I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 18 March 2021

9.30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Margaret Miles, QSM, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Members

Anna Atkinson

 

 

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

 

Nicholas Mayne

 

 

Brian Neeson, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Cindy Lynch

Democracy Advisor

 

12 March 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 4142684

Email: Cindy.Lynch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 18 February 2021                                                                                                                                 7

12        Albany Tennis Park development grant                                                                    21

13        Auckland Transport bulletin update - March 2021                                                   27

14        Amendment to the 2020/2021 Pest Free Upper Harbour project                           37

15        Amendment to the 2020/2021 Restoration of the Waiarohia Stream project       41

16        Upper Harbour transitional rates grants                                                                   45

17        Local board input into preparation of the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan                                                                                                                                77

18        2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 83

19        Approval of changes to the Upper Harbour Local Board topic area leads and associated delegations                                                                                               99

20        New private road names for subdivision at 15 Apollo Drive and 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale                                                                                                                     103

21        New private road name for subdivision at 39 Wicklam Lane, Greenhithe          111

22        Urgent decision: Change of date and venue for March 2021 community forum meeting due to COVID-19                                                                                         119

23        Governance forward work calendar - April to December 2021                            123

24        Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 February, and 4 March 2021                                                                                     127

25        Board members' reports - March 2021                                                                    135

26        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i)          a financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

ii)         a non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request. 

Any questions relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 February 2021, as true and correct.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 


 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 18 February 2021

File No.: CP2021/01796

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board ordinary meeting held on Thursday, 18 February 2021, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the board only.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Thursday, 18 February 2021, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the board only and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 18 February 2021

9

b

Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 18 February 2021

15

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Albany Tennis Park development grant

File No.: CP2021/01886

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve a change in the purpose of the remaining $136,800 from the Community Facility Development Fund allocated to the Tennis Charitable Trust for the development planning at the Albany Tennis Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In 2017, the local board approved a grant of $240,000 to the Tennis Charitable Trust to create a development plan for the Albany Tennis Park.

3.       In December 2019, representatives of the Tennis Charitable Trust presented to the local board on progress and spend to date. The local board gave their support for the project to continue as per the funding agreement prepared by staff.

4.       In early 2020, the Upper Harbour Local Board ‘one local initiative’ indicative business case for a sub-regional facility recommended the Albany Tennis Park and the adjacent Hooton Reserve as preferred locations for indoor courts.

5.       The Albany Tennis Park development plan project was paused to avoid duplication of purpose/costs. While the detailed business case scope was being developed, the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a hold on all one local initiative projects.

6.       Council’s funding agreement with the Tennis Charitable Trust expired on 30 June 2020. A total of $136,800 remains in the grant after initial investigation costs.

7.       The Tennis Charitable Trust have requested a change of purpose for allocation of the remaining funds to enable fit-out of office space at the Albany Tennis Park. It is proposed that this space (to be fitted out) will be occupied by Tennis New Zealand.

8.       Leasing staff are formally seeking the consent of the Tennis Charitable Trust for the proposed sub-lease (to Tennis New Zealand) and then a business report will be prepared recommending approval of the sub-lease to the local board. The recommendation will be that the sub-lease term coincide with the lease to the Tennis Charitable Trust. Public notification and iwi consultation is required by the Local Government Act.

9.       This report explores three options in respect to funding allocation for the local board to consider.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve a variation in the funding agreement with the Tennis Charitable Trust for $136,800 from the legacy Community Facility Development Fund, to be used towards the development of office space at the Albany Tennis Park, 361 Ōtehā Valley Road, Albany.

Horopaki

Context

10.     On Thursday 18 May 2017, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved:

 

 

Resolution number UH/2017/65

a)   approve a variation in the funding agreement with the Tennis Charitable Trust for $240,000 from the legacy Community Facility Development Fund, to be used towards investigating a sustainable and viable multi-sport business model and master plan for the Albany Tennis Park at 361 Oteha Valley Road.

11.     A funding agreement was signed by the Tennis Charitable Trust on 29 June 2018.

12.     As per the terms of the funding agreement, funds were released for completion of the current state review, needs analysis and options analysis at the Albany Tennis Park. This review was presented to the Upper Harbour Local Board in December 2019.

13.     At the December workshop, the local board indicated their support for the Tennis Charitable Trust to continue with the next phase of their investigation, including development of a business plan and site master plan.

14.     The findings from the Upper Harbour Local Board ‘one local initiative’ (OLI) indicative business case identified the Albany Tennis Park as one of two preferred sites (along with Hooton Reserve) for indoor court development.

15.     As there was significant overlap with the potential location of the OLI, council staff and the Tennis Charitable Trust decided to pause the Albany Tennis Park development plan pending outcome of the detailed business case.

16.     The OLI was due to move to the detailed business case. However, Covid-19 financial restrictions prevented the project from proceeding.

17.     The funding agreement with the Tennis Charitable Trust lapsed on 30 June 2020.

18.     There is $136,800 remaining in the original agreement with the Tennis Charitable Trust.

19.     The Tennis Charitable Trust are requesting a change of purpose in how the remaining funds are allocated. It is proposed the new purpose is a contribution towards the fit-out costs of office space at the Albany Tennis Park for Tennis New Zealand to move their head office to the centre.

20.     The Community Facility Development Fund (CFDF) committee no longer exists. In instances where sub-regional committees are no longer in existence, the practice has been to seek approval for any funding agreement amendments from the local board in which the project is located. This practice has been used for a number of other facility partnerships. The local board can approve variations to a current funding agreement to the same organisation. However, the funding cannot be reallocated to another organisation. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and adviceOptions overview

21.     There are three options for the local board to consider:

·        Option 1 Do nothing: The existing funding agreement has expired. Funds would be absorbed into the general consolidated funds of council.

·        Option 2 – Grant an extension to the existing funding agreement to fulfil the original purpose of the grant. This may be considered alongside a variation that incorporates elements of the OLI detailed business case that is currently on hold.

·        Option 3 – Reallocation of the grant to the same organisation for the new purpose of fit-out of office space at the Albany Tennis Park.


 

Options analysis

22.     Option 1 – Funds absorbed into consolidated funds:

Pros

Cons

Releasing the grant to consolidated funds would help council meet its emergency budget financial targets as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tennis Charitable Trust would need to raise an additional $136,800, meaning the project would not be delivered in 2021.

Tennis will find it hard to secure external funding for the project as office space development does not have a direct impact on activity levels.

Council wants tennis to be a financially robust organisation should it wish to partner on the development of indoor courts in future.

Funds are not reinvested into the facility/community it was intended to support.

 

23.     Option 2 – Extension/variation of the existing Albany Tennis Park development plan agreement:

Pros

Cons

Strongest alignment with the original purpose of the CFDF and partnership approach.

Original project stakeholders (e.g., North Harbour Badminton) would be supportive of continued investigation of indoor court options at the tennis centre.

A potential capital funding source still exists (Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund) if indoor courts are delivered in partnership with tennis/other codes, rather than as a council-owned/operated facility. Indoor courts in Albany are noted as high regional priority, second to central city only.

No additional income generated through sub‑lease – to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of the tennis centre.

The development plan scope would have to be revisited in order to be effective as:

·    it was written prior to the OLI indicative business case findings

·    it would need to explore the Hooton Reserve option (which is not in tennis’ interests)

·    there may not be sufficient budget to complete the detailed business case (indicatively $150,000 from previous scope) as there are now many more moving pieces to align with governance and management models to confirm, commercial revenue opportunities to explore and capital investment sources to align.

 


 

24.     Option 3 – Reallocation of funding for the purpose of office fit-out at the Albany Tennis Park:

Pros

Cons

This will close off a long-standing legacy grant to the Tennis Charitable Trust, with a project that can be delivered quickly.

It will result in a tangible outcome for the sport of tennis at a national, regional and local level.

It improves the financial position of a key regional sports hub, that over time may reduce the need for the local board to financially support it.

The associated improvement in financial position will put tennis in a better space to partner with council and other codes on the continued development of this key regional sports hub.

No contribution to meeting council’s financial targets.

No progression of indoor court objectives that are important to both the local board and community.

 

Options advice

25.     Option 3, reallocation of $136,800 for the purpose of office fit-out, is recommended for the following reasons:

·        The long-term impact of this project on the financial sustainability of the tennis centre will reduce their reliance on external funding, potentially reducing the need for the local board to provide an annual operational grant to tennis over time.

·        The detailed business case for the OLI could be funded through an FY22 or FY23 local board operational grant to a community partner like tennis. The ownership of the indoor courts is not confirmed, so does not need to be capitalised cost. This option will be explored with the local board in a separate local board work programme workshop.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26.     The community-led construction nature of this project means there will be a small/moderate negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. However, the scope of this project is the fit-out of an existing building, rather than an expansion of the footprint.

27.     Long-term, there is significant opportunity to capture rainfall and explore solar opportunities at the Albany Tennis Park, but this cannot take place until long-standing roofing issues are resolved.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     The OLI programme is currently on hold.

29.     There is an ongoing conversation with Auckland Unlimited about community-led facilities of scale like the Albany Tennis Park and alignment with their facility network.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     The Upper Harbour Local Board currently provide Tennis Northern (the operator of the Albany Tennis Park on behalf of the Tennis Charitable Trust) an annual operational grant of $50,000. The estimated annual rental income from Tennis New Zealand’s sub-lease of office space at the Albany Tennis Park is $50,000.

31.     The recommended approach will make the Tennis Centre more financially sustainable and a stronger community partner if/when the OLI project restarts.

32.     The local board are unable to reallocate the remaining funding to another group.

33.     North Harbour Badminton were a stakeholder in the Albany Tennis Park development plan as a result of them being an original partner (with tennis) when the CFDF was granted. Badminton’s interest is in the development of indoor courts. Tennis remains supportive of badminton being located at the Albany Tennis Park, but the proposed funding reallocation (to office fit-out) will not have a direct impact in progressing the multi-sport investigation/intent.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     Of 62,329 people living in the Upper Harbour local board area, 5.1 per cent are Māori. From the Sport NZ Insights tool, tennis does not feature strongly in the list of sports Māori wish to participate in. However, the long-term vision for the Albany Tennis Park is to be a multi-sport hub that will offer (indoor court) facilities and activities that have higher Māori participation rates.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     The $136,800 to be reallocated remains within budget accrued to the Sport and Recreation balance sheet.

36.     The Albany Tennis Park project was paused, not as a result of community inaction, but as a deliberate decision to ensure alignment with the council led OLI process and to avoid cost duplication. As such, a revised funding agreement is recommended.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37.     The Tennis Northern Board (operator of the Albany Tennis Park on behalf of the Tennis Charitable Trust) have agreed to underwrite any escalation of project costs if this funding resolution is passed. Staff have received minutes from Tennis Northern’s 22 February 2021 board meeting confirming the following:

·        The quote from BH Homes of $350,000 (excluding GST) includes the cost of the kitchenette, $46,038.00 of which Tennis New Zealand have agreed to pay. Should council release the balance of the existing grant (i.e., $136,800) and Tennis Northern were unsuccessful getting any further funds, there would be a balance of $167,162.

·        The Tennis Northern board passed a resolution that Tennis Northern underwrite any other funding shortfalls if they can have access to the remaining funds held by council. Tennis Northern is not in a position to fund the total project without the council grant.

38.     The project needs to start by early May 2021 as the construction site is inaccessible to heavy vehicles (e.g., concrete mixer) after prolonged periods of rain. Funds will be available to draw down upon signing of the revised funding agreement.

39.     Evidence of building consent has been provided by Tennis Northern for this project to proceed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     Following local board approval of the variation, staff will put together a revised funding agreement.

41.     Funds will be released to the Tennis Charitable Trust in line with their project delivery timeline.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Neil Coventry - Sport and Recreation Team Leader

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Auckland Transport bulletin update - March 2021

File No.: CP2021/02113

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Receive the March 2021 Auckland Transport bulletin update at Attachment A to the report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the March 2021 Auckland Transport bulletin update as per Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

2.       Auckland Transport (AT) regularly review communications with local boards and councillors, including:

a)      An independent reviewer was commissioned in 2018 to undertake qualitative research, including interviewing senior executives from other council-controlled organisations (CCOs), Auckland Council, key partners, stakeholders and elected members.

b)      In early 2019, another qualitative review was commissioned and of 21 local board chairs, 17 participated in and provided their views about:

i)    how well Auckland Transport developed and maintained elected member relationships

ii)   what was required to help Auckland Transport develop better working relationships with local boards and their communities.

c)      After Auckland Council’s CCO review, a further co-design process in 2020 analysed local board reporting with a small group of local board chairs. 

3.       After listening to local boards and the CCO review, AT is reviewing its reporting process to produce more easily read, interesting and informative monthly reports. In March and April 2021, AT will trial the new format and looks forward to receiving feedback from local boards which will help AT to continue to develop its reports to meet local board expectations.

4.       The bulletin attached to this report is AT’s first response to reporting to local boards with its new communications structure in place. The bulletin aims to provide local boards with information and updates on AT programmes in the central cluster and beyond.

5.       AT’s aim is to give local boards an overview of its projects and works in their local board area and also, provide an understanding of how projects in adjoining local board areas feed into the bigger picture of transport initiatives in Auckland.

6.       AT will continue to provide tailored decision reports to local boards when necessary to support the Local Board Transport Capital Fund process and at other times when more formal reporting is required.

7.       AT will use any feedback from local boards to improve its future monthly bulletins.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport bulletin - March 2021

29

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Amendment to the 2020/2021 Pest Free Upper Harbour project

File No.: CP2021/01009

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve an amendment to the Pest Free Upper Harbour project, being delivered as part of the 2020/2021 Upper Harbour Local Board Environmental work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In June 2019, the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $28,000 of its 2019/2020 locally driven initiatives funding to create an ecological connectivity strategy under the name ‘Pest Free Upper Harbour’ (resolution number UH/2019/71).

3.       Due to delays to the project caused by the COVID-19 lockdown, the budget was carried forward to enable creation of the strategy in the 2020/2021 financial year. Environmental Services staff held a workshop with the board in September 2020 and recommended expanding the scope of the project to identify landscape-wide opportunities to increase biodiversity, including pest-free initiatives, but also considering tree density and other environmental factors. The board indicated support for this change.

4.       This report seeks the board’s formal approval of the revised project scope and approval to rename its 2020/2021 Pest Free Upper Harbour project to ‘Pest Free and Ecological Connectivity Strategy’. This name better reflects the revised scope of the project, as agreed at the September 2020 workshop.

5.       A draft strategy will be made available to the local board, community, iwi, and partners for feedback in April 2021. A final strategy will be presented to all groups in June 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the expanded scope of the 2020/2021 Pest Free Upper Harbour project to support the identification of priority ecological areas for management, existing corridors, and opportunities for landscape development, and develop a landscape-wide ecological strategy document.

b)      approve the amendment to rename its 2020/2021 Pest Free Upper Harbour project to ‘Pest Free and Ecological Connectivity Strategy’.

Horopaki

Context

6.       In June 2019, the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $28,000 of its 2019/2020 locally driven initiatives (LDI funding to create an ecological connectivity strategy under the name Pest Free Upper Harbour (resolution number UH/2019/71).

7.       The approved scope for this project was to create an over-arching pest free strategy which would assist the groups and community to coordinate their projects and help fill the gaps.

8.       Due to delays to the project caused by the COVID-19 lockdown, the 2019/2020 budget was carried forward to enable completion of the strategy in the 2020/2021 financial year.

9.       A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board in September 2020 to discuss the potential to expand the scope of the project to look at the entire landscape as well as pest-free initiatives. The board indicated support for this change. Staff therefore propose that the project name be changed to ‘Pest Free and Ecological Connectivity Strategy’ to align with the expanded scope.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     The expanded scope of the Pest Free Upper Harbour project will enable the creation of a living document which can be used to inform conservation action across the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

11.     The strategy will identify where community groups are currently working and where they plan to work. It will bring together various strategic documents, including the North-West Wildlink Prioritisation Report and the Urban Ngahere Strategy. It will include key environmental data such as biodiversity focus areas, pest control buffer areas, and will include information about the environmental work being carried out by Auckland Council departments. The collation of this information into one strategy will allow gaps and opportunities for conservation action to be identified and prioritised.

12.     The Upper Harbour Local Board has a highly engaged conservation community which is largely represented by the Upper Harbour Ecology Network. This network will be engaged throughout the development of the strategy. Engagement with local iwi and mana whenua will also be included in the development of the strategy.

13.     The strategy is envisaged to be a tool for achieving environmental outcomes identified in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan by:

·        providing safe refuge for native wildlife

·        assisting the coordination of restoration efforts across Upper Harbour

·        providing motivation and guidance for growth of current restoration projects and new projects.

14.     In contrast to the original project plan, the new strategy will also include a focus on ecological corridors and opportunities for increasing biodiversity through pest and predator control and other means, such as planting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15.     Pest control supports our native forests by reducing browsing and restoring normal ecosystem function. This will lead to improved carbon sequestration (storing carbon in a solid form).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16.     The strategy will be developed by Environmental Services. Staff will consult with other departments to develop the strategy, including Parks, Sports, and Recreation, and Healthy Waters staff.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17.     This project aligns with the local board plan outcome ‘our environment is valued, protected and enhanced’ and the objectives to recognise the importance of the North-West Wildlink through funding and promoting associated projects, and the objective to fund a pest-free strategy for Upper Harbour to enhance the North-West Wildlink.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18.     Mana whenua will be engaged in the development of the strategy. Staff also acknowledge that environmental protection and biodiversity values have integral links with concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19.     The $28,000 LDI budget was approved for this project through the local board’s 2019/2020 Local Environment work programme (resolution number UH/2019/71). This budget was carried forward to enable completion of the strategy in the 2020/2021 financial year after the project experienced delays due to COVID-19.

20.     No additional budget is required in 2020/2021 to enable the changes outlined in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21.     Delivery for this project has been delayed due to the COVID-19 lockdown and therefore, if the community do not wish to engage, there is a risk that this project will not be delivered by the end of the financial year. This is considered to be a low risk as staff have already engaged with the Upper Harbour Ecology Network who are interested in participating in this project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22.     Engagement with stakeholders will progress in March and April 2021. Staff will prepare a draft document in April to disseminate to the board and other key stakeholders to gather feedback. The project will be completed by the end of June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ellice Protheroe – Conservation Advisor, Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Amendment to the 2020/2021 Restoration of the Waiarohia Stream project

File No.: CP2021/01773

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve an amendment to the work programme item ‘Restoration of the Waiarohia Stream’, which is being delivered as part of the 2020/2021 Upper Harbour Local Board Environmental work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In August 2020, the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $10,000 of its 2020/2021 locally driven initiatives funding towards the restoration of the Waiarohia Stream (resolution number UH/2020/85).

3.       The project budget was intended to support planting and pest plant and animal control on the council-owned stream edge beside the stream at 161 Brigham Creek Road.

4.       Staff initially intended to create the restoration plan for the site as part of the restoration of the Waiarohia Stream. However, due to capacity issues and staff changes, an external contractor will need to be engaged to complete this work within the current financial year. This will mean that $4000 of the $10,000 budget need to be allocated towards the restoration plan and the remaining $6000 can be spent on the restoration work.

5.       While the total budget for this work and the outcomes of the project will not change, this will mean that less restoration work will be undertaken within the 2020/2021 financial year.

6.       The board indicated its support for this project scope change at a workshop in February 2021, and this report seeks the board’s formal approval to make this amendment.

7.       There is a risk that if this change is not approved by the board, restoration work will be undertaken without a coordinated, overarching plan. There is also a risk that the budget would not be fully spent, and restoration work completed within the 2020/2021 financial year if the change is not approved at the board’s March 2021 meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve an amendment to its 2020/2021 Waiarohia Stream restoration project to allocate $4000 to the development of a restoration plan, and $6000 to restoration activity.

b)      note that no additional budget is required for this project scope amendment.

Horopaki

Context

8.       In August 2020, the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $10,000 of its locally driven initiatives (LDI) funding towards a Waiarohia Stream restoration project, as part of its 2020/2021 Environmental work programme (resolution number UH/2020/85).

9.       The approved project description stated:

The Biodiversity team are creating a management plan for both the Rawiri Stream and the Waiarohia Stream. Biodiversity are funding the plans and Healthy Waters is undertaking naturalisation work in the Rawiri Stream. This project seeks funding from the local board for the implementation of the plan (weeding and planting work, pest control and water quality testing work) for the Waiarohia Stream.

10.     Due to staffing changes, the Biodiversity team no longer have capacity to deliver the management plan for the Waiarohia Stream in time for the restoration work to occur in the 2020/2021 financial year. Staff are now seeking approval to implement an alternative plan to ensure biodiversity and water quality outcomes can still be achieved within the financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     Staff have assessed options for local board consideration as follows:

·        Option A (recommended) – amend the project scope to fund both the development of the restoration plan ($4000) and some restoration work ($6000) within the current financial year

·        Option B – proceed with restoration activity without a restoration plan in place

·        Option C – reallocate the budget towards a new project.

12.     Staff recommend Option A. This will allow an external contractor to develop a restoration plan and will ensure that restoration work can take place before the end of the 2020/2021 financial year. A contractor has been identified and is ready and available to commence the work.

13.     Under this proposal, the $10,000 allocated to restoration work in this project would be split to ensure funding for restoration plan development ($4000). The remaining $6000 will be used to fund the 2020/2021 restoration work.

14.     Funding for the continuation of restoration work in future years will be sought through the local board’s 2021/2022 and 2023/2024 work programme processes.

15.     Staff recommend that a restoration plan be created before any restoration is undertaken. This will allow the community, contractors, and the pony club to have a clearer understanding of expectations and deliverables before the work is undertaken.

16.     Option B is not recommended as continuing with restoration work without a plan could lower the impact on the surrounding environment due to insufficient planning and coordination. There is also a risk that the full budget of $10,000 may not be able to be spent by the end of the 2020/2021 financial year as restoration work is yet to commence. Staff have confirmed that $6000 worth of restoration work will still be able to be undertaken within the current financial year following the completion of the restoration plan in March 2021.

17.     Option C is also not recommended as it is unlikely that any new project could be fully scoped and completed within the remaining four months of the financial year. Option C would also not support the local board’s aspirations to restore the Waiarohia Stream.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     Empowering and connecting communities with their natural environment will increase resilience. The implementation of stream restoration and protection efforts will minimise the impact of flooding, improve native biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration while protecting the stream banks from erosion caused by the increased rainfall events resulting from climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     The recommended option to change the project scope is supported by staff from Environmental Services and Healthy Waters, who will be involved in the development of the restoration plan and subsequent restoration activity.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     A workshop on the proposed project scope change was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 25 February 2021. The board indicated its support for the change in scope to fund the restoration plan. The board will be sent a copy of the restoration plan once it has been completed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     Managing water resources and maintaining water quality are significant issues for Māori. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki for the environment is identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

22.     This project will provide information that can be used to better focus restoration efforts by mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki.

23.     This change of scope will not change the overall outcomes of this project and therefore, will not change the impact on Māori. This project will involve working with community and iwi either in the 2020/2021 financial year or in subsequent delivery years.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     The Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $10,000 of its 2020/2021 LDI operation funding towards the Waiarohia River restoration project at its August 2020 business meeting (resolution number UH/2020/85).

25.     The recommended scope change will see the allocation of $4000 from this budget towards the development of a Waiarohia Stream restoration plan. This will mean less restoration work will be delivered in this financial year ($6000 compared to $10,000 of restoration work). However, the recommended scope change will not increase the overall budget for this work in the 2020/2021 financial year.

26.     Funding for restoration activities in future financial years will be sought through the local board’s 2021/2022 and 2023/2024 work programme development processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27.     There is a risk that even if the board approves the proposed scope change, the restoration plan and restoration activities planned for 2020/2021 cannot be completed within the financial year. Staff consider this risk to be low as preparation of the restoration plan is largely a desktop activity which can be undertaken at any COVID-19 alert level. However, restoration activities could only occur at alert level 2 or lower.

28.     If the board does not approve the proposed scope change and restoration work is still undertaken, there is a risk that the budget will not be fully spent and outcomes delivered within the 2020/2021 financial year. As the project would be delivered without an underlying restoration plan, there are also risks around restoration efforts being disjointed, minimising environmental benefits of the local board’s investment.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     Subject to the local board’s approval of the proposed scope change, staff will contract out the restoration plan to an approved supplier. The plan is expected to be drafted in March or April 2021 and will be shared with the local board for feedback before being finalised in late April.

30.     Work on pest plant and animal control will begin in May 2021 following completion of the restoration plan.

31.     Funding for continued restoration around the Waiarohaia Stream will be sought through the local board’s 2021/2022 and 2023/2024 work programme development processes.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Halliwell – Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Upper Harbour transitional rates grants

File No.: CP2021/02067

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To confirm next steps for the transitional rates grants allocated to groups in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Overview of transitional rates grants

2.       At the end of the 2017/2018 year, the council removed the legacy rates remission schemes carried over from the former councils. These schemes provided community and sporting groups in some parts of Auckland with property rates relief.

3.       To minimise the impact on the recipients of these schemes, the Governing Body provided transitional rates grants for three years, from 2018/2019 ending on 30 June 2021. These grants were available automatically on the same terms as the original legacy remission schemes. Recipients of the grants were notified in 2017/2018 that the scheme would be limited to three years.

4.       Budgets for local grants (including inflation) was allocated to local boards for 10 years so boards could eventually integrate them into their community support programme. As the transitional rates grants are automatically distributed, local boards do not currently have authority to make decisions on the use of these funds.

5.       A total of $48,000 was paid to three organisations in the Upper Harbour Local Board area in 2020/2021, details of which are in Attachment A to the report.

6.       With the transitional grants now expiring, the local board must decide how to utilise the associated budget. The local board can choose to either:

·        let the grants end and reallocate the budget to another activity through the work programme development process

·        incorporate rates grants within their existing grants programme to enable rates grants to continue on a temporary or permanent basis.

7.       All of the grants made in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to local community organisations are considered high value grants and the impact of their removal is unclear.

8.       If the local board wishes to continue to support existing beneficiaries and enable integration of community rates funding into their grants programme, they should:

·        Incorporate rates grants within the existing grants programme. This can be done when the local board reviews its grants programme criteria in April/May 2021.

·        Retain the budget for these grants in the asset-based services (ABS) budget as a separate line item. This enables the grants to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review of funding for asset-based services.

 


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that transitional rates grants are ending 30 June 2021

b)      note that the local board retains the budget for the transitional rates grants as Asset Based Services (ABS) budget as a separate line item, with discretion over its future allocation. This will enable the grants to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review on funding for asset-based services.

c)      agree to continue the transitional rates grants for the 2021/2022 financial year during which period staff will report back to the local board with more information on the recipients and these grants will be reviewed prior to the adoption of the 2022/2023 Local Board Agreement.

d)      agree that rates grants paid out in future will be calculated by applying the average rates increase to the previous year’s grants.

e)      request the above resolutions be forwarded to the community grants team for consideration prior to the development of the local board’s 2021/2022 community grants criteria.

Horopaki

Context

9.       Transitional rates grants replaced rates remission schemes for community organisations that were inherited from Franklin District Council, North Shore City Council, Rodney District Council and Auckland Regional Council. The district and city council schemes were only available to properties within the relevant former district. The regional scheme was only available to properties not covered by a district or city council scheme.

10.     The removal of legacy rates remissions and options for transition were consulted on alongside the 10-year Budget 2018-2028. Following consideration of feedback from remission recipients, local boards and the general public, the Governing Body decided to remove the legacy remissions and introduce a transitional grants scheme for three years, ending 30 June 2021. Under the criteria agreed by the Governing Body, grants were automatically available to organisations that:

·        received a legacy rates remission for community organisations in the 2017/2018 financial year

·        continued to meet the criteria and conditions of the original remission scheme.

11.     The amount of support provided by the grants was determined by the original remission scheme. Each scheme offered differing amounts of support. The district and city council schemes remitted 50 to 100 per cent of the rates, while the regional scheme provided five to 10 per cent of the general rates.

Transitional rates grants

12.     In 2020/2021, 169 local transitional rates grants were made to 104 local organisations. The total value of these grants was $400,000. Of these, 66 grants are less than $500 and are paid as a credit to the rate account for the qualifying property. The remaining 103 grants are paid directly to the bank account of the beneficiary.

13.     The Upper Harbour Local Board hold three transitional rates grants. All of these grants are made under the criteria of the North Shore City scheme. The grants range from $1700 to $42,600 and pay between 80 and 100 per cent of the rates for the qualifying property. Details of Upper Harbour transitional rates grants paid in 2020/2021 are provided in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     All recipients of the rates transition grants were advised that the grants were limited to three years. At the end of the scheme, recipients are to be advised of any other options for support, such as local and regional grants programmes.

15.     Staff recognise that in some cases recipients may not be fully prepared for the end of the transition grants scheme and/or that local boards may wish to provide further support. Two options for this are set out below and assessed against the following criteria:

·        managing impact for recipients

·        administration cost.

Options

16.     Staff did not consider retaining the transitional rates grants in their current form. The transition rates grants process consumes significant administrative resource. This includes rates specialists to manually calculate grants amounts. Resource for this work is no longer available in the rates team. 

·        Option one – status quo:  grants end, and recipients may seek support through existing grants programmes

·        Option two – incorporate rates grants within the Upper Harbour Local Board grants programme: to enable only high value rates grants to continue on a temporary or permanent basis using a simplified grants process.

17.     The Upper Harbour Local Board’s current grants programme does not have exclusions for rates grants. If the board decides to retain the transitional rates grant in some form, this can be incorporated within the existing grants programme during the local board’s review of the grants programme in April/May 2021.

Managing the impact on recipients

18.     Upper Harbour transitional rates grants may provide a significant level of support to the recipient organisations. The impact of option one on recipients is unclear.

19.     Option two minimises any impact on current recipients by retaining the grants for a further period of time.

20.     Retaining the grants on a transitional basis provides the board with additional time to consider the future of the grants. It also enables the use of this funding to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review.

Administration cost

21.     Option one has no associated administration cost.

22.     Option two will require administrative resource, although significantly less than before, as only the high value grants will remain. The Grants team is able to administer rates grants within their current resources if in future, the grants are calculated by applying the average rates increase to the previous year’s grants.

Conclusion

23.     Administration costs are lower for option one but the impact on recipients of grants is unclear. Option two mitigates the impact on recipients of grants while grants continue to be offered. This option can be undertaken within current council resourcing if the grants are simplified as proposed above.

24.     The decision on whether to continue to offer rates grants belongs with the local board. If the local board wishes to continue to support recipients on a temporary or permanent basis, then it can incorporate rates grants into the existing grants programme when the local board’s grants programme is reviewed in April/May 2021.

Local board budgets

25.     The funding for transitional rates is currently held and will remain as ABS budget. The amount of budget allocated to each local board is a function of the value of rates remitted in each local board area under the legacy remission schemes.

26.     If transitional rates grants are to be continued, funding should be retained in the ABS budget under Community Services group of activities. This ensures there is no impact on the local board’s locally driven initiative (LDI budget allocation. This approach also enables these grants to be included in the equity-based funding allocation being considered by the Governance Framework Review. Local boards will retain decision-making responsibility for these grants.

27.     If transitional rates grants are removed, the associated funding is available to the board for reallocation. While these funds will remain within the ABS budget, they can be used to support LDI, such as the local board’s community grants programme, without impacting on LDI budget allocations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     The effects of climate change were not a consideration when the existing transitional rates grants were established. Integrating the transitional rates grants into the local board’s community grants programmes will enable local boards to consider climate impacts in the future application of these funds.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     The decision sought for this report has not identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for preparation of this advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     This report advises the local board of their options now that the transitional grants scheme is ending. The local impacts of the proposal are set out in the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     No Māori organisations are receiving funding through the transitional rates grants. Māori land is eligible for support under the Rates Remission for Māori Freehold Land Policy. This policy is not under review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32.     The financial implications are set out in the report. The Upper Harbour Local Board has $48,000 in transitional rates grants budget that it can reallocate. All three of the grants held by the local board provide a significant level of support to the recipients. The local board can incorporate rates grants into its grant programme to continue the grants to minimise impacts to recipients.

33.     If the local board decided not to continue the grants, it can reallocate the budget. The budget will continue to be held as Community Services ABS operating expenditure and the use of these funds will be considered through the Governance Framework Review.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     Removal of transitional rates grants may cause hardship for some organisations.
This report advises the local board of the options available to them to manage any impacts.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35.     If the local board chooses to retain some or all of its grants, then it will need to pass a resolution to incorporate rates grants into its existing grants programme. This can be completed in April and May 2021 as part of the annual review of local boards grants programmes

36.     A letter will be issued to all recipients of transitional rates grants informing them of the changes and any future options for support as appropriate.

37.     Decisions on future allocation of the funds for transitional rates grants can be made through the local board’s budgeting process. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local transitional rates grants for Upper Harbour

51

b

Legacy rates remission schemes

53

c

Local boards and Rural Advisory Panel feedback on the rates remission and postponement policy proposal from 2018

65

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Jestine Joseph - Lead Financial Advisor

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/01137

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

 

Horopaki

Context

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

10.     The PACE Committee initiated the 10-year review of the RPMP[1] in 2020. The review encompasses 28 regional parks comprising approximately 41,000 ha 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 do not have to drive.

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

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

Other key themes raised by the community and organisations included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17.     Further detail is available in the summary of suggestions, published on the RPMP review webpage.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26.     The following 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 council does not follow the correct processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and other legislation, the review process could be open to challenge.

·  Confirm the legal status of regional park land holdings and check the statutory and other obligations over each land parcel to ensure compliance.

·  Ensure legal requirements regarding consultation processes are correctly followed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Mackay - Project Manager

Authorisers

Justine Haves - General Manager Service Strategy and Integration

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2021/02038

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

5.       The estimated cost of attending the conference (registration, travel and accommodation) is $2410 per person, bringing the total for the recommended option to $38,560.

6.       As in previous years, elected members may use their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation to attend the conference. The IDB allocation has also been reduced under the Emergency Budget to $1500 per member per electoral term. It is therefore not sufficient to cover the total cost of a member’s attendance. Members who wish to take up this opportunity would need to cover the shortfall themselves, approximately $900.

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 2021 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 LGNZ Annual General Meeting at their 25 March 2021 meeting, with the recommendation being to appoint Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate, and to appoint Chief Executive Jim Stabback and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees as delegates.

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

Name

LGNZ role

Mayor Phil Goff

National Council representative for Auckland

Auckland Council representative on the Metropolitan Sector Group

Councillor Pippa Coom

 

Local Board Chair Richard Northey

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by Governing Body) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by local boards) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone

Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector

Councillor Alf Filipaina

Auckland Council representative on Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere

Local Board Member Nerissa Henry

Auckland Council representative on Young Elected Members

Councillor Angela Dalton

Local Board Deputy Chair Danielle Grant

Auckland Council representatives on Governance and Strategy Advisory Group

Councillor Richard Hills

Local Board Member Cindy Schmidt

Auckland Council representatives on Policy Advisory Group

Auckland Zone

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

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

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

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

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2021

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

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

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

19.     Due to restrictions 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 wellbeing 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 $2410 per person, distributed as follows (all costs are GST inclusive):

Registration (early bird)

$1,400

Accommodation* @ $190 per night x 3 nights

$570

Flights**

$280

Miscellaneous***

$160

Total

$2410

* 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 $2410

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

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

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

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

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

·        a representative from each of the 6 local board clusters – North, South, West, Central, Islands and Rural (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 IDB to fund additional attendees

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

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

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

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

Delegates for the Annual General Meeting

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

·        Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate

·        Chief Executive Jim Stabback

·        up to two additional delegates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

50.     In the current COVID-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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LGNZ Conference 2021 programme

91

b

Options for attendance

97

     

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

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator



Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Approval of changes to the Upper Harbour Local Board topic area leads and associated delegations

File No.: CP2021/01665

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve changes to the Upper Harbour Local Board topic area leads and associated delegations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At the start of the 2019-2022 electoral term, the local board agreed to establish topic area leads to effectively and efficiently manage aspects of the governance work of the local board (resolution numbers UH/2019/137 and UH/2019/149).

3.       To enable effective and efficient decision-making, the local board also delegated elected members to be consulted on landowner consents and events, and to provide feedback on liquor licences and resource consents for the term (resolution number UH/2019/150).

4.       The local board agreed to review topic lead areas, topic lead roles and responsibilities and associated delegations by the mid-point of the current electoral term (April 2021). A workshop was held on 25 February 2021 to allow for the review to take place.

5.       No concerns on the agreed topic lead roles and responsibilities were raised by the local board.

6.       Changes to the topic lead areas were discussed by the local board as per the table below:

Topic lead area

Current topic area leads

Proposed changes

Transport

Chairperson M Miles Member A Atkinson

Member U Casuri Balouch Member A Atkinson

Infrastructure and Environment

Member M Mayne

Member A Atkinson

No changes proposed

Arts, Community and Events

Chairperson M Miles Member N Mayne

Chairperson M Miles Member U Casuri Balouch

Parks (Reserves), Sport and Recreation

Deputy Chairperson L Whyte Member N Mayne

No changes proposed

Economic Development

Deputy Chairperson L Whyte Member A Atkinson

Member U Casuri Balouch Member A Atkinson

Policy and Planning

Chairperson M Miles

Deputy Chairperson L Whyte

No changes proposed

Libraries

Chairperson M Miles

Deputy Chairperson L Whyte

No changes proposed

7.       The Arts, Community and Events topic area leads hold delegations to provide comment on behalf of the local board regarding landowner consent applications for filming activities and event permits (resolution number UH/2019/150, clauses c) and d)).

8.       As a change to the Arts, Community and Events topic area lead is proposed by the local board, a new resolution to amend the nominated delegate is required.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      delegate the following local board members as topic area leads to the respective topic lead areas as per the table below:

Topic lead area

Topic area lead

Transport

Member U Casuri Balouch and Member A Atkinson

Infrastructure and Environment

Member M Mayne and Member A Atkinson

Arts, Community and Events

Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch

Parks (Reserves), Sport and Recreation

Deputy Chairperson L Whyte and Member N Mayne

Economic Development

Member U Casuri Balouch and Member A Atkinson

Policy and Planning

Chairperson M Miles and Deputy Chairperson L Whyte

Libraries

Chairperson M Miles and Deputy Chairperson L Whyte

b)      appoint Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch as the nominated local board members for landowner consents for filming and authorise them to:

i)         be the point of consultation for relevant council staff on all applications for landowner consents for filming

ii)        distribute to all local board members any materials, documentation and correspondence in relation to landowner consents for filming, which will enable all members to have an opportunity to provide individual views and preferences

iii)       refer any application for landowner consent for filming to the full local board for a decision under the following circumstances:

A)      if the landowner consent application for filming is determined by Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch, or a majority of responding local board members, to be of significant public interest to merit consideration by the full local board for decision-making at a business meeting

B)      if there is either disagreement between Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch or amongst local board members to the point where it is not possible to achieve a majority view of the local board, or

C)      at the discretion of Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch

iv)       receive staff notification on areas that may involve reputational, financial, performance or political risk.

c)      appoint Chairperson M Miles and U Casuri Balouch, as the nominated local board members for events and authorise them to:

i)         be the point of consultation for relevant council staff on all applications for events

ii)        distribute to all local board members any materials, documentation and correspondence in relation to events, which will enable all members to have an opportunity to provide individual views and preferences

iii)       refer any application for landowner consents for an event permit to the full local board for a decision under the following circumstances:

A)      if the event application is determined by Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch, or a majority of responding local board members, to be of significant public interest to merit consideration by the full local board for decision-making at a business meeting

B)      if there is either disagreement between Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch or amongst local board members to the point where it is not possible to achieve a majority view of the local board, or

C)      at the discretion of Chairperson M Miles and Member U Casuri Balouch

iv)     receive staff notification on areas that may involve reputational, financial, performance or political risk.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

New private road names for subdivision at 15 Apollo Drive and 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale

File No.: CP2021/01734

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To name four new private roads, which are commonly owned access lots (COALS), within the subdivision and development being undertaken by Oakland Apartment Limited at 15 Apollo Drive and 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for local board approval.

3.       The proposed road name options have been assessed against the guidelines, the Australian and New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing (AS NZS 4819:2011), and the Guidelines for Addressing In-fill Developments 2019 (LINZ OP G 01245). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by council’s guidelines.

4.       The applicant has proposed names for the new private roads which are listed below for consideration by the local board:

Proposed name

Alternative name

Description

Milenio Crescent

 

The main loop road through the development

Monstedt Terrace

 

The south road from east to west through the development

Battersby Lane

Timoti Lane

Okahukura Lane

The west road from south to north through the development

Irwin Lane

Riria Lane

Kahuku Lane

The east road from south to north through the development

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the following road names for four new private roads created by way of subdivision at 15 Apollo Drive and 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale, by the applicant, Oakland Apartment Limited:

i)        ‘Milenio Crescent’ for the main loop road through the development

ii)       ‘Monstedt Terrace’ for the south road from east to west through the development

iii)      ‘Battersby Lane’ or ‘Timoti Lane’ or ‘Okahukura Lane’ for the west road from south to north through the development

iv)      ‘Irwin Lane’ or ‘Riria Lane’ or ‘Kahuku Lane’ for the east road from south to north through the development.

Horopaki

Context

5.       The 126 residential and commercial unit development and 96 lot subdivision (council references BUN60328072 and SUB60328077) was approved on 13 August 2019.

6.       Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

7.       In accordance with the guidelines and standards, any road including private ways, COALs, and rights-of-way that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8.       These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region. The guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named due to a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for local board approval.

9.       The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

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

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

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

10.     The applicant has chosen a suite of names they consider appropriate for the area. These include a mix of English names, including a derivation of the word millennium which reflects the name of the development (Milenio), historical Albany settler names, and Māori names that reflect linkages to the wider Albany and North Shore area.

11.     In this regard, the names and their relevance are detailed as in the table below:

Proposed names

Meaning (as described by the applicant)

Milenio Crescent (preferred)

Name of the development derived from millennium and encapsulating new beginnings for the land with a development to stand the test of time

Monstedt Terrace (preferred)

Early Albany settler name

Battersby Lane (preferred)

Timoti Lane (alternative)


Okahukura Lane (alternative)

Early Albany setter name

Reference to historical Māori settlement on North Shore granted to Nga Puhi Chief Patuone and passed to Timoti

Māori reference to Lucas Creek meaning place of the rainbow

Irwin Lane (preferred)

Riria Lane (alternative)

Kahuku Lane (alternative)

Early Albany settler name

Māori reference to historical residence site occupied by Nga Puhi Chief Patuone

Alternate Māori reference to Lucas Creek meaning place of butterflies

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

13.     Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

14.     The road types ‘Crescent’, ‘Terrace’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types for the new private roads.

15.     Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in paragraph 19 below.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

20.     On 2 February 2021, 12 mana whenua groups identified as having an interest in the general area were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines.

21.     By the close of the consultation period, two responses were received, as follows:

·        Ngāti Manuhiri did not support the use of the names ‘Milineo’ or ‘Monstedt’ but supported the use of the names ‘Okahukura’ and ‘Riria’

·        Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei deferred to other iwi.

22.     No other replies were received. Dependent on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

23.     The applicant was advised of the results of the mana whenua consultation and advise they have carefully considered the names presented for consideration in the context of the guidelines, confirming that they would still like to use their preferred road names in the development.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ who records them on their New Zealand-wide land information database, which includes street addresses issued by councils.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Locality map - 15 Apollo Drive / 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale

107

b

Scheme plan of subdivision - 15 Apollo Drive / 41 Centorian Drive, Rosedale

109

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

New private road name for subdivision at 39 Wicklam Lane, Greenhithe

File No.: CP2021/01826

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve a new road name for a commonly owned access lot (COAL) within the subdivision at 39 Wicklam Lane, Greenhithe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for local board approval. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.

3.       The applicant has proposed the names presented below in order of preference for consideration by the local board:

·        Antler Lane (preferred)

·        Cupule Lane

·        Calle Lane

·        Whauwhaupaku Lane

·        Tawhai Raunui Lane

·        Isa Lane

·        Boddie Lane.

4.       The proposed road name options have been assessed against the guidelines and the Australian and New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing (AS NZS 4819:2011) and the Guidelines for Addressing In-fill Developments 2019 (LINZ OP G 01245). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity.

5.       Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve one of the following names for the private road within the subdivision at 39 Wicklam Lane, Greenhithe:

i)        Antler Lane’ (preferred)

ii)       Cupule Lane’

iii)      ‘Calle Lane’

iv)      ‘Whauwhaupaku Lane’

v)      ‘Tawhairaunui Lane’

vi)      ‘Isa Lane’

vii)     ‘Boddie Lane’

viii)    Ngā Awaiti Lane’ (suggested by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei)

ix)      Arawai Lane’ (suggested by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei)

x)      ‘Whaupaku Lane’ (suggested by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei).

Horopaki

Context

6.       The 9-lot subdivision (council reference SUB60345639) currently under construction was approved on 1 April 2020.

7.       Site and location plans of the subdivision can be found in Attachments A and B.

8.       In accordance with the guidelines and standards, any road including private ways, COALs, and rights-of-way that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9.       These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region. The guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named because of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for local board approval.

10.     The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

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

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

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

11.     The applicant has chosen a suite of names considered appropriate for the area. These include a mix of English names reflecting the pre-development biodiversity of the wider area, Māori names that are translations of the English biodiversity names, and the Spanish name for street.

12.     In this regard, the names and their relevance are detailed in the following table:

Proposed names

Meaning (as described by the applicant)

Antler Lane (preferred)

Palmate style leaf arrangement (antler like) of Five Finger native tree often found in regenerating forest and on the site pre-development

Cupule Lane (alternative)

Flowering fruit of Red Beech tree formerly located on the site pre-development

Calle Lane (alternative)

Spanish name for street

Whauwhaupaku Lane (alternative)

Māori name for Five Finger tree

Tawhai Raunui Lane (alternative)

Māori name for Red Beech tree

Isa Lane (alternative)

Name of one of the parties involved in the subdivision

Boddie Lane (alternative)

Name of one of the parties involved in the subdivision

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

14.     Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

15.     The road type ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new private road.

16.     Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in paragraph 20 below.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

21.     On 2 February 2021, 12 mana whenua groups with an interest in the general area were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process as set out in the guidelines.

22.     By the close of the consultation period, two responses were received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngāti Manuhiri, as below:

·        Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei requested an extension of time due to the recent Covid-19 lockdown and have now submitted the alternative names ‘Ngā Awaiti Lane’, ‘Arawai Lane’ and ‘Whaupaku Lane’ (as a shortened version of ‘Whauwhaupaku’). They also comment that ‘Tawhai Raunui Lane’ must be correctly spelled in te reo as a single word, ‘Tawhairaunui’.

·        Ngāti Manuhiri would prefer the use of the name’ Whauwhaupaku Lane’.

23.     The names offered by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and their relevance are detailed in the following table:

 

Proposed names

Meaning (as described by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei)

Ngā Awaiti Lane

 

The little streams or creeks (ngā – the, awa – creek or stream – iti – little)   

‘Awaiti’ was the name of one of several ancient Māori settlements located on the arm of the Te Wharau Creek and acknowledges the various settlements and streams that flowed through the area that connected the settlements together

Arawai Lane

Māori word meaning waterway (ara – path, way track, and wai – water)

Whaupaku Lane

Tawhairaunui Lane

Alternative Māori name for Five Finger tree.

Māori name for Red Beech tree (corrected te reo spelling)

24.     The level of feedback received from mana whenua is often dependent on the scale of the development and its level of significance.

25.     The applicant has been advised of the results of the mana whenua consultation. However, with the Covid-19 lockdown, they were not able to respond further by the time the agenda closed for this report. Their feedback will therefore be presented to the board at the meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand-wide land information database, which includes street addresses issued by councils.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Scheme plan of subdivison: 39 Wicklam Lane

115

b

Locality Map: 39 Wicklam Lane

117

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Urgent decision: Change of date and venue for March 2021 community forum meeting due to COVID-19

File No.: CP2021/01852

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To notify the board of a decision made using the local board’s urgent decision-making process (resolution number UH/2019/153) in order to defer the community forum meeting for March 2021 due to a change in COVID-19 alert levels.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The local board resolved on 10 December 2020 (resolution number UH/2020/148) to hold a community forum meeting at the Headquarters Building in Hobsonville Point on 4 March 2021 at 6.30pm.

3.       Due to Auckland moving back into alert level 3 on Sunday, 28 February 2021, it was no longer possible to hold this meeting at an external venue.

4.       As it is preferable to hold this meeting face-to-face and there was the potential for Auckland to move back into alert level 2 within seven days, it was decided to defer this meeting by one week and re-schedule to 11 March 2021.

5.       As the Headquarters Building was not available on this date, it was recommended that the meeting would take place at the Upper Harbour Local Board office, 30 Kell Drive, Albany village.

6.       As the Upper Harbour Local Board’s March business meeting was not scheduled until 18 March 2021, the local board could not resolve this change before the re-scheduled community forum meeting date, therefore the agreed urgent decision process was followed. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note the urgent decision made on 2 March 2021:

i)        change the date and location of the community forum meeting scheduled to be held at the Headquarters building, Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville Point, on Thursday 4 March 2021 at 6.30pm to Thursday 11 March 2021 at 6.30pm to be held at the Local Board office, 30 Kell Drive, Albany village.

 

 


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urgent decision-making memo to change the date and venue of the March 2021 Community Forum meeting

121

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Governance forward work calendar - April to December 2021

File No.: CP2021/01808

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the updated governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·     ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·     clarifying what advice is expected and when

·     clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board governance forward work calendar for the period April to December 2021, as set out in Attachment A to this agenda report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work calendar - April to December 2021

125

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 February, and 4 March 2021

File No.: CP2021/01809

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Upper Harbour Local Board workshops were held on Thursday, 11 and 25 February, and 4 March 2021. Copies of the workshop records are attached (refer to Attachments A, B and C).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 February, and 4 March 2021 (refer to Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 11 February 2021

129

b

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 25 February 2021

131

c

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 4 March 2021

133

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

18 March 2021

 

 

Board members' reports - March 2021

File No.: CP2021/01811

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal and written board members’ reports.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 



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