land is identified in the AUP planning maps as:
· Future Urban zone
· Strategic Transport Corridor zone.
Figure 1: Auckland Unitary Plan zoning and land features
23. The extent of the NoRs is shown in Figure 2 below. The land includes Pine Valley Road, Dairy Flat Highway, the Northern Motorway northbound Silverdale off-ramp and land at the addresses of 10 and 36 Old Pine Valley Road, and 1686, 1731, 1732 and 1738 Dairy Flat Highway, and Sec 6 SO 308591 Dairy Flat Highway.
Figure 2: Extent of NoR1 and NoR2
24. There are no existing designations in the immediate area of the proposed designations.
25. Outside the road network, the adjoining land is currently of rural nature with the bulk of it primarily utilised for farming purposes. It is zoned as Future Urban.
26. The subject land is not identified in the AUP-OP as a site of outstanding natural character or as having outstanding natural features and does not have any identified places of cultural value, historic occupation or scheduled historic places. A check against council’s GIS mapping confirms that the site has no sites Significant Ecological Areas or notable trees identified in the AUP-OP.
27. The Milldale residential area to the north is currently under development. The Milldale locality has been zoned a mix of residential, business and open space zones in the AUP to reflect Fulton Hogan's master planning of the residential development (delivering the potential of 4,500 residential units and associated commercial and community activities). As a result, the area is going through a rapid transformation.
28. The two proposed NoR’s align with measures identified in the integrated traffic assessment for the area to mitigate the effects of the proposed future movements associated with the Milldale development on the transport network. These include the provision of a connection from Milldale to Dairy Flat Highway, the upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway and Pine Valley Road intersection, and the upgrade of Dairy Flat Highway to the Silverdale interchange.
29. The Notice of Requirements include the following technical reports:
· Milldale Development Infrastructure Project 1 -
Argent Lane Extension Notice of Requirement, Application and Assessment of
Environmental Effects`, Mott MacDonald, 1 October 2020 (AEE)
· Preliminary Transport Design Report (Appendix J)
· Stormwater Assessment and Design Report Appendix K)
· Noise and Vibration Assessment (Appendix L)
· Ecological Assessment (Appendix M)
· Preliminary Site Investigation (Appendix N
· Geotechnical Interpretative Report (Appendix O)
· Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix P)
30. These reports and other application details are available from council’s website at:
31. Auckland Transport requested that the NoRs be limited notified.
32. Under delegated authority, council decided that the NoR be limited notified to all the adjoining landowners. The NoRs were notified to the adjoining landowners on 11 December 2020. The submission period closed on 29 January 2021. The submission period was 20 working days, the normal submission period required under the Resource Management Act 1991.
33. It should be noted that several resource consents have been lodged concurrently with the Notice of Requirement application:
· BUN60366520
Themes from submissions received
34. Three submissions were received to proposed NoR1 - Pine Valley Road North Alignment.
35. No submissions were received to proposed NoR 2 - Pine Valley Road South and Dairy Flat Highway.
36. A copy of the submissions to NOR1 is provided in Attachment A. The matters raised in the submissions include the following themes:
· construction effects – noise, vibration, dust
· future access points
· earthworks final land levels
· landscape mitigation
· tree removal – effects on remaining trees
· hydrology impacts (this is a resource consent matter).
37. A panel of independent commissioners will be appointed to hear submissions and issue a recommendation to Auckland Transport.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
38. The decision whether to provide local board views will not have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The new roading alignment enabled by the NoRs will not of itself generate traffic.
39. 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
40. No submissions have been received from any other council group.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
41. The Notice of Requirement is within the Rodney Local Board area.
42. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:
· interests and preferences of people in the local board area
· well-being of communities within the local board area
· local board documents, such as the local board plan, local board agreement
· responsibilities and operation of the local board.
43. 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 Notice of Requirements.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
44. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the Notice of Requirement, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori people and the well-being of Māori communities. In the local board area 7,551 residents identify as Māori (11.4%) in the 2018 census.
45. An engagement process was established with mana whenua by Auckland Transport through the Auckland Transport Northern Mana Whenua Forum process. Auckland Transport sought the views of 13 iwi groups and had a response from two seeking ongoing involvement in the project.
46. Engagement with mana whenua will be on-going as detailed design is developed.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
47. There are no financial implications with the local board providing its views.
48. The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
49. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a Notice of Requirement 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 views provided by the local board in the section 42A report. If a hearing is held and if a local board member is appointed to speak to the local board’s views, they 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 recommendation and decision on the Notice of Requirement applications by memorandum.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Copies of submissions to NoR1 Pine Valley Road |
37 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner |
Authorisers |
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
17 March 2021 |
|
Development of children’s playground within Stage 2D, Milldale Subdivision, Pine Valley
File No.: CP2021/02104
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek approval of the proposed children’s playground concept design within the Stage 2D area of the Milldale Subdivision, at a park site addressed 159 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley (legal description - LOT 4001 DP 529556).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Development of a playground within Stage 2D of the Milldale subdivision is proposed to be constructed by Fulton Hogan Main Development Limited (Fulton Hogan), the resource consent holder, at no CAPEX cost to council.
3. Fulton Hogan have engaged Alice Arnold, Landscape Architect to design a playspace as approved by Park Central Play Consultants for the park addressed 159 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley. The concept design has been presented to members of the local board at a workshop on 9 December 2020.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) approve Auckland Council entering into an infrastructure funding agreement for the Stage 2D playspace.
b) delegate to the General Manager, Parks, Sports and Recreation authority to negotiate the infrastructure funding agreement on terms acceptable to council’s Infrastructure funding team.
c) approve the concept plan and associated landscaping plan (Attachment A and B to the agenda report) and subsequent construction of the playground at 159 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley by the consent holder with the asset to be vested in council at practical completion.
Horopaki
Context
4. Fulton Hogan holds a resource consent to develop the properties in Stage 2D of the Milldale subdivision in Pine Valley. This includes a council-purchased park of 3544m2 in size and the consent-holder agreeing to construct a playground at no cost to council within this area of land.
5. Members of the local board reviewed the concept plan and provided feedback at a workshop on 9 December 2020.
6. Following this workshop, staff liaised with the developer in regard to board members’ feedback on the concept design. In particular the lack of shade provision was questioned. In response it was noted that:
· the developer is providing the playground at their own cost and is under no obligation to provide shade
· the developer has been in liaison with council specialists on the design which has been checked by Park Central Play Consultants who advise it meets the applicable NZS5828 Playground Equipment and Surfacing Standard part NZS5828:2015
· the playground site is surrounded by large existing trees which are expected to provide some degree of shade to the playground
· the developer is eager to deliver the playground, which the council could not deliver in the short term due to budgetary constraints.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
7. Fulton Hogan have worked with Alice Arnold, Landscape Architect to design a playspace as approved by Park Central Play Consultants.
8. The concept plan as presented by Fulton Hogan contains conventional playground equipment and design, a ‘kick-around’ area and associated landscaping.
9. Council staff agree that additional play provision in this location is a good outcome for the local community as there will be demand for play in the area in the near future. A council Parks, Sport and Recreation’s Parks and Places Specialist advised that this playground provides experiences better suited toward younger children and supports the development as there is a need for junior play in the Milldale area.
10. There are likely to be opportunities for a wider range of play experiences such as basketball and bike/skate facilities as part of subsequent stages of the subdivision's development.
11. Community Facilities have advised that the annual maintenance budget for the playground would be approximately $4,430 (median), which will be funded from the Community Facilities operational budget.
12. The concept plan presented to local board members incorporates the minor changes listed below following advice from council landscape architecture staff:
· plants have been relocated and more suitable species have been replaced in the areas selected by council staff in accordance with maintenance requirements
· layout of the playground has been amended to eliminate wasted space and minimise bare bark
· the consent holder has made changes to the swing design, satisfying a previous request for these from council staff. A basket swing is now proposed which will cater to children off all ages including babies.
13. Delivery of this playground provides play facilities that will be available from early in the subdivision process whereas if construction was left to council it would be in the future as a long-term aspiration.
Climate impact statement
14. It is anticipated that with the planting of 11 specimen trees that there will be a net positive benefit to climate change. The trees will over time absorb and store the carbon dioxide emissions created by human activities in relation to construction and use of the playground.
15. As it is proposed to be a local playground for local residents it is expected that most users will walk to the playground.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
16. Community Facilities staff have provided input on the concept plan considering how the playground will be maintained. Council Landscape Architecture staff have advised on planting locations and species and the Parks and Places Specialist has provided recommendations in regard to appropriate playground equipment.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
17. The local board has allocated decision making responsibility for the development of local parks within the Rodney Local Board area. Local board members provided feedback at a workshop on 9 December 2020 indicating they were generally satisfied with the concept plan but had concerns around the lack of shade to the playground. The developer has proposed no further changes to the concept plan.
18. This neighbourhood playground is expected to have shorter length stays than larger destination-style playgrounds. It is expected that parental guidance and supervision for younger children will generally include application of high sun protection factor sunscreen and suitable clothing during summertime and peak ultraviolet times.
19. Provision of shade could be included as part of a future local board work programme if the local board decided it was necessary and is able to fund this.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
20. The proposed park does not contain any known sites or places of significance or value to mana whenua but the contribution of park outcomes is of significant importance to tangata whenua, their wellbeing, values, culture and traditions.
21. It is noted that the applicant consulted Ngati Manuhiri and the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority at the time of the original subdivision, who both provided cultural impact assessments (CIAs).
22. The playground will be located within the rural‐urban boundary in an area known as Wainui East, and the CIA lodged by Ngati Manuhiri quotes the area’s key goals that includes the provision of “diverse open space environments that encourage social interaction.” Accordingly, the proposed playground is designed to meet the open space and play needs of the surrounding community and foster social interaction.
23. The Ngati Manuhiri CIA also envisions the planting of “fruiting and flowering trees and plants…to provide year-round food and habitat for local biodiversity”, and it is recommended that the final park design submitted shall include such tree species. With regard to this, it is noted that the landscape design features several species that have edible berries that would be suitable for fostering local biodiversity.
24. When the reserve is named, staff recommend that both iwi are consulted over the reserve naming as per their requests and recommendations.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
25. The local board has allocated decision making for the development and management of the local park purchased by council at 159 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley. A high-level assessment of the consequential opex per annum has been estimated by Community Facilities to be $4,430 (median) excluding GST. The consequential opex per annum is estimated to fall within a range between $3,942 excluding GST (low) up to $10,672 excluding GST (high).
26. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2021/2022 financial year. It is anticipated that with local board support this playspace will be added to council’s asset register and council will be expected to commence maintenance of the playground in the financial year 2021/2022 if completed, or if not, in the following financial year.
27. If approved annual maintenance will be paid for by the consequential opex budget in Community Facilities.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
28. As the developer is under no obligation to provide the playground, there is a risk that it may not get delivered. There would be no playground as it would fall to council to provide and may not be considered as a priority for some time.
29. Building a positive working relationship with the developer as the wider subdivision is developed will provide further opportunities to deliver favourable parks and recreation outcomes for the community.
30. Other risks for delivery of the playground are cost escalation and inadequate handover.
31. These items will be managed via an Infrastructure Funding agreement that will be signed by both the developer’s representative and council to ensure that proper handover of all documents, warrantees, as-builts and producer statements occurs.
32. Landowner approval will also be required before construction commencement.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
33. The developer wishes to develop the playground at 159 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley as soon as possible following the local board’s approval. Parks staff have not been sent engineering details of the proposed park developments but when received, will review these to ensure the proposal meets council’s park construction standards.
34. Following local board approval of the concept plan staff will initiate the Landowner Approval process.
35. It is recommended that Parks Planning and Community Facilities staff review engineering plan detail once received.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Milldale playground stage 2D concept plan |
67 |
b⇩ |
Milldale playground stage 2D planting plan |
81 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Tommo Cuthbert-Ashmore - Parks and Open Space Specialist |
Authorisers |
Mark Bowater - Manager Parks Martin van Jaarsveld - Manager Community Parks & Places Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Divestment of Auckland Council carpark at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth
File No.: CP2021/02037
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To recommend that the Rodney Local Board support the divestment (sale) of the Auckland Council owned carpark at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth, subject to conditions.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council owns non-service property at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth, which primarily serves as a carpark for Warkworth town centre.
3. The Finance and Performance Committee deferred a decision regarding the potential sale of the property in 2017, pending further consideration by the Rodney Local Board of several issues.
4. Since that time, the local board has received further advice and discussed the issues through a number of workshops. Key issues include:
· the current poor and deteriorating condition of parts of the building, which will require remedial work with significant cost to council
· a desire from the local board to continue to ensure car parking for Warkworth town centre.
5. The sale of the property, conditional on the future provision of publicly accessible car parking from the site, could enable the site to be redeveloped in a way that:
· retains public parking
· avoids further remedial work costs to council
· supports the continued growth and development of Warkworth town centre.
6. Further advice regarding the potential sale of 14 Baxter Street is being provided to the April 2021 Finance and Performance Committee meeting.
7. The views of the Rodney Local Board are sought through the resolutions from this report to inform the Finance and Performance Committee’s decision.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney Local Board:
a) provides its conditional support for the sale of the Auckland Council-owned assets consisting of a rooftop carpark, airspace above it and ancillary foyer, stairs and support pillars at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth, on the basis that option:
i) is pursued in discussion with the other three owners of the building to understand their interest in sale or redevelopment
ii) retains public parking on the site subject to a Warkworth parking needs analysis, which specifically includes future needs, being undertaken to test the validity of this condition
iii) removes future financial liability for the property from the local board
iv) enables the redevelopment of the site in a way that would support the growth of Warkworth town centre
b) note that the 14 Baxter Street carpark is not a local service asset and that the local board does not support its budget being used to address issues with this council asset.
Horopaki
Context
Property description, ownership, roles and responsibilities
8. Auckland Council owns property at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth. The property is comprised of a rooftop parking platform, the airspace above it, and associated foyer, stairs and support pillars.
9. The site was originally acquired by Rodney District Council in 2002 for a proposed community centre development that never proceeded.
10. The council-owned property forms part of a single structure that is owned in part by three other owners, including:
· ground level carpark located below the council-owned first level carpark, owned by the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited
· retail unit at 10 Baxter Street presently leased to and occupied by Westpac Banking Corporation
· Masonic Lodge located above the Westpac retail unit, owned by the Rodney Lodge of Freemasons
· the Masonic Lodge on the same level as council’s carpark.
11. The property has a complex title structure, with each of the owners having freehold title defined by area and height. An Easement Certificate creates a range of easements for support, rights-of-way and services, and sets out the rules for how the building should be maintained.
12. Council’s property at 14 Baxter Street is a non-service asset, i.e., it doesn’t provide a council service which is actively managed by any council asset owner, although it is currently identified as part of council’s corporate property portfolio.
13. Council’s Corporate Property department is clear that it currently serves no corporate property service. As such Corporate Property is unable to allocate budget towards the management and renewal costs associated with the building.
14. Following the amalgamation of Auckland councils in 2010, Auckland Transport provided parking management services over the carpark on behalf of Auckland Council as a pay and display public parking facility, although this is no longer in place.
15. Council’s Community Facilities department has in recent years undertaken basic maintenance and remedial work where required. The cost of such work has been met from the Rodney Local Board’s community facilities renewals work programme budget.
Proposed sale of property
16. For several years, non-service assets have been investigated for asset recycling whereby the proceeds from sale are reinvested in other council assets.
17. In February 2017 Panuku Development Auckland reported its proposal for disposal of 14 Baxter Street to the Rodney Local Board, noting it would be taking this to the next Finance and Performance Committee meeting for approval.
18. In response, the Rodney Local Board resolved to support retention of the carpark, noting it is important for town centre and commuter parking and to meet future proposed growth in and around Warkworth. The local board also noted that it wasn’t satisfied with Auckland Transport’s assessment that there is adequate car parking in the town centre.
19. The local board also asked that Panuku investigate using the airspace including for a third level of parking and to advise on maintenance costs and why this wasn’t budgeted for, for report back.
20. In March 2017 Panuku reported to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting recommending disposal of the carpark, noting that retention of this property would require significant unbudgeted expenditure to undertake necessary remedial work and deferred maintenance. It noted that the Rodney Local Board did not support this proposal for the reasons noted above. The Rodney Local Board chairperson spoke in support of the local board’s position at the committee meeting.
21. The Finance and Performance Committee resolved to defer sale while Auckland Transport investigated parking options to be reported back to the committee within the next three months. No report was received. It also directed staff and the local board to urgently investigate funding for weathertightness issues and deferred maintenance understood to total around $500,000.
Subsequent local board deliberations
22. In May 2018, the Rodney Local Board’s Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee asked staff to further investigate issues with the carpark to provide a more accurate assessment of remediation costs. The local board also asked that staff engage with the three other landowners on these matters and clarify each owners’ responsibilities for remedial costs.
23. In March 2019, staff updated the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on their investigations into the above matters. Staff confirmed that significant remedial work would be required to the Masonic Lodge, to the roof structure over the ground floor foyer area (contiguous with the Masonic Lodge roof) and carpark surface. It was noted that weathertightness issues with the roof and carpark were affecting the Westpac tenancy below. The total costs of identified remedial work was estimated to be $1.7m.
24. Staff advised that due to the property’s complex title structure council’s cost liability could not be determined accurately. Staff advised this would include all costs associated with remedial work to those parts of the building in council ownership, and a further contribution to remedial costs associated with other owners to comply with the requirements of the ownership and associated Easement Agreement.
25. The other three owners were provided with copies of the assessment on a confidential basis. The local board asked staff to report back with options.
26. In July 2019, staff updated the Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on options to address the above matters. These included:
· remediation of the exiting building. Council would be required to fund carpark works costs and share in the costs of works on shared building elements. The full costs of the remediation work required had previously been estimated at $1.7m.
· redevelopment of the site involving joint sale with any or all other owners, to existing owners or another developer.
27. Staff advised that the optimum value from the site was likely to be achieved if all four owners sold their titles jointly, enabling a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site. It was also noted that council could place conditions on the sale of its property to require the ongoing provision of public parking on the site.
28. Staff attended two further local board workshops on 14 November 2020 and 3 March 2021 to discuss the Baxter Street carpark. The local board made it clear at the November 2020 workshop that it wasn’t prepared to fund further remedial work on the carpark. At the March 2021 workshop, staff suggested that discussions with other owners of the building, and potentially developers and building sale and redevelopment, which should include a proper assessment of carparking needs, was the only realistic way forward given the above matters.
Discussion with other owners
29. Staff have had initial discussions with each of the other three property owners regarding the current condition of the building and their preferences for the future. Each of the owners have their differing considerations, aspirations, and constraints in relation to undertaking remedial works. All have indicated that they are open to further discussions regarding the future of the property.
Status of sale process
30. In 2017, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to defer the decision on the sale of 14 Baxter Street to enable further consideration of known issues. Since that time the Rodney Local Board has received further staff advice in a number of workshops and discussed a range of issues relating to the potential disposal of the site.
31. 14 Baxter Street remains on the list of properties being considered for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee and the July 2020 update to the committee noted that Community Facilities are leading work with the Rodney Local Board to progress matters.
32. Sale of 14 Baxter Street has now gained some urgency under council’s Emergency Budget and an update report from staff to the Finance and Performance Committee’s April 2021 meeting is scheduled.
33. The Rodney Local Board’s views, expressed through the resolutions from this report, are sought to inform the committee’s decision.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
34. Based on the range of issues raised through previous workshops with the Rodney Local Board, staff summarise the key considerations that should inform the local board’s recommendations to the Finance and Performance Committee as follows:
a) Importance of continued parking provision:
i) the local board considers that continued provision of public parking from this site is important, as evidenced by current high use of existing public parking and the expected ongoing demand for parking as Warkworth grows
ii) parking could continue to be provided either through continued ownership of the property and direct provision by council, or though provision by a future owner
iii) future provision of public parking could be required by council as a condition of sale, noting that such a condition is likely to influence the property value
iv) determining an appropriate level of future parking provision would require an assessment of future demand
b) Responsibility and decision making:
i) decision making responsibility for the property is currently unresolved
ii) if the Rodney Local Board sought to retain the property it is highly likely that full responsibility for decision making, including meeting the costs of remedial work required, would fall to the local board
c) Cost of retaining the property in council ownership:
i) there are known weathertightness issues with both council and some other owners’ properties
ii) initial cost estimates of remediation work indicate significant investment would be required to meet those costs
iii) due to the complex ownership arrangements, council’s share of those remedial costs is difficult to determine accurately but would include all costs associated with council owned portions of the building and a share of costs associated with party walls and easements.
d) Warkworth town centre:
i) the site occupies a prominent site within Warkworth town centre
ii) under the current ownership arrangements staff consider it is likely that the status quo use of the site would continue for the foreseeable future
iii) while future development of the council-owned property is feasible, staff consider it highly unlikely that the necessary budget required to develop the council owned property would be prioritised
iv) sale of the site, particularly if a coordinated sale of all four properties could be achieved, could enable the redevelopment of the site in a way that supports the ongoing growth of Warkworth town and its town centre.
35. Community Facilities has been asked to work with the Rodney Local Board to enable the local board’s views to be provided to the Finance and Performance Committee’s April 2021 meeting. In consideration of the range of issues the local board has identified, staff suggest that there are two broad options:
a) Retention of 14 Baxter Street. The implications for the local board of this option include:
i) the continuation of public parking on the site and likely status quo for other current uses on the site
ii) The local board being liable for costs associated with remediation of council- owned property and a contribution towards the costs to remediate other owners property as determined
It is noted that revenue from charging for carparking to offset these costs is possible although whether this is feasible or where revenue would go has not been explored.
b) Provide conditional support for the disposal of 14 Baxter Street. The local board’s support could be conditional on:
i) combined sale of council property with one or more of the other owners to enable to comprehensive redevelopment of the site
ii) completion of an appropriate assessment of parking requirements in Warkworth town centre to determine the appropriate level of public parking that council might seek on the site, or whether this is actually needed.
36. Staff recommend that the Rodney Local Board provides conditional support for the sale of the property, on the basis that that option:
b) removes future financial liability for the property from the local board
c) enables the redevelopment of the site in a way that would support the growth of Warkworth town centre.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
38. This report supports disposal of the Baxter Street carpark subject to conditions. Disposal is already on the Finance and Performance Committee’s list, with a decision deferred pending feedback from the Rodney Local Board.
39. Auckland Transport has previously advised that the existing car park does not provide any Auckland Transport service function.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
40. The Rodney Local Board has been considering and responding to council’s proposals for disposal of the Baxter Street carpark since 2017. Throughout that time, it has maintained the position that the public parking provided by this facility is needed, both now and into the future.
41. The recommendations in this report support further investigation of carparking need at this site, as part of any sales/redevelopment process.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
42. This report has no specific impact on Māori as it is simply providing feedback to Auckland Council’s Finance and Performance Committee. If engagement with Māori is required or appropriate as part of any disposal process, this will be considered at that time.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
43. This report’s recommendations to support sale of the Baxter Street carpark subject to conditions will help inform Auckland Council’s Finance and Performance Committee’s decision on asset recycling. 14 Baxter Street is already on the asset recycling list but on hold pending the work outlined in this report.
44. If council retains the carpark, it will need to fund remedial works and costs to address known weathertightness issues which have been assessed as at least $1.7m. Some of these costs are council’s responsibility, while others are its contribution based on easement obligations under the title.
45. Should the Finance and Performance Committee resolve to dispose of the Baxter Street carpark, this will provide revenue to support council’s target under its asset recycling programme. The extent of revenue derived from disposal is unknown until this is tested. Staff consider that the best return is likely to result from discussions with all four owners and as appropriate others, as to comprehensive redevelopment opportunities.
46. The local board’s request that public parking be retained as part of any redevelopment if a demand is identified would have an impact on the value of its asset. The proposed parking needs assessment will help determine if this is needed and hence its impact.
47. Disposal will also have the positive financial result of removing the need to meet the abovementioned unbudgeted costs.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
48. Council’s carpark is on one title alongside other titles and ownerships that collectively make up the total building. The complex title structure and associated easements include shared obligations between owners and these peculiarities potentially make disposal more challenging. This is the main reason this report recommends discussions with all existing owners and other interested parties be undertaken first to establish interest in, and options for future redevelopment of the entire site.
49. If existing public parking is lost as a result of disposal and not replaced as part of any redevelopment, there is a likelihood council will be perceived negatively as a result. This is the main reason this report recommends that parking needs be specifically investigated as part of any disposal process.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
50. This report’s recommendations will be included in staff responses to the next asset recycling report to the Finance and Performance Committee report. Steps following that will be determined by the outcomes of that report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
John Nash - Programme Manager |
Authorisers |
Oliver Roberts - Central Teams Manager Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting
File No.: CP2021/02096
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 conference taking place from 15 to 17 July 2021, appoint delegates to the Annual General Meeting and provide process information regarding remits and awards.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The 2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021. The conference programme is appended as Attachment A to the agenda report.
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 Local Government New Zealand conference this year is limited.
4. After considering a number of options (detailed in attachment B to the agenda report), 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 Local Government New Zealand
· 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 allocation to attend the conference. The Individual Development Budget 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 Annual General Meeting. 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 Annual General Meeting and the 2021 Local Government New Zealand 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 Local Government New Zealand Auckland Zone meeting, which is attended by representatives of local boards and the governing body is the forum that will coordinate these discussions.
Recommendation/s
That the Rodney 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 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 Local Government New Zealand 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. Local Government New Zealand (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:
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 Annual General Meeting 2021
16. The 2021 LGNZ conference and Annual General Meeting (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 to the agenda report.
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):
Details |
Cost |
$1,400 |
|
Accommodation* at $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 six local board clusters – North, South, West, Central, Islands and Rural (six 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 Individual Development Budget 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 Individual Development Budget (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-19 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.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
LGNZ Conference 2021 programme |
99 |
b⇩ |
Options for attendance |
105 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services |
Authorisers |
Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Approve the appointment of project leads for the Rodney Local Board
File No.: CP2021/01656
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve two project leads for the Rodney Local Board 2019-2022 triennium.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. On 20 November 2019 the Rodney Local Board approved the report on Local board governance work management for the 2019-2022 triennium CP2019/19017 which established a project lead structure to empower members to progress local board initiatives.
3. The terms of reference allow for individual members to be appointed as project leads to pursue specific priorities or initiatives.
4. The guidelines for the scope and role of a project lead are contained in the Rodney Local Board project lead guidelines (Attachment A to the agenda report).
5. The following requests to act as project lead has been received from:
i) Member Vicki Kenny, as lead for Helensville Town Centre Improvements
ii) Member Beth Houlbrooke, as lead for Warkworth Town Centre Improvements.
6. Additional project leads may be appointed in the future with the approval of the local board.
Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) approve Member Vicki Kenny, as lead for Helensville Town Centre Improvements as set out in the project lead appointment form (Attachment B to the agenda report) b) approve Member Beth Houlbrooke, as lead for Warkworth Town Centre Improvements as set out in the project lead appointment form (Attachment C to the agenda report). |
Horopaki
Context
7. On 20 November 2019 the Rodney Local Board approved the report on Local board governance work management for the 2019-2022 triennium CP2019/19017 which outlined options for efficiently and effectively managing the governance work of the Rodney Local Board for the 2019-2022 triennium.
8. This was a practice started in the 2016-2019 term, where the Rodney Local Board established project leads. In a number of instances, this system sped up and progressed the work programme items or local board initiatives.
9. Within this report is a description of the role and requirements of a project lead. This system is designed to progress local initiatives and projects outside of formal business meetings. This enables staff to work alongside local board members to progress projects prior to reference back to the full local board for decisions.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
10. The project lead system is a useful tool to improve efficiency. However, it is only useful if the delegated leads adhere to a consistent reporting schedule to the full local board and ensure that they are not providing direction to council staff or community that is beyond the scope of the delegation.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
11. This decision has no impact on greenhouse gas emissions, as it is a governance monitoring decision and procedural report.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
12. Where the topic of a project involves a CCO such as Auckland Transport, it is intended that this governance decision will improve communication and decision-making effectiveness.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
13. This report has a direct impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the local board, by ensuring that key projects have stronger supervision by the local board
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
14. Unless any of the projects identified as needing leads have strong Māori outcomes, there are no further impacts, positive or negative for Māori.
15. It is recommended that any possible meetings with iwi groups be brought before the local board for approval.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
16. There are no financial implications, as the project lead structure has no decision-making responsibilities and therefore no ability to change the scope of existing initiatives.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
17. As per the Project Lead Guidelines, the project leads must not, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a local board resolution:
a) approve any expenditure
b) imply or promise that the local board or council will commit to any future expenditure
c) make landowner approval for any project to proceed or confirm the details of any final placement or design of any structure
d) sign off on a project as complete
e) change the scope of a project from what was agreed to in the project lead appointment.
18. It is recommended that each project lead include a reporting period in the signed form, and that these are brought to the local board for updates.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
19. To add update periods for each project lead to the local board meeting schedule.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Rodney Local Board Project Lead Guidelines |
111 |
b⇩ |
Project lead form - Helensville Town Centre Improvements |
113 |
c⇩ |
Project lead form - Warkworth Town Centre Improvements |
115 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
17 March 2021 |
|
File No.: CP2021/01371
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. The Rodney Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillor, Greg Sayers, to update them on the activities of the Governing Body.
Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) receive Cr Sayers’ update on the activities of the Governing Body. |
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Councillor report February to March |
119 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
17 March 2021 |
|
Rodney Local Board workshop records
File No.: CP2021/01613
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. Attached are the Rodney Local Board workshop records for 17 February, 3 and 10 March 2021.
Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) note the workshop records for 17 February, 3 and 10 March 2021.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Workshop record 17 February |
125 |
b⇩ |
Workshop record 3 March |
127 |
c⇩ |
Workshop record 10 March |
131 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
17 March 2021 |
|
Governance forward work calendar
File No.: CP2021/01614
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To present to the Rodney Local Board with a governance forward work calendar.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
1. This report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that will come before the Rodney Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.
2. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice is required and when
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
3. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.
Recommendation/s That the Rodney Local Board: a) note the governance forward work calendar for xxxx.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Governance forward work calendar |
135 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager |
Rodney Local Board 17 March 2021 |
|
Item 8.3 Attachment a Deputation: The Forest Bridge Trust presentation Page 139
Item 8.4 Attachment a Curry's Bush Reserve Waharoa Project presentation Page 145
Item 8.4 Attachment b Curry's Bush Reserve Waharoa Project - Rodney College Statement Page 153