Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 21 April 2021

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Approval of concept designs for Riverhead War Memorial Park, Riverhead Point Drive Reserve and Deacon Point

File No.: CP2021/02868

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the concept designs for the following Riverhead parks to progress the projects into detailed design and construction phase:

· Riverhead War Memorial Park

· Riverhead Point Drive Reserve

· Deacon Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The development of the parks and facilities at Riverhead War Memorial Park, Riverhead Point Drive Reserve and Deacon Point were identified within the Riverhead Playspace Study in 2018.

3. The local board requested that staff investigate the possibility of improving and increasing play provision during the renewal of the Riverhead War Memorial Park playspace. The local board also wanted the provision of increased play facilities, within the recently developed subdivisions of Riverhead, to meet the population growth needs within the area.

4. Three projects have been produced collectively to date and relate to the following resolutions:

· Riverhead War Memorial Park - optimise play space, renew carpark and minor assets.
(Local Board resolution’s - FY21-PAC/2020/42; FY21-RD/2020/105; FY20-RD/2019/71; FY19-RD/2018/86; FY18-RD/2017/102)

· Riverhead - develop playspace with walkways.
(Local Board resolution’s - FY21-PAC/2020/42; FY21-RD/2020/105; FY20-RD/2019/71; ENV/2019/111; FY19-RD/2019/35)

· Riverhead - develop toilet facilities.
(Local Board resolutions - FY21-PAC/2020/42; FY21-RD/2020/105; FY20-ENV/2019/111, RD/2019/71)

5. The 2018 Riverhead Playspace Study, undertaken by Bespoke, identified that there was a shortage of play provision in Riverhead. The one small playground at Riverhead War Memorial Park did not cater for the recent increased residential development. The study also identified that the existing playground only catered for younger children and recommended an upgrade of the play options on site.

6. The Riverhead Playspace Study identified three locations suitable for playground development, Riverhead War Memorial Park, Riverhead Point Drive Reserve and Deacon Point. It concluded that three complementary playgrounds be developed, based on the site’s individual qualities and characteristics.

7. A concept document has been developed, incorporating the recommendations set out in the Riverhead Playspace Study. The design also considers feedback received from:

· targeted consultation with Ngati Whātua O Kaipara and Te Kawerau A Maki

· targeted stakeholder consultation with all user groups of Riverhead War Memorial Park

· two separate public consultations facilitated via the Auckland Council, Have Your Say, online platform.

8. The concept document was presented to the local board on 7 October 2020 at a workshop.

9. Staff now seek formal adoption of the concept document, enabling progression of each project through detailed design, resource consenting and the delivery of physical works.

10. Implementation of each of the projects relies heavily on funding availability over the coming financial years.

11. Current allocated budgets indicate the aspirations as set out in the concept document are achievable.

12. Following formal adoption of the proposed concept document, the consent process will begin in parallel with the development of the detailed design. Physical works to undertake construction of the proposed design is expected to commence in late 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the concept designs for Riverhead War Memorial Park, Riverhead Point Drive Reserve and Deacon Point, as per attachment A of the agenda report.

b) request staff to progress the projects to detailed design and construction phase.

Horopaki

Context

13. All sites are located within Riverhead which is located at the head of the Waitematā Harbour, in north-west Auckland, 26km from Auckland city centre. Until recently, Riverhead has been a relatively small township, surrounded by strawberry farms and orchards.

14. In the last ten years Riverhead has seen significant residential growth with the arrival of many young families. In the 2013 census one quarter of the population was under 15 years old.

15. As a part of the Rodney Local Board FY2020/2021 to FY2022/2023 Community Facilities Work Programme the local board approved the following projects to meet the needs of the growing population within the area.

Activity Name	Activity Description	Budget Detail
Riverhead - develop playspace with walkways	Development of playspace infrastructure with walkway connections in the new Riverhead subdivision area to meet the demands of population growth in the immediate area. Works include the development of a playground including greenway/walkway connections in Riverhead Point Drive, as identified in the 2018 Riverhead Play Provision Assessment adopted by the local board. FY18/19 - investigation and design, including consultation. FY19/20 - complete concept design. FY21/22 - physical works. (LDI Opex contribution $39,020) Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) project	FY19/20 - $39,020 - LDI Opex FY19/20 - $36,120 - Growth FY21/22 - $363,860 - Growth
Riverhead - develop toilet facilities	Develop a new toilet facility in the new subdivision area. This development will meet the provision demand due to the increase in community population. The design will incorporate sustainability and accessibility options for the local board's review and input. FY19/20 to FY20/21 - investigation, design and consultation. FY21/22 - physical works. (LDI Opex contribution $75,000) (Growth contribution $450,000)	FY19/20 - $15,979 - LDI Opex FY20/21 - $75,000 - LDI Opex FY21/22 - $450,000 - Growth
Riverhead War Memorial Park - optimise play space, renew carpark and minor assets	To meet the shortfall in play provision as highlighted in the 2018 Riverhead Play Provision Assessment, it has been agreed to expand the existing playground, reconfigure the carpark including widening the entranceway and renew minor assets. FY18/19 - investigate and develop concept design for public consultation and local board review and input. FY19/20 - detailed design, consenting and planning. FY21/22 to FY23/24 - physical works. (LDI Opex contribution $50,000) (Local Renewals contribution $505,000) Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) project	FY19/20 - $2,205 - Renewals FY20/21 - $50,000 - LDI Opex FY20/21 - $50,000 - Renewals FY21/22 - $155,000 - Renewals FY21/22 - $350,000 - Growth FY22/23 - $100,000 - Renewals FY23/24 - $1,097,795 - Growth

16. The Riverhead parks developments are located within Riverhead and will cater to the growing population within the area. Benefits will include increased play provision, safer passage in and out of Riverhead War Memorial Park and improved passive recreational facilities and public amenities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Consultation

Pre-design consultation

17. An on-line questionnaire and feedback forum was provided through the council ‘Have Your Say’ webpage from 23 October to 11 November 2019.

18. In addition, three targeted workshop sessions were held with members of the Riverhead Playgroup, Riverhead Scouts and the student representatives from the Riverhead School.

19. Questions focused on:

· the current playground at Riverhead War Memorial Park and ways to improve it

· location preferences for a new playground within the wider Riverhead area

· activities that the children enjoy

· specific play elements the community would like to have in a new playground

· possible themes.

20. Feedback from the local community indicated support for the redevelopment of play facilities within Riverhead War Memorial Park. This was the preferred area for development and investment. The park is the hub of the community and providing activities for a wider age range within this park was considered important.

21. The location of a second new playspace development within Riverhead was supported but there was no clear preference from the community regarding the location. Both Riverhead Point Drive Reserve and Deacon Point were both supported equally.

22. The community expressed a desire for the play spaces to be developed in a natural style, incorporating nature play, natural materials and drawing on the history of the area.

23. Preferred play activities included climbing, swinging, balancing, sliding, spinning and trampoline play as well as provision for bike/pump track paths and water play.

24. In addition to developing the playground areas, the community feedback included suggestions for enhancing the overall playspace developments through incorporating shade, contemplation, and seating/picnic areas.

25. A concept plan was developed based on the above outcomes sought.

Post design consultation

26. Further public consultation and targeted stakeholder engagement on the draft concept plans was undertaken between July and September 2020.

27. Public consultation was facilitated using the Auckland Council 'have your say' online platform and included consultation boards that provided project and site context and outlined the proposed designs.

28. The consultation also included a questionnaire for people to submit their feedback. The consultation material was available for a three-week period (28 April – 6 September 2020).

29. During this time there were 720 visits to the page, 287 downloads of the consultation material and 65 responses to the questionnaire.

30. The outcome of the public consultation on the proposed concept document is summarised below:

Riverhead War Memorial Park

· 82 per cent of the online respondents supported the proposals.

· 80 per cent of the online respondents support the removal of the Princes Street driveway into the carpark.

Riverhead Point Drive Reserve

· 66 per cent of the online respondents support the proposals.

· 25 per cent of the online respondents supported the toilet block being located at Riverhead Point Drive.

Deacon Point

· 68 per cent of the online respondents support the proposals.

· 65 per cent of the online respondents supported the toilet block being located at Deacon Point.

31. Stakeholder engagement was undertaken with groups and individuals who regularly use and occupy the park, to gain an understanding of their preferences.

32. These stakeholders included:

· Walker Landscape Architecture (member of the tennis club)

· Riverhead Scouts

· Kumeu Rugby

· Riverhead Bowling Club

· Heather Lundon (organiser of the Riverhead ANZAC service).

33. Staff also sought to engage with Riverhead Playgroup and Riverhead School but were unable to meet with them because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

34. In general, feedback from the public consultation and stakeholder engagement was supportive of the proposed park developments. The most contentious proposal was the removal of the vehicular access into Riverhead War Memorial Park from Princes Street. This proposed change had support from most online consultation submitters and stakeholders, however, was opposed by Riverhead Bowling Club.

35. Consultation outcomes are summarised below.

Mana Whenua

36. A site walkover of the three parks was undertaken with Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara Kawerau A Maki, the following topics were discussed:

Mauri Tu: Environmental Health

· use native plant species only, fruit trees the only exception

· include bird feeding specimen trees

· maintenance of the existing vegetation needs to be undertaken.

Tohu: The wider cultural landscapes are acknowledged

· whakapapa: names and naming - Deacon Point is the most significant park of the three, and there are opportunities to celebrate this with naming, interpretation, and storytelling

· mauri markers could be a way to connect all three sites and celebrate mauri.

Taiao: The natural environment

· archaeology needs to be investigated during early phases prior to construction

· a reticulated water system is to be used for the toilet block

· include nature play

· recycle and reuse materials wherever possible

· support for the toilet block being located at Deacon Point.

Ahi Ka: A living presence

· ensure the playground is accessible to all

· suggest the inclusion of sound in the playground to awaken the senses.

General comments

· look to include drinking fountains

· ensure the playspace is all accessible to all users

· Te Kawerau A Maki would like to contribute to the naming of Deacon Point park

· Deacon Point park is of the greatest significance to mana whenua.

37. After establishing outcomes sought by both Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara and Te Kawerau A Maki, a nominated mana whenua artist has been engaged to develop and deliver these outcomes.

38. The project will deliver significant improvements to the needs of community surrounding the area. Providing for enhanced and improved open space within Riverhead.

39. Redwood trees felled from a site in neighbouring Huapai have been secured for reuse at Deacon Point to provide for natural play formations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

40. The construction of the renewed and newly built assets, bridge and is not expected to have an adverse effect on the local environment. The additional impermeable surface area is minor and surface water will be shed to adjacent grassed reserve areas or captured in drains with managed outfalls to a nearby streams and stormwater systems.

41. Planting of trees and other plant species is proposed to enhance the natural environment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. Project staff are continually engaging with internal Community Facilities staff, including Facilities Managers and Coordinators, Community Lease Advisors and the Community Services’ Parks and Places Specialist.

43. Auckland Transport have been consulted and are supportive of the widening of the Coatesville Riverhead Highway entrance to Riverhead War Memorial Park and expressed no concerns at the closure of the Princes Street vehicular accessway.

44. Collaboration with staff will be ongoing to ensure that the development of each park is appropriately integrated into the operational maintenance and asset management systems once completed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. The concept document, incorporating consultation outcomes, was presented to the local board on 7 October 2020 at a workshop and was well received.

46. The local board supported all proposals put forward, noting the following:

· closure of vehicular access via Princes Street to Riverhead War Memorial Park

· expansion of Coatesville Riverhead Highway access to the park

· preference and recommendation to install a public restroom facility at Deacon Point.

47. These projects align with the following Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes:

Outcome	Objective
Outcome Two: Our natural environment is healthy and protected	Our coast, waterways and natural environment are our taonga / treasures. They are healthy and clean, with thriving biodiverse ecosystems. Communities look after our environment by eradicating pests, carrying out restoration work, and minimising waste. They are active in reducing their carbon emissions and living sustainably to combat climate change.
Outcome Three: Infrastructure and development meet the needs of our growing communities	Our towns and villages are vibrant and attract people to shop and work locally. People are proud of their local area and its unique character. New development is planned carefully to consider current communities and meet future needs.
Outcome Five: Our local parks and recreation facilities meet the needs of our growing community.	Our local parks, sport and recreation facilities cater to a wide range of interests and abilities. They are enjoyable places to visit, and relax or be active in. They are easily accessible and meet the demands of our current and future generations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori. The development discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community through helping create an identity for mana whenua in the area and by educating the public of the importance of the portage of Riverhead to mana whenua.

49. Engagement with mana whenua on this project has been undertaken as part of the consultation process. The proposed improvements to play provision were originally presented to iwi at the NorthWest Mana Whenua forum on 2 October 2019.

50. Subsequent collaboration with Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara and Te Kawerau A Maki led to specific feedback, which has been incorporated into the design. The details of which are captured in the Analysis and Advice section of this report.

51. The draft concept document was circulated to Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara and Te Kawerau A Maki in August 2020. Written feedback was received from both iwi supporting the document. A further meeting with an artist nominated by each iwi was held on 15 October 2020 to further develop design direction.

52. Collaboration with mana whenua is ongoing and will remain so throughout these projects.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53. Due to the reprioritisation of the proposed financial year 2021/2022 to financial year 2023/2024 Community Facilities work programme, the future funding allocation per project seeking the Governing Body and local board’s approval are detailed in the tables below:

54. Riverhead - develop playspace with walkways

Budget source	FY20/21 & prior	FY21/22	FY22/2	FY23/24	FY24/25	Total ($)
LDI Opex	$39,020
Growth	$36,120	$363,860
	$75,140	$363,860				$439,000

Riverhead - develop toilet facilities

Budget source	FY20/21 & prior	FY21/22	FY22/2	FY23/24	FY24/25	Total ($)
LDI Opex	$75,000					$75,000
Growth					$450,000	$450,000
						$525,000

Riverhead War Memorial Park - optimise play space, renew carpark and minor assets

Budget source	FY20/21 & prior	FY21/22	FY22/23	FY23/24	FY24/25	Total ($)
LDI Opex	$55,770					$55,570
Growth	$52,205	$515,000	$1,022,305			$1,589,510
Renewals				$500,000	$711,000	$1,211,000
						$2,856,280

55. A total budget of $3,820,280 is allocated for the projects over multiple financial years (2020 – 2025), this funding is sufficient to deliver on the aspirations set out in the concept document.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. Resource consent is required, and the preparation and processing of this consent may have an impact on the time frame for construction.

57. Additional engagement with external stakeholders, iwi and the community will be undertaken as part of consenting phase. There is a risk that individuals within the community may not be in support. This may delay the project and result in additional costs through the resource consent and engagement stages.

58. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Risks identified	Mitigation
Timeframe
Resource consent	Preparation and processing of the consent may have an impact on the time frame for construction.
Health & Safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during construction phase	Adequate Health and Safety measures will be put in place to manage risks.
Budget
Budget availability	Each project depends upon the funding proposed to be available in order to deliver the works.
Construction
Poor weather during construction may hold up delivery	Construction methodology and programme to allow for wet weather events.
Damage to existing paths due to construction works	Jakmats or similar will be used to minimise the impact of machinery on the existing path. If damage were to occur, this would have to be remedied at a cost to the project. A small contingency has been factored into the budget to account for this.
Reputational
	Public expectation has been raised regarding delivery, according to the feedback provided during consultation. If the plans are not supported by the local board, it may lead to community disappointment, as well as contribute to a drop in consultation and engagement of future projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. The table below summarises the anticipated next steps and estimated delivery timeframes for the project. The estimated timeframes assume successful and timely completion of each identified project step. Unforeseen delays in the resource consent process have the potential to delay completion of the project beyond the identified timeframe.

Project phase	Planned completion timeframe
Resource consent application It is assumed that the resource consent application will be processed as a non-notified application.	April 2021
Detailed design Once the concept design option is approved by the local board, the development of the detailed design can be progressed.	June 2021
Procure physical works contractor/build partner The tender will be offered to competent and specialised contractors capable of managing the scale of the works proposed.	September 2021
Physical works Accurate commencement and duration of the physical works is not known at this time and will be confirmed at a later stage.	Estimated November 2021

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Riverhead - parks and facilities concept designs	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kara Burn – Project Manager

Geoff Pitman – Area Manager Operations

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme 2021

File No.: CP2021/03904

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To outline the outcomes of the proposed Regional Land Transport Program in the local board area and provide an opportunity for the local board to resolve feedback for the attention of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· a summary of what the Regional Land Transport Plan is and the process of its development

· a summary of what projects and programmes are planned for the Rodney Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme report

b) provide feedback on the Regional Land Transport Programme.

Horopaki

Context

3. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is a 10-year investment programme for transport in Auckland. It includes the activities of Auckland Transport Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) and KiwiRail.

4. It is reviewed and publicly consulted on every three years in a process led by the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (RTC).

5. The RTC is comprised of members of the Auckland Transport (AT) board and representatives from Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail. During the review process the RTC seeks the views of Auckland’s elected representatives through the Governing Body. The AT board is responsible for approving the RLTP.

6. The RLTP is the end product of a number of different local and central government processes and plans:

· Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)

· The Auckland Plan 2050

· Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan (LTP)

· National Land Transport Programme (NLTP)

· Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS)

7. It is worth noting that AT is not a party to ATAP discussions but that the direction expressed in this document is a key driver for outcomes in the RLTP. Likewise, the LTP sets funding levels for key programmes in the RLTP, such as the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

8. The current transport programme is set out in the 2018 RLTP. This saw the introduction of the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT), that provided an additional $1.5bn of direct revenue over 10 years. Including the RFT, the 2018 RLTP anticipated a $10 billion capital programme over ten years.

9. While the 2018 RLTP programme provided a sound investment base there have been an increasing number of challenges requiring attention in the 2021 RLTP. These include:

· the impact of growth and other demands creating a need for increased investment in upgrading existing infrastructure and for new investment to support growth

· a need for increased investment to ensure transport plays its role in meeting overall greenhouse gas reduction targets

· continuing to invest in public transport and to accelerate cycling network completion to support mode change

· a need to deliver further investment to support vision zero goals to provide reductions in deaths and serious injuries

· an increasing need for more responsive investment in the transport network at a local level.

10. Unfortunately, the response to these challenges is tempered by the impact of council’s Emergency Budget, the effect of COVID-19 on public transport fares (leading to reduced operational funding for AT), and a strong likelihood that Waka Kotahi funding will not reach previously assumed levels.

11. It has been assessed that about 95 per cent of the available funding from council and Government is needed to run the transport system, maintain the quality of the system (renewals and maintenance) and deliver committed/contracted/under construction projects. This means that there is very little headroom for new investment and that there will be hard trade-offs, including the deferring of many important projects.

12. At its meeting on 11 March the Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the draft RLTP. ATAP itself was released on Friday 12 March. The RTC formally approved the draft RLTP for public consultation at its meeting on 23 March 2021.

13. The current timeline for development of the RLTP is as follows:

Date	Action
23 March	RTC considers draft RLTP for public consultation
29 March-2 May	Proposed dates for public consultation
May	Evaluation of public consultation
27 May	RTC review final draft RLTP
3 June	Governing Body review RLTP for endorsement
June	AT board reviews RLTP for final approval
01 July	RLTP operational

14. As a regional programme it is appropriate that the primary engagement focus sits with the Governing Body through the Planning Committee.

15. However, as the RLTP has important local impacts AT recognises the importance of seeking local board views to ensure these are included in the information given to the RTC and Governing Body to inform their decision making. To this end, AT has the following engagement planned:

Date	Local Board Engagement
15 Feb	AT attended the Chairs Forum to give an overview on the RLTP process, to outline how the RLTP is put together and finally what the process is for local board input.
29 March – 2 May	Workshops with all local boards to discuss the RLTP.
April	AT will write reports for local boards to pass resolutions to officially record their feedback on the RLTP.
3 June	Local boards could use their statutory input slot at a Governing Body Meeting (Planning Committee) to give their views on the RLTP.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The draft Long-term Plan proposal is to reinstate the Local Board Transport Capital fund back up to $20millon per annum for the next ten years. On this basis the proposed RLTP includes $200million for local board initiatives. However, it should be noted that this is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5 per cent.

17. The below tables summarises projects that are planned to be delivered in the Rodney Local Board area and surrounding areas that could benefit Rodney residents.

#	AT Projects	Duration	10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)
2	Matakana Link Road	2021/22	26.0
7	Wainui Improvements	2021/22 - 2023/24	23.1
12	Rosedale Road Corridor	2021/22 - 2023/24	8.0
13	Rosedale and Constellation Bus Stations	2021/22 - 2023/24	59.0
14	Northern Busway Enhancements	2027/18 - 2030/31	62.0
16	Huapai Improvements	2021/22 - 2022/23	17.5
18	Greenfield transport infrastructure – Northwest	2021/22 - 2030/31	142.0
18	Northwest Growth Improvements	2026/27 - 2030/31	185.5
19	Northwest Bus Improvements	2021/22 - 2022/23	85.0
75	Hill Street Intersection Improvement	2021/22 - 2024/25	18.8

18. The table below summarises projects within larger programmes, that are planned to be delivered in the Rodney Local Board area and surrounding areas that could benefit Rodney residents.

#	Project from a Programme	Underlying Programme
3	Matakana Road (Melwood Drive to Green Road)	Safety (AT)
4	Warkworth Community Transport Hub	Projects Funded by Rodney Transport Targeted Rate (AT)
6	Hibiscus Coast Highway (Hatfields Bridge to Waiwera Road)	Safety (AT)

19. The table below summarises projects being delivered by Waka Kotahi that are planned to be delivered in the Rodney Local Board area and surrounding areas that could benefit Rodney residents.

	Non-AT Projects	Responsible Agency	10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)
1	Dome Valley Safety Improvements	Waka Kotahi	30.0
5	Puhoi-Warkworth motorway	Waka Kotahi	845.8
8	Penlink	Waka Kotahi	411.0
11	Northern Corridor (includes busway extension)	Waka Kotahi	128.2
15	SH16 Brigham Creek-Waimauku	Waka Kotahi	137.0
17	SH18 Squadron Drive Interchange Upgrade	Waka Kotahi	68.0

20. The below maps correspond to the above tables and shows the location of the projects:

21. The below table outlines objectives from the Rodney Local Board Plan that are addressed in the RLTP

Objectives	Regional Land Transport Plan funding
Our roads are safe and well-maintained and have the capacity to meet the demands of users	The RLTP includes: · A 10-year investment of $3.93billion to cover the cost of renewing AT’s asset base. This RLTP has $900 million more in AT renewals than the $3.05 billion included in the 2018 RLTP. · More than $650million of AT investment to deliver the AT Safety Programme, which will deliver improvements targeted to speed management, high risk intersections, high risk corridors and vulnerable road users. · $100 million for minor improvements across the roading network. · $193 million of Waka Kotahi investment to deliver the state highway Safer Networks Programme.
Public transport is a viable option for getting around	The rapid transit network (RTN) is a key investment priority and forms the largest category of capital investment in this RLTP. The proposed transport programme in this RLTP will deliver significant changes in the coverage and performance of the RTN over the next 10 years. This RLTP will also see the RTN continue to diversify away from the city centre.
Our communities are well connected by safe and accessible footpaths, cycleways, trails and bridleways	· More than $300 million is allocated to delivering AT’s On-going Cycling Programme, which is intended to follow the completion of the Urban Cycleways Programme early in the RLTP period. This is in addition to the allocation to cycling included in the Connected Communities programme. · $49 million to continue delivering new footpaths in high priority locations. · A new $30 million programme for minor improvements for cycling and micromobility. A key element of this package will be delivering ‘pop up cycleways’ which will retrofit a range of existing painted cycle lanes with appropriate safety barriers. This programme will also address other issues on the existing cycling network to improve useability and enhance safety. · Ongoing funding for a programme of tactical urbanism initiatives (small, low-cost, temporary changes to the built environment) such as those brought to life through Waka Kotahi’s Innovating Streets Programme. This RLTP includes $200 million for a local board initiatives fund to be split between Auckland’s 21 local boards to form each one’s Local Board Transport Capital Fund and provide for an ongoing programme of smaller-scale local transport improvements.
Our facilities and infrastructure meet the needs of our growing communities	This RLTP includes funding for: · Delivery of specific projects in the North to support and enable growth in Wainui (Wainui Improvements) and Warkworth (Matakana Link Road). · Over $325 million for greenfield transport infrastructure projects in the Northwest, which targets key infrastructure to support future bus operations along with route protection and property acquisitions for bus access along prospective transport corridors. · The Supporting Growth Alliance, which is progressing investigation and route protection activities for the transport networks required to support Auckland’s Warkworth, Northern, Northwest and Southern growth areas. The ATAP process also identified support for brownfields development as the highest priority for growth investment. This includes $401 million, with a further $100 million to come directly from Central Government, to support the Auckland Housing Programme in brownfield areas. This will provide for public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure in these areas to encourage sustainable transport behaviour, along with intersection upgrades to minimise impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. The approach set out in the RLTP conforms with the direction expressed by Council through the Long-term Plan. However, AT notes that far more needs to be done to reach the Auckland Council climate change emissions targets.

23. This investment programme is only one of a comprehensive set of measures needed to reduce transport emissions. The RLTP does not exist to set government policy and additional measures are needed that are beyond its scope to implement. A comprehensive approach to emission reduction will therefore require a range of actions from across government and industry.

24. In the context of this challenge, Auckland needs a Climate Plan for its transport system which sets out the preferred pathway to meeting Auckland Councils emissions targets. This plan, along with a Climate Change Programme Business Case will be developed as part of this RLTP.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. The RLTP is the product of several Auckland Council processes and plans including:

· Auckland Transport Alignment Project

· The Auckland Plan 2050

· Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. Auckland Transport has used local board plans to inform the development of the RLTP.

27. Opportunities for local boards to engage on the RLTP have included:

· Chair’s Forum on the 15 February 2021

· a workshop with the Rodney Local Board on the 14 April 2021

· highlighting the opportunities for local board feedback to the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Iwi and mataawaka have been engaged through AT’s Maori engagement team.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The are no direct financial implications for the local board in receiving this report.

30. Local board feedback on the RLTP and any changes made as a result of that feedback could have financial implications depending on that feedback. Further information about AT’s priorities for funding and implications of changes to funding levels can be found on page 80 of the RLTP consultation document.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. Auckland Transport’s capital programme within the RLTP is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5 per cent. If this is not adopted there will be significant impacts on plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Once the local boards have resolved their feedback on the RLTP, AT will review all feedback from local boards and the public. This feedback, and any proposed changes, will be compiled into a feedback report for the consideration of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Halliwell – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Hamish Bunn - GM Investment, Planning & Policy, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West

File No.: CP2021/02102

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To obtain the Rodney Local Board’s view on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West for incorporation into a report to the Planning Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Supporting Growth Programme is planning the transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zoned areas over the next 10 to 30 years. To inform the future transport network a Spatial Land Use Strategy is required for the Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North Future Urban zoned areas.

3. The draft strategy identifies preferred locations for future centres and business land that the transport network will support and impact upon. It includes around 80ha of business land located in the south of Kumeū and the south of Redhills North.

4. The strategy shows an expansion of the existing Town Centre in Kumeū-Huapai and the existing Local Centre in Riverhead. A new Local Centre is shown towards the west of Kumeū-Huapai along SH16. Smaller Neighbourhood Centres are shown in the west of Kumeū-Huapai, south of Riverhead, and within Redhills North.

5. The draft strategy was open for feedback from the public from November 2020 to February 2021 in conjunction with the Supporting Growth Programme for future transport plans for the North West of Auckland. There were 25 pieces of feedback received that were specifically on the Spatial Land Use Strategy with around 70 per cent of the respondents not supporting the draft strategy.

6. The main themes of feedback were:

· infrastructure required first

· oppose urban expansion on the edge of Auckland

· the council is ‘all talk and no action’

· request Rural Urban Boundary extension to include specific land

· opposition to the future expansion of the Kumeu-Huapai Town Centre

· opposition to the location of the future business (industrial) land in Kumeu-Huapai

7. Based on the feedback received, there are some recommended changes to the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West. In addition, one further change is recommended to the strategy based on updated information from Supporting Growth Alliance on potential rapid transit stations in Kumeu-Huapai. The Local Centre in Kumeu-Huapai is recommended to be shifted slightly to the west.

8. Feedback will be included in a report to the Planning Committee to adopt the Spatial Land Use Strategy on May 6, 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West.

Horopaki

Context

Background

9. The Supporting Growth Programme is planning the transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zoned areas over the next 10 to 30 years. To inform the future transport network a Spatial Land Use Strategy is required for the Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North Future Urban zoned areas.

10. The land is zoned Future Urban but the commencement of structure plans for these areas is not anticipated until around 2025 – as the land is not anticipated to be development ready until between 2028 and 2032. Therefore, a higher-level Spatial Land Use Strategy can inform the future transport network.

11. The draft strategy identifies locations for future centres and business land that the transport network will support and impact upon. It is not a statutory document, nor a detailed structure plan and is only intended to be a high-level outline of the key future land uses in the Future Urban zone.

12. The development of the Spatial Land Use Strategy has been influenced by a number of factors including zoning principles from the Unitary Plan, directions from the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the existing land uses and zonings of adjacent land, the Indicative Strategic Transport Network, potential future Rapid Transit Network (‘RTN’) station locations, future business and centre land requirements, and various land constraints such as flooding and natural heritage.

The Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy

13. The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy in Figure 1 below shows around 80ha of business land located in the south of Kumeū and the south of Redhills North. This amount is based on the forecast demand for industrial business land and the large area of Whenuapai set aside for this. The Kumeū land will provide a space for industrial activities in the town centre to relocate to (as set out in the Kumeū-Huapai Centre Plan 2017).

14. The land in the south of Kumeū (70ha) is the preferred area for additional industrial land in the town as the land is flat, adjacent to existing industrial land, has good transport links, and parts have documented contamination issues. The land in the south of Redhills North (10ha) is flat, adjacent to existing industrial land, has access to motorway interchanges, is market attractive, and will not significantly impact on the potential for high density residential development around a RTN station nearby.

15. The Spatial Land Use Strategy shows an expansion of the existing Town Centre in Kumeū-Huapai and the existing Local Centre in Riverhead. A new Local Centre is shown in towards the west of Kumeū-Huapai along SH16. The location of this centre is preferred as it will be near the location of a potential RTN station in Kumeū-Huapai, will service a wide residential catchment, is on a major transport route (SH16), near to major open space area, and is flat, greenfield land that can easily accommodate high density residential development around it. Smaller Neighbourhood Centres are shown in the west of Kumeū-Huapai, south of Riverhead, and within Redhills North.

Figure 1 – Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy showing the indicative high-level transport network

Consultation on the draft Strategy

16. The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West was open for consultation from 30 November 2020 to 1 February 2021. The consultation was publicised in conjunction with the Supporting Growth Programme for future transport plans for the North West of Auckland. Two open days were held in Kumeu and Westgate during December 2020 where both the future transport plans and the Spatial Land Use Strategy were presented.

17. There were 25 pieces of feedback received that were specifically on the Spatial Land Use Strategy. The majority of the responses used the council’s feedback form (23 of 25) and there were two non-feedback form responses. It is noted that there were around 650 pieces of feedback on the related transport network consultation being run by the Supporting Growth Alliance (‘SGA’).

18. Around 70 per cent of the respondents (17 of 25) did not support the draft strategy. Six respondents didn’t know, and two respondents supported the draft strategy. However, many of the submitters raised issues that were well beyond the scope of the strategy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The main themes of feedback and how the plan responds to them are outlined below.

20. Infrastructure required first: A key theme of feedback was that much more infrastructure (roads, public transport, water, schools, etc.) was required before the area could grow. It is important to note that planning ahead for growth and infrastructure is exactly the purpose of the North West Spatial Land Use Strategy. The context for preparing the strategy is to inform the future transport network planning for the North West. The Supporting Growth Alliance will be able to plan for an effective and efficient network based on the strategy’s high-level outline of the future land uses in the Future Urban zone.

21. Oppose urban expansion on the edge of Auckland: Another theme from feedback on the draft strategy was the opposition to continued or further greenfield urban expansion of Auckland in the North West. The North West Spatial Land Use Strategy does not change the location of the Rural Urban Boundary nor identify any new land for greenfield urban expansion.

22. The council is ‘all talk and no action’: It is acknowledged that there is a long lead in time on the future transport projects shown in the joint consultation with the Supporting Growth Alliance. However, it must also be recognised that the cost of these transport projects runs into the billions of dollars, so it is important to plan properly for them.

23. Request Rural Urban Boundary extension to include specific land: There were some requests to shift the Rural Urban Boundary to include specific land around Foster Road and the large area between Redhills and Kumeu-Huapai. The purpose of the North West Spatial Land Use Strategy is not to find more potential urban land and shift the Rural Urban Boundary, but rather to identify a high-level outline of future land uses for the Future Urban zoned land in the North West.

24. Other general feedback: The other feedback received on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West was mostly well outside the scope of this project (e.g. design of buildings in Kumeu-Huapai, Helensville). The specific comments relating to the transport network were passed on to the Supporting Growth Alliance for their analysis as part of the feedback they are reviewing on the future transport network.

25. Opposition to the future expansion of the Kumeū-Huapai Town Centre: There was only one response around centres in the draft strategy and it opposed the future expansion of the existing Kumeū-Huapai town centre area. This feedback essentially seeks to overturn the outcome of the 2017 Kumeū-Huapai Centre Plan process. That Centre Plan is an adopted plan and has its own review process. There are currently various agencies working to implement the actions from the plan. The implementation of the particular actions that have been opposed (around the future improvements to the centre) are long-term actions and there will be further opportunities for feedback on that matter, including formal submissions into a statutory Plan Change process.

26. Opposition to the location of the future business (industrial) land in Kumeū-Huapai: There were only a few responses around business land and they were opposed to the location of the future business (industrial) land in Kumeū-Huapai. The reasons for the opposition were that future industrial uses would be incompatible with the neighbouring residential and rural lifestyle land. However, it is considered that the potential for amenity effects on surrounding properties can be addressed during the later structure plan stage.

27. Mixed views on residential land and densities: Some sought more higher density housing while others opposed any higher density housing. This matter is outside the scope of the strategy and further detailed work on the residential areas (in terms of densities etc.) will occur at a later structure plan stage.

28. The amount and type of parks (open space) to meet future needs: A few responses commented on the amount and type of parks/open space to meet future needs. This matter is outside the scope of the strategy and further detailed work on open space will occur at a later structure plan stage.

Changes to the strategy

Based on the feedback received, the recommended changes to the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West are:

· include wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy will assist with long-term planning and the provisions of infrastructure

· include wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy only deals with existing Future Urban zoned land and it does not attempt to identify any additional rural land for urbanisation

· include wording in the final strategy that outlines how the potential for amenity effects on surrounding properties can be addressed during the later structure plan stage.

29. In addition, one further change is recommended to the strategy based on updated information from SGA on potential Rapid Transit Network (‘RTN’) stations in Kumeū-Huapai. The new Local Centre in Kumeū-Huapai was located to be near a potential RTN station. In light of the new information, the centre is recommended to be shifted slightly to the west as shown on the plan in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy showing the new Kumeū-Huapai Local Centre shifted to the west

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The provision of employment areas shown in the Spatial Land Use Strategy has the potential to reduce the future extent of commuting for employment from the North West area. This will dampen the Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions through a quality compact urban form that includes employment opportunities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. The impacts on Watercare are negligible as the Spatial Land Use Strategy does not amend the growth direction that Watercare have already endorsed through the Rural Urban Boundary, the Future Urban zone, or the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

32. Auckland Transport are part of the Supporting Growth Alliance and therefore are already closely involved with the Spatial Land Use Strategy.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. A workshop was held with the Rodney Local Board on 10 February 2021 on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy and the initial summary of public feedback. The purpose of this report is to obtain the views of the Rodney Local Board on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy has been developed to inform the future transport network in the North West, being developed by SGA. SGA is partnering with Manawhenua to ensure that Māori cultural values and perspectives are recognised and integrated into the planning of new transport networks (and their land use base) at each stage of the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. This matter concerns feedback on a high-level strategy and therefore does not contain any financial implications in of itself.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. This item enables the Rodney Local Board to provide feedback on a high-level strategy for the North West. The risks around feedback from the local board to the governing body are negligible.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Any feedback from the Rodney Local Board on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy will be reviewed and may result in changes to the strategy. The strategy will go to the Planning Committee on 6 May 2021 for adoption and the views of the Rodney Local Board will be clearly summarised in the Local Board Views section of the report.

38. Once adopted, the strategy will form part of the evidence base for the SGA detailed business case for the future transport network in the North West. Later on, Notices of Requirement to designate future transport infrastructure by SGA will use the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West as part of the rationale for the transport network.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager - Planning, Regional, North, West & Islands

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Public feedback on proposal to make new navigation rules

File No.: CP2021/03397

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal to make new navigation rules, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how a Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2021 / Auckland Council Navigation Bylaw 2021 and associated controls, staff have prepared summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal continues to regulate the use of Auckland’s navigable waters (for example by recreational vessels, kite boarders, swimmers, divers, ferries and cargo vessels) to help minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage.

4. The main proposals are to:

· increase the maximum speed limit on the Waitemata Harbour Zone to 18 knots to allow faster movement of public transport vessels, but still travel at a safe speed

· clarify existing rules, including about swimming, events and support vessels

· make new rules about novel craft (for example a motorised surfboard)

· align rules about the use of Ōrākei Basin with current accepted practices

· remove rules about licensing of commercial vessels for hire and marine mammal protections as these are more appropriately addressed in separate legislation

· update the format and wording of the rules to be easier to read and understand.

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

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 7 May 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in July 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the public feedback on the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2021 / Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2021 and associated controls as attached to this agenda report

b) provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations

c) delegate to one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 7 May 2021.

Horopaki

Context

The Navigation Safety Bylaw and controls regulate activity on Auckland’s navigable waters

8. The Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2021 / Auckland Council Navigation Bylaw 2021 (Bylaw) and associated controls makes rules that seek to minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage within Auckland’s navigable waters.

9. The rules are administered by the Harbourmaster using a graduated approach to compliance. This includes the use of infringement fines as an alternative to prosecution.

10. The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the:

· Maritime Transport Act and Maritime Rules that impose national water safety rules

· Resource Management Act to protect the environment

· Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect marine mammals.

11. The Bylaw expires on 31 July 2021. Council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council proposed a new Bylaw and associated controls for public feedback

12. On 13 October 2020 the Governing Body approved a proposal to make a new Bylaw for public consultation (Item 11, GB/2020/117).

13. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw shown in the figure below.

14. The proposal regulates the use of Auckland’s navigable waters (for example by recreational vessels, kite boarders, swimmers, divers, ferries and cargo vessels) to help minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage.

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 16 November 2020 until 14 February 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 247 people.

Decisions leading to the proposal

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

16. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how a Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

17. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 7 May 2021.

18. The nature of the views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

19. A total of 11 people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal via online and email feedback. There was majority support for Proposals 2 to 8 and split support for Proposal 1, similar to the total support from all people who provided feedback.

Percentage support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Total support from local board area	Total support from people across Auckland
1: Increase the maximum speed limit on the Waitematā Harbour Zone to 18 knots (from 12 knots) to allow faster movement of vessels (including public transport vessels).	45 per cent (5/11 people)	39 per cent
2: Amend existing rules about carrying a means of communication on vessel, to carrying at least two independent forms of communication on a vessel	82 per cent (9/11 submitters)	70 per cent
3: Make new rules about novel craft (for example a motorised surfboard)	82 per cent (9/11 submitters)	85 per cent
4a: Make new rules for the Tamaki River Entrance	70 per cent (7/10 submitters)	69 per cent
4b: Make new rules for the Commercial Port Area	100 per cent (10/10 submitters)	75 per cent
5: Align rules about the use of Ōrākei Basin with current accepted practices	50 per cent (5/10 submitters)	71 per cent
6: Remove rules about licensing of commercial vessels for hire as it more appropriately addressed in separate legislation	78 per cent (7/9 submitters)	77 per cent
7: Remove rules about marine mammals as it more appropriately addressed in separate legislation	90 per cent (9/10 submitters)	76 per cent
8: Clarify existing rules (including about swimming, events and support vessels) to be more certain and update the format of the Bylaw to be easier to read and understand	89 per cent (8/9 submitters)	82 per cent

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

· ensures public safety, specifically by creating rules for novel craft

· create dangerous wake, therefore the speed should be retained at 12 knots or reduced

· creates clarity, reduces duplication, is more efficient, and is enforceable.

21. The full proposal can be viewed in the link to the 13 October 2020 Regulatory Committee agenda, page 23 (Attachments A to item 9). Attachments A to D of this report contain a summary of all public feedback, all public feedback related to the local board area, operational and non-bylaw-related feedback and draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on the public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 7 May 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The proposal impacts the operation of the Harbourmaster and other council teams involved in resource management, events and public transport (ferry operations). These teams are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal at a workshop in August and business meeting in September 2020 because the topic is considered to have high community interest.

26. All 21 local boards provided views, most in support of public consultation. A summary of local board views, staff responses and any changes made to the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 13 October 2020 Regulatory Committee agenda, page 173 (Attachment B to Item 9).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan’s key directions and aspirations by supporting safe recreational, cultural and economic activities on Auckland’s navigable waters.

29. The Bylaw regulates a number of activities undertaken by Māori for example, waka ama, other cultural or sporting events on the water and the operation of commercial vessels.

30. During the review, mana whenua and mataawaka indicated a preference to provide feedback on any proposed changes to the Bylaw through a public consultation process.

31. The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback support proposals two through to eight and have split support for proposal one. This is consistent with the overall percentage of public feedback in support.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no financial implications from this decision.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Bylaw Panel on 7 May 2021 will consider all formal local board views and public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision on any amendments to the Bylaw in July 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of public feedback (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in the Rodney Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Operational and non-bylaw-related feedback (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme

File No.: CP2021/03538

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the draft proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regional Fuel Tax scheme for Auckland, established in 2018, is a key funding source for investment in our transport network. The scheme is projected to generate $1.5 billion of revenue and enables over $4 billion of additional investment.

3. Decisions by central government to invest directly in Regional Fuel Tax projects and current reviews of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project indicative package and the draft Regional Land Transport Plan have necessitated a variation to the Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

4. There is no proposal to alter the level of the Regional Fuel Tax, the period for which the scheme runs, or the area covered by the tax.

5. Decisions around the overall investment programme for transport and the funding of this are made through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and Regional Land Transport Plan processes. The allocation of projects within the RLTP to the Regional Fuel Tax programme is a key step to support implementation.

6. The draft proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme (Attachment A to the agenda report) retains the 14 projects identified in the original programme but updates the specific initiatives within these projects along with cost and timing projections.

7. The draft proposal went out for public consultation alongside the draft Regional Land Transport Plan. Following consideration of feedback from local boards and from the general public, a final proposal will be endorsed by the Governing Body and sent to the relevant ministers for approval and enactment through Order in Council.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the report on proposed variations to the 2018 Regional Fuel Tax scheme

b) provide feedback on the proposed variation to the Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

Horopaki

Context

The creation of Auckland’s Regional Fuel Tax scheme

8. Work on an aligned strategic approach to transport in Auckland (ATAP) began in 2016. This work made clear that the level of investment needed was not achievable with the existing funding mechanisms.

9. A regional fuel tax (RFT) was proposed as a tool to achieve a higher level of investment for Auckland. With the leverage that this funding could drive from government subsidies and development contributions the RFT enabled $4 billion of investment that would not otherwise occur.

10. Without this investment a number of the positive outcomes of the programme would not be able to be achieved including improved road safety, increased availability and use of public transport, more active transport options, improved access to employment, and more growth and housing development.

11. An amendment to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) was passed in 2018 which provided for the introduction of regional fuel taxes by order in council.

12. Auckland Council consulted with Aucklanders on the introduction of an RFT as part of its 10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation in February/March 2018. Following this a detailed proposal for an RFT scheme was prepared, consulted on from 1-14 May 2018, and then approved for submission to the government.

13. The proposed scheme was approved by the government and became operative from 1 July 2018 (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Details of the existing scheme

14. Auckland’s RFT scheme collects 10 cents per litre (plus GST) and applies to sales of petrol and diesel by retailers within the boundaries of Auckland Council (excluding Aotea Great Barrier Island) from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2028.

15. Revenue from the scheme is projected to be $150 million per annum, a total of $1.5 billion across the ten years.

16. The original proposal also details

· the key objectives of the scheme

· the effects of the scheme (positive and negative),

· how it aligned with relevant strategic documents,

· why it should be a funding source (including other options considered),

· reasoning for the exclusion of Aotea Great Barrier Island; and

· the information and assumptions that support the forecast revenue calculations.

17. The programme funded 14 categories of expenditure referred to in the scheme as projects:

· bus priority improvements

· city centre bus infrastructure

· improving airport access

· Eastern Busway (formerly AMETI)

· Park and rides

· electric trains and stabling

· ferry network improvements (was downtown ferry redevelopment)

· road safety

· active transport

· Penlink

· Mill Road corridor

· road corridor improvements

· network capacity and performance improvements

· growth-related transport infrastructure.

Progress of the scheme to 31 December 2020

18. Since the RFT was introduced, $376 million of revenue has been received by Auckland Council. Auckland Transport has spent $346 million on designated projects, which was funded by $162 million of RFT, $135 million of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidies, and $49 million of development contributions.

19. The programme was always planned to ramp up over the 10 years, reflecting the need to complete projects that were already in train in 2018, and to gear up to a much higher level of delivery. Unspent funds at any stage in the programme are held in reserve. This reserve totalled $197 million as at 31 December 2020.

20. Key achievements of the scheme so far include:

· improving road safety through the introduction of lower speed limits on 600 Auckland roads to reduce harm and loss of life

· installing red-light running enforcement and CCTV cameras

· improving airport access through works on the Puhinui Station, with construction now underway on the new interchange

· improving the Downtown Ferry terminal with the completion of breakwater piling and Pontoon 5 and Landing Pontoon 2 now at the commissioning stage to increase capacity and customer experience.

Subsequent government funding announcements

21. Two key announcements by central government have reduced the requirement for Regional Fuel Tax funding for some of the projects included in the scheme.

22. On 29 January 2020 the government announced the New Zealand Upgrade Programme (NZUP). This programme included direct crown investment of $3.48 billion in transport infrastructure for Auckland.

23. The NZUP provided funding for two projects included in the RFT scheme. The Penlink project was allocated $411 million and the Mill Road project was allocated $1.354 billion, Following this the responsibility for the delivery of these two projects was transferred to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.

24. As part of its fiscal stimulus package to support the economy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic the government announced on 1 April 2020 a programme to fund “shovel ready” infrastructure projects.

25. Following applications by the Auckland Council Group, a number of projects were contracted to receive funding. Two of the successful projects constituted part of wider RFT projects.

26. Funding was received towards the Downtown Ferry Terminal which is a part of the ferry network improvements RFT project.

27. Funding was also received to support the Puhinui Bus/Rail Interchange project which forms a part of the Improving Airport Access RFT project.

28. Staff consider that this, along with the current reviews of ATAP and the draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) (summarised below), constitute a change to a material aspect of the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT as enacted in 2018.

ATAP update and draft RLTP preparation

29. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have been working with central government partners to update the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP). The development of an ATAP indicative package will inform and guide Auckland’s Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

30. Despite additional funding available to the programme through direct government investment, the ATAP budget is still highly constrained. This is the result of increased demands for transport investment in Auckland as well as updated costings and information around existing projects. Funding of the ATAP indicative package is reliant on the continuation of the RFT scheme.

31. Staff consider that this, along with the recent central Government funding decisions (summarised above), constitute a change to a material aspect of the capital projects programmes supported by the RFT as enacted in 2018.

32. Given these material changes, staff have prepared a formal proposal to vary the scheme, as required by the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) (section 65G(1)). This draft variation proposal formed the basis for public consultation, which is required under section 65H(c) of the LTMA.

33. Following consultation, the Governing Body will consider feedback (including that from local boards) and then submit the proposal (with any changes made) to the Ministers of Finance and Transport, who will then decide whether to accept it (LTMA, sections 65I and 65J). If the Ministers do accept the proposal, they will send it on to the Governor-General to enact through an Order in Council (LTMA, sections 65J and 65K).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed variation to the scheme

34. Given the changes discussed above (government funding and ATAP update), and the fact that local board views were captured for the original 2018 scheme, the council seeks local board views on the proposed variation.

35. The proposed variation of the scheme is led by the work on the updated ATAP indicative package and the draft RLTP.

36. It is not proposed that there is any change to:

· the rate of the RFT

· the period of the scheme

· the area subject to the scheme.

37. Despite the fact that the scheme does not run to the end of the new 10-year Budget it is not proposed that the council looks to extend the scheme. This is primarily because work continues on The Congestion Question project which is investigating different road pricing options that could replace the RFT in the future.

38. It is proposed that the scheme maintains the same 14 projects (with the special consideration of Penlink and Mill Road staying in the scheme without additional allocation of RFT due to a change in delivery and funding management) but that changes are made to:

· the descriptions of projects, identified initiatives within them, and projected benefits, to reflect any changes in scope

· the level of projected total expenditure and indicative RFT contribution to each project to reflect where new funding has become available or where project costings have been updated

· the timing of projects following decisions made through the development of the draft RLTP

· the naming of one project where it is proposed that Downtown Ferry Redevelopment is renamed Ferry Network Improvements to reflect the incorporation of initiatives to purchase new electric ferries to help decarbonise the public transport fleet.

39. It has been assessed that these changes constitute a change to a material aspect of the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT scheme and therefore the council must prepare a proposal to vary the scheme, pursuant to section 65G(1)(a) of the LTMA.

Consultation

40. Public consultation on the draft proposal to vary the RFT scheme is occurring alongside the Auckland Transport consultation on the draft RLTP.

41. This consultation takes place from 29 March to 2 May 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42. The proposal to vary the RFT scheme constitutes a change in an allocation of funding within the overall ATAP indicative package and RLTP. Transport projects funded include climate change optimisation, such as electric trains and stabling and promoting eco-friendly commuting initiatives like improving congestion through network capacity and performance improvements.

43. The impacts of the complete RLTP on the climate have been reported to the local board in another report on this agenda.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44. Council staff have worked with staff from Auckland Transport representatives in the development of the draft proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. Local board views will be captured through this report and reported to the Planning Committee prior to decision-making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. The proposal to vary the RFT scheme constitutes a change in an allocation of funding within the overall ATAP indicative package and RLTP. The impacts of the RLTP on Māori have been reported to the local board.

47. The RFT proposal has been incorporated in the RLTP consultation process, which includes extensive engagement with 19 mana whenua and mataawaka groups.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. The RFT scheme is projected to deliver around $1.5 billion of revenue over the 2018-2028 period. This constitutes as significant portion of the transport investment in Auckland.

49. Without an RFT, council would need to either:

i) utilise another of the currently available funding mechanisms (general rates or an Interim Transport Levy); or

ii) fund transport at the level of renewals and committed projects only.

50. The rating options would result in ratepayers facing significant increases (10-11 per cent) in addition to the general rates increase and paying according to their property value rather than based on use. To fund the transport budget at the level of renewals and committed projects only would have significant impacts on the growth and economy of Auckland.

Risks and mitigations

51. The key risk is a potential misalignment of the RFT scheme from the ATAP programme and the RLTP. This variation proposal looks to mitigate this risk by updating the scheme and the RLTP in tandem.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. Public consultation on the proposal takes place from 29 March to 2 May 2021.

53. The Planning Committee will receive public feedback and local board views on the proposal in May 2021.

54. The Planning Committee and Governing Body will consider the adoption of a proposal for submission to Government.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Proposal to Vary Regional Fuel Tax Scheme Project Details (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Proposal for a Regional Fuel Tax (2018) (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Michael Burns - Manager Financial Strategy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Draft Statement of Expectations for Council-controlled Organisations

File No.: CP2021/03544

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Statement of Expectations for council-controlled organisations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Section 64B in the Local Government Act 2002 allows for Council to issue a ‘Statement of Expectations’ to its Council-controlled Organisations. This is a new power inserted into the Act in late 2019.

3. The 2020 Council-controlled Organisations Review recommended that Council prepare a Statement of Expectations, to be part of the suite of accountability tools through which Auckland Council provides direction to its Council-controlled Organisations. A Statement of Expectations will provide guidance on how Council-controlled Organisations should undertake their business, as compared to the Accountability Policy contained in the Long-term Plan, which focusses on what Council-controlled Organisations must do. As it will not be part of the Long-term Plan and therefore not subject to the special consultative procedure, it will be easier to amend than the Accountability Policy, as it is refined over time.

4. Attached to this report is an initial draft of the Statement of Expectations. It is organised to reflect the wording of s64B of the Local Government Act, and is in three sections:

· conduct of relationships

· shareholder obligations with which Council-controlled Organisations must act consistently

· other expectations.

5. The Statement of Expectations contains a number of elements which previously were in the Accountability Policy. Therefore, there is some urgency for an initial Statement of Expectations to be confirmed around the same time as the Ten-year Budget/Long-term Plan so that those expectations on Council-controlled Organisations remain in place. Given this, the Statement of Expectations is intended to reflect existing and established practice. This is true of the material in relation to local boards, which re-states and reinforces the shared governance model of Auckland Council and Council-controlled Organisations obligations to local boards within that.

6. Staff recognise however, that the Council-controlled Organisations Review also contained a number of recommendations which are currently being worked on, which will affect how Council-controlled Organisations work within the governance system and with local boards. It is anticipated therefore that the Statement of Expectations is likely to be subject to a relatively early revision to take account of these changes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Statement of Expectations, prepared in accordance with s64B of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

7. In August 2020, the Governing Body received the report of the independent Council-controlled Organisations (CCO) Review. Among the 64 recommendations, the review panel recommended that Council use section 64B of Local Government Act 2002, which allows local authorities to issue a Statement of Expectations (SOE) to its CCOs. The provision states:

64B Statement of expectations

(1) The shareholders in a council-controlled organisation may prepare a statement of expectations that—

(a) specifies how the organisation is to conduct its relationships with—

(i) shareholding local authorities; and

(ii) the communities of those local authorities, including any specified stakeholders within those communities; and

(iii) iwi, hapū, and other Māori organisations; and

(b) requires the organisation to act consistently with—

(i) the statutory obligations of the shareholding local authorities; and

(ii) the shareholders’ obligations pursuant to agreements with third parties (including with iwi, hapū, or other Māori organisations).

(2) A statement of expectations may include other shareholder expectations, such as expectations in relation to community engagement and collaboration with shareholders and others in the delivery of services.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The Statement of Expectations was inserted into the Local Government Act 2002 in 2019 as section 64B. As a relatively new provision, there are few examples around New Zealand as to how it should be used, and how it relates to practices such as letters of expectation, which Council has used in the past to specify its expectations of CCOs. However, the focus of the legislative wording is clearly on behaviours and relationships, rather than the specific activities to be undertaken by CCOs, or the overall governance and accountability regime within which they operate.

9. It is also important to be clear about how such an SOE would fit within a wider accountability framework. The intention of this SOE is that it specifies how CCOs should undertake their business and relationships (with Council, communities and other stakeholders), while the Accountability Policy in the Long-term Plan focusses on what CCOs must do.

10. As part of the current Long-term Plan process, the Accountability Policy has been revised to exclude the behavioural aspects which previously were included there. These aspects have been included in the Statement of Expectations. It is important that these two accountability tools align and are approved concurrently.

11. The SOE is not intended to provide specific protocols of action for CCOs however, or to provide templates (for e.g., statements of intent templates). Material such as that are contained in the CCO Governance Manual, which itself will be revised following approval of the SOE.

12. As recommended by the CCO review panel, this version of the SOE has been modelled on a similar document in central government, the Treasury Owner’s Expectations Manual, which is designed for state owned enterprises and crown entities. Its content is intended largely to collate existing expectations and policies, rather than introduce new ones at this time. However, as different strategies and practices develop, it is expected that these may be added – or deleted – from the SOE.

13. Additionally, it is very likely that new ways of working will emerge as other recommendations from the CCO Review are implemented. For example, the local board services team is working with Auckland Transport on options for smaller projects to be promoted more easily. If this results in a protocol or agreement on how to achieve this, this might be a useful inclusion in a future version of the SOE.

14. The SOE itself is arranged to closely match the legislative provisions. There are three key sections, which relate to:

· conduct of relationships.

· shareholder obligations with which CCOs must act consistently

· other expectations.

15. The first section focusses on how CCOs should interact with Council, and what a CCO’s role is. It outlines expectations for how this should happen, and covers things such as good governance, maintaining a public service ethos and providing services efficiently. The SOE provides a significant early section which reinforces the shared governance model operated by Auckland Council, with a key point here being the need to treat local boards not as stakeholders but an equal partner in that governance system.

16. The second section deals with statutory obligations. This simply restates obligations which CCOs will already be well aware of. Consequently, it is relatively short. The second part of this section relates to third parties, and this will require more development before approval in late May, and in subsequent iterations.

17. The final section deals with issues of a more specific nature to Auckland Council. In particular, this will include some of the issues which have arisen in the last few years and during the CCO Review: executive remuneration, branding, and how to balance public good and commercial goals. We also anticipate this is where issues relating to our revised Maori Responsiveness Strategy (Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau) will be addressed and reinforced, to the degree they are not already dealt with in the Accountability Policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The key expectations of CCOs in respect of climate change are contained in the Accountability Policy (1.1.5) and not the Statement of Expectations. This reflects the complementary nature of the two documents, with the Accountability Policy focussing on what Council expects of CCOs.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Due to timing imperatives, CCO Boards will be asked to consider the draft at the same time as local board are considering the draft. CCO staff have already been consulted on early drafts, as stakeholders for this work.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. This report is to seek local board views on the Statement of Expectations.

21. The intention of this first iteration of the SOE is to reinforce the expectations entailed in the shared governance model of Auckland Council. In particular, this accords local boards with the critical role as representatives of local communities in the region.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The key expectations of CCOs in respect of Māori outcomes are contained in the Accountability Policy (1.1.1) and not the Statement of Expectations. This reflects the complementary nature of the two documents, with the Accountability Policy focussing on what Council expects of CCOs.

23. Nonetheless, as the Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau framework is refined and approved (expected in mid-year 2021), we anticipate that additional detail from that framework will be added to the SOE in this area, to reflect Council’s expectations of CCO engagement with Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The Statement of Expectations reflects existing expectations arising from the shared governance of Auckland Council and the arms’ length entity model represented by CCOs. It does not add new policy. It therefore has no financial implications at this time.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. The key risk is that the Statement of Expectations is not approved when it is considered by CCO Oversight Committee in June. Given that some expectations have been taken out of the Accountability Policy and placed in the Statement of Expectations, and that the two documents are intended to work in a complementary fashion, it is important that they are both signed off together.

26. This risk is being mitigated by seeking early feedback from local boards, CCO Boards, and in May holding a workshop with governing body elected members. This is intended to ensure that a robust draft of the SOE is available for approval in June 2021.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. At the same time as this report is being provided to local boards for feedback, we are continuing to develop the statement of expectations with other parts of the Council governance structure. CCOs have been given the opportunity to input to the version which has been provided to local boards. CCO Boards will be considering the SOE at their April meetings.

28. It is then intended that the SOE will be presented to the CCO Oversight Committee of Governing Body for final approval at its June meeting.

29. It is anticipated that the SOE may be revised again to take account of new expectations arising from implementation of the CCO Review.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Auckland Council Statement of Expectations of substantive Council-controlled organisations, July 2021	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Proposal to make a new Public Trading and Events Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/03196

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek support on the draft proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-rohe Tauhokohoko, Takunetanga, me ngā Whakaahua i ngā Wāhi Marea 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 before it is finalised for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on the proposal to make a new Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw, staff have prepared a draft proposal.

3. The draft proposal would continue to enable council to regulate trading activities, events and filming to minimise risks to public safety, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places.^{^[1]}

4. The main draft proposals are to:

· continue to regulate trading,^{^[2]} events and filming in a similar way to the current Bylaw

· set specific rules for rental micromobility devices

· identify filming in a separate category to events

· merge trading activities such as busking and pavement art under street performance

· update the Bylaw format, structure, definitions, the title, exemptions, approval conditions and other matters to make a new bylaw easier to understand and comply with.

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on the draft proposal.

6. There is a reputational risk that the draft proposal or the local board’s views do not reflect the views of people in their local board area. This risk would be partly mitigated by the opportunity for the local board to provide views on public feedback prior to a final decision.

7. The local board views will be provided to the Regulatory Committee in May 2021 to recommend a proposal to the Governing Body. Public consultation is scheduled for July, deliberations for October and a final Governing Body decision for November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) support the draft Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-rohe Tauhokohoko, Takunetanga, me ngā Whakaahua i ngā Wāhi Marea 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 for public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates trading, events and filming in council-controlled public places

8. Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-rohe Tauhokohoko, Takunetanga, me ngā Whakaahua i ngā Wāhi Marea 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 (Bylaw) seeks to minimise risks to public safety, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places caused by trading activities (including micromobility), events and filming.

9. The Bylaw:

· achieves this by requiring prior approval for most trading, event and filming activities and enabling council to make additional requirements in a separate control^{^[3]}

· is administered by several council departments and council-controlled organisations

· is enforced by the Licencing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information / education / enforcement)

· is one part of a wider regulatory framework of Acts, regulations and bylaws.^{^[4]}

· will expire on 26 February 2022, meaning council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

The Regulatory Committee decided to make a new bylaw

10. The Regulatory Committee requested staff commence the process to make a new bylaw:

11. Staff have prepared a draft proposal to implement the decision of the committee (Attachment A). The draft proposal presents the reasons and decisions which led to a new bylaw being proposed and provides a comparison between the current and proposed bylaws.

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposal

12. The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposal in Attachment A by resolution to the Regulatory Committee before it is finalised for public consultation.

13. For example, the board could support the draft proposal for public consultation, recommend changes or defer comment until after it has considered public feedback on the proposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft Proposal makes a new Public Trading and Events Bylaw

14. The draft proposal makes a new Public Trading and Events Bylaw to better minimise public safety risks, nuisance and misuse of council-controlled public places.

15. The table below summarises the main proposals in comparison to the current Bylaw:

Main proposals	Reasons for proposals
· continue to regulate trading activities, events and filming in a similar way to the current Bylaw	· to continue to regulate trading activities, events and filming in council-controlled public places by requiring an approval (licence or permit) · to continue to retain existing exemptions to holding an approval · to continue to set approval conditions and grant approvals with or without conditions when deciding an application.
· set more specific rules for rental micromobility devices	· to include specific rules for rental micromobility independently from mobile trading due to higher risk to public safety from power-assisted devices · to reflect conditions as set in codes of practice · to make a bylaw easier to understand and comply with.
· identify filming as a separate category to events	· to reflect the lower risk to public safety and nuisance as filming activities do not directly involve the public · to make a new bylaw easier to understand and comply with.
· merge some trading activities such as busking and pavement art under street performance	· to reflect how busking and pavement art are regulated in practise under the street performance approval · to make a new bylaw easier to understand and comply with.
· update the Bylaw format and structure, clarify definitions, title, exemptions, approval conditions and other matters	· to ensure and apply consistent approach to council regulation · to ensure more responsive structure and rules to help minimise risks to public safety, nuisance and misuse of council-controlled public places · to make a new bylaw easier to understand and comply with · to comply with the best practice bylaw drafting standards.

The draft proposal complies with statutory requirements

16. The draft new Bylaw has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements to:

· help minimise safety risks, nuisance and misuse of council-controlled public places

· use a format and wording that are easier to read, understand and comply with than the current Bylaw and meet bylaw drafting standards

· be authorised by statute, not repugnant to other legislation, or be unreasonable

· not give rise to any implications and not be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act

· not be inconsistent with the Reserves Act, Resource Management Act, Auckland Unitary Plan, Trespass Act, Fair Trading Act, Customer Guarantees Act, Road User Rule, Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, Electricity (Safety) Regulations, Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and Signage Bylaw.

Staff recommend the local board consider providing its views on the draft proposal

17. Staff recommend that the local board consider the draft proposal and whether it wishes to provide its views by resolution to the Regulatory Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The draft proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, Events in Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships Unit, Alcohol Licencing and Environmental Health Unit, Auckland Unlimited (previously known as Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development), Screen Auckland and Auckland Transport.

20. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the draft proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The draft new Bylaw impacts on local governance as it regulates trading, events and filming activities in council-controlled public places, for example, in local parks.

22. Representative local board views were provided in February 2021 through a joint working party established by the Regulatory Committee.^{^[5]} The main views of group members were unanimous support for a new bylaw and suggestions on the detailed content.^{^[6]}

23. These views were considered by the Regulatory Committee on 16 February 2021 (REG/2021/4). The committee directed staff to draft a new Bylaw. Suggestions on the detailed content are included in the draft new Bylaw.

24. The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposal by resolution to the Regulatory Committee.

25. The local board will have further opportunity to provide its views to a Bylaw Panel on any public feedback to the Proposal from people in their local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. The Bylaw supports the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by facilitating opportunities for Māori business owners such as those participating in major or international events to promote distinctive identity, build exposure and establish valuable networks.

27. Feedback from mana whenua and some Māori license and permit holders highlighted a particular interest and concern for environmental impacts such as ineffective waste management at events and the limited level of enforcement.

28. The draft proposal continues to address waste management at events by requiring compliance with a waste plan in a way that is easier to understand. Other concerns for better enforcement relate to implementation rather than the making of a new bylaw and have been forwarded to relevant staff.

29. Staff will proactively engage with mana whenua and mataawaka during the public consultative process to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decisions to support the draft proposal for public consultation. The Governing Body will consider any financial implications associated with public notification at a later date.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The views of the local board on the draft Proposal may differ from the views of people in the community.	There may be negative attention to council regarding the Bylaw.	The local board will have an opportunity to consider any public feedback and provide its formal views to a Bylaw Panel prior to the final decision being made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Staff will present a proposal and any local board views to the Regulatory Committee on 11 May 2021. The next steps are shown in the diagram below:

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Statement of Proposal (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Sam Bunge - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Statement of proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw and controls

File No.: CP2021/02952

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek support on the draft statement of proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls before it is approved for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its view on the statement of proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and controls, staff have prepared a draft proposal.

3. The draft proposal would continue to enable council to regulate the keeping of animals in order to minimise risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places caused by people interacting with animals.

4. The main draft proposed changes are to:

· require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban properties with an area less than 2000 square metres (no approval currently required)

· incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property

· improve the definitions of ‘nuisance’ and ‘public place’

· update the format and wording of the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and controls to make them easier to read and understand.

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its view on the draft proposal.

6. There is a reputational risk that the draft proposal or the local board’s views do not reflect the view of people in the local board area. This risk would be partly mitigated by the opportunity for the local board to provide views on public feedback prior to a final decision.

7. The local board views will be provided to the Regulatory Committee in May to recommend a statement of proposal to the Governing Body. Public consultation is scheduled for July, deliberations in November and a final Governing Body decision in December 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Local Board:

a) support the draft statement of proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls for public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

The Animal Management Bylaw enables council to regulate the keeping of animals

8. The Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) and associated controls (controls) seeks to minimise animal-related risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places.

9. The Bylaw and controls achieve this by specifying rules about animal ownership and interaction and by limiting ownership of specific animals in urban areas.

10. The rules are administered by councils Regulatory Compliance team using a graduated approach to compliance.

11. The Bylaw and controls are one part of a wider regulatory framework. For example, the Animal Products Act 1999 and Animal Welfare Act 1999 for animal welfare, Resource Management Act 1991 and Biosecurity Act 1993 to protect the environment and Dog Control Act 1996 for dog management.

The Regulatory Committee have decided to amend the Bylaw and controls

12. The Regulatory Committee decided to commence the process to amend the Bylaw as follows:

17 March 2020

(REG/2020/17)

Regulatory Committee endorsed the statutory bylaw review findings that:

· a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific animal issues in relation to people, for example limiting the number of poultry in urban residential areas minimises noise and odour nuisance to neighbours

· the current Bylaw approach is appropriate, but the content, structure and wording could be improved

· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

17 November 2020

(REG/2020/78)

Regulatory Committee instructed staff to draft an amended Bylaw (Option two) after considering four options:

· Option one: status quo – confirm (retain) current Bylaw

· Option two: amend the current Bylaw – improve the status quo

· Option three: replace the current Bylaw – new bylaw about animals

· Option four: revoke Bylaw – no bylaw and instead rely on other existing methods.

13. Staff have prepared a draft statement of proposal (draft proposal) to implement the decision of the Regulatory Committee by amending the Bylaw and controls (Attachment A to the agenda report).

14. The draft proposal includes the reasons and decisions leading to the proposed amendments and a comparison between the existing and amended bylaws and controls.

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposal

15. The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposal in Attachment A by resolution to the Regulatory Committee before it is finalised for public consultation.

16. For example, the board could support the draft proposal for public consultation, recommend changes, or defer comment until after it has considered public feedback on the proposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft proposal makes improvements to the current bylaw and controls

17. The draft proposal seeks to improve the current Bylaw and controls to minimise risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places. The table below summarises the main draft proposals in comparison to the current Bylaw.

Draft proposals	Reasons for draft proposal
Require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban properties with an area less than 2000 square metres (no approval currently required)	· to minimise bee-related nuisance in areas with growing population density while still allowing for the keeping of bees in urban areas.
Incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property	· to streamline rules about animals into a single bylaw, as existing rules about the feeding of wild and feral animals on private property are currently included in the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 · moving this clause to the Bylaw was suggested in the review findings to the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw (REG/2020/50).
Improve definitions of ‘nuisance’ and ‘public place’	· to align with the definitions in the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 to improve consistency across council bylaws.
Update the Bylaw format and structure	· to align with best practice for bylaw drafting and make the Bylaw easier to read and understand.

18. Limits on the number of beehives and stock would continue to only apply to urban areas as defined within the Auckland Unitary Plan, for example:

· Aotea/Great Barrier has no urban areas and is not subject to these limits

· rural townships such as Helensville and Clevedon are urban areas.

The draft proposal complies with statutory requirements

19. The draft proposal has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements. The amended Bylaw and controls:

· help minimise risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places

· use a format and words that are easier to read and understand

· are authorised by statute, not repugnant to other legislation and not unreasonable

· do not give rise to any implications and are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Staff recommend the local board consider providing its views on the draft proposal

20. Staff recommend that the local board consider the draft proposal and whether it wishes to provide its views by resolution to the Regulatory Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The draft proposal impacts councils Regulatory Compliance team, who implement the Bylaw. The unit is aware of the impacts of the draft proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. The Bylaw is important to local boards as it is an area of high community interest. They also have the delegated authority to make conditions about horse riding in public places.

24. Local board views on the review were provided in September 2019 (see Attachment B to the agenda report). The main view of local board members during the review was to improve the Bylaw’s clarity, minimise the misuse of council-controlled public places and to address animal-specific controls. The Regulatory Committee as part of its decisions on options on 17 November 2020 (REG/2020/78) directed staff to address some but not all views provided (see Attachment C to the agenda report).

25. The local board has an opportunity in this report to provide its views on the draft proposal by resolution to the Regulatory Committee.

26. The local board will also have further opportunity to provide its to a Bylaw Panel on any public feedback to the proposal from people in the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The Bylaw has significance for Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku.

28. Staff discussed the Bylaw with mana whenua at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua hui in April 2019. The main view of mana whenua was to improve the clarity and how it relates to Māori and papakāinga. The draft proposal addresses this by clarifying that limits on the ownership of animals in urban areas do not apply to papakāinga within the Māori Purpose Zone of the Auckland Council Unitary Plan.

29. Mana whenua and mataawaka will also have opportunity to provide further feedback during the public consultative process on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The following risk has been identified

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The draft proposal or the local board’s views do not reflect the view of people in the local board area	there may be negative attention to council regarding the Bylaw.	The local board will have an opportunity to consider any public feedback and provide its formal views to a Bylaw Panel prior to the final decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Staff will present a proposal and any local board views to the Regulatory Committee on 11 May 2021. The next steps are shown in the diagram below.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Attachment A - Statement of Proposal (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Attachment B - Previous Local Board Views	95
c ⇩	Attachment C - Regulatory Committee Decisions on Bylaw Improvements	101

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Breanna Hawthorne - Policy Analyst

Saralee Gore - Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Rodney Transitional Rates Grants

File No.: CP2021/01412

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To advise the Rodney Local Board that the transitional rates grants are ending on 30 June 2021 and to present options to the local board on the transitional rates grants allocated to groups in the Rodney Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Overview of transitional rates grants

2. At the end of the 2017/2018 financial year the council removed the legacy rates remission schemes carried over from the legacy councils. These schemes provided community and sporting groups in some parts of Auckland with property rates relief. In the 2019/2020 financial year community groups located on maunga were also added to the transitional rates grant scheme.

3. To minimise the impact on the recipients of these schemes, the Governing Body provided transitional rates grants for three years, from the 2018/2019 financial year 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 the 2017/2018 financial year 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 local 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. An amount of $93,117 was paid to thirty-one organisations in the Rodney Local Board area in the 2020/2021 financial year. Details of the current grants and recipients are in Attachment A to the report.

5. 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 or;

· establish a grants programme to enable high value rates grants to continue for more than one year.

6. Rodney Local Board has one “low value grant” of $360 which pays five per cent of the total property rates. Removal of this grant is unlikely to have a significant impact on the recipient. The remaining 30 “high value grants” provide a more material level of support to local community organisations, and the impact of their removal is unclear.

7. If the local board wishes to continue to support existing beneficiaries:

· the grants team has agreed that the high value grants can continue on a transitional basis for one further year. If the local board wishes to continue these grants beyond the 2021/2022 financial year, they will need to establish a formal grants programme

· they should retain the budget for these grants in the Asset Based Services 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) agree to continue the high value transitional rates grants for the 2021/2022 financial year during which 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

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

c) agree in principle that the high value grants will be continued in its current form for the financial year 2021/2022 and if the board decides to continue rates grants beyond the 2021/2022 financial year a formal grants programme will be established

d) note that transitional rages grants are ending 30 June 21021 and that a local board resolution is required if these are to continue for one or more years

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

Horopaki

Context

8. Transitional rates grants replaced rates remission schemes (Attachment B) for community organisations that were inherited from Franklin District Council (FDC), North Shore City Council (NSC), Rodney District Council (RDC) and Auckland Regional Council (ARC). 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.

9. In 2019, five community groups located on Auckland’s maunga (in Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki) were included in the transitional rates scheme. Prior to the crown settlement of the maunga these organisations did not pay rates under a council community lease. The transfer of the maunga to the Maunga Authority (the Authority) resulted in the Authority becoming liable for rates. As a consequence, these organisations are now required to pay rates under their new lease agreements.

10. The removal of legacy rates remissions and options for transition were consulted on alongside the 10-year Budget 2018-28. Following consideration of feedback (Attachment C) 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 the 2020/2021 financial year, 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 Rodney Local Board holds 31 transitional rates grants. Thirty of these grants are made under the criteria of the Rodney District Council scheme, with the remaining grant under the Auckland Regional Council scheme. The grants range from $363 to $30,600 and pay between five and 100 per cent of the rates for the qualifying property. Details of Rodney Local Board 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 after adoption of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 that the grants were limited to a three year period. 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 for 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 and to generate rates credits for low value grants. 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 regional grants programmes.

Option two: to enable high value rates grants to continue on a temporary or permanent basis.

17. Under both options the local board retains the budget under Asset Based Services operational (opex) budget. The funds cannot be reallocated to the LDI opex budget due to Local Board Funding Policy limitations but can be used to top-up LDI opex work programmes.

18. The Rodney Local Board does not have a grant programme. If the board decides to retain the transitional rates grant in some form the local board can do this on a transitional basis for one further year outside of formal grant programme. The local board wishes to continue it ssupport for more than a year, a grant programme will have to be established

Managing the impact on recipients

19. The low value Rodney grant of $363 is related to the former Auckland Regional Council scheme and pays five per cent of the property rates. This grant provides limited support, and its ending is unlikely to have a significant impact on the recipient.

20. The remaining 30 grants are above $500 and pay between 22 and 100 per cent of the property rates. These grants may provide a significant level of support to the recipient organisations. To minimise impacts on the recipients, the local board can consider whether it is appropriate to continue to offer rates assistance.

21. The impact of option one on recipients is unclear. Option two minimises any impact on current recipients by retaining the grants for a further period of time. Retaining the high value grants on a transitional basis also provides the local board with additional time to consider the future of the grants.

Administration cost

22. Option one has no associated administration cost.

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

Conclusion

24. Administration costs are nil for option one but the impact on recipients of higher value grants is uncertain as the current recipients may be limited in their ability to pay their rates in full. Option two mitigates the impact on recipients of higher value grants while grants continue to be offered. This option can be undertaken within current council resourcing if the grants are simplified as proposed above.

25. It is the local board’s decision whether to continue to offer high value rates grants. If the local board wishes to continue to support recipients, in the absence of a local grants programme, this can be done on a transitional basis for one further year. A local grant programme will need to be established if the local board wishes to continue its support beyond the 2021/2022 financial year.

Local board budgets

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

27. 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.

28. If transitional rates grants are removed, the associated funding is available to the local board for reallocation. While these funds will remain within the ABS budget, they can be used to support work programme projects and initiatives without impacting on LDI budget allocations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. The effects of climate change were not a consideration when the existing transitional rates grants established. Integrating the transitional rates grants into the local boards 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

30. 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 preparation of this advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. 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

32. 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

33. The financial implications are set out in the report. The Rodney Local Board has $93,000 in transitional rates grants budget that it can reallocate. Thirty of the 31 grants held by the local board provide a significantly level of support to the recipients. The local board can opt to continue the high value grants to minimise impacts to recipients.

34. If the local board decided not to continue the grants it can reallocate the budget through the work programme process.

35. The budget will continue to be held as Community Services ABS operating expenditure and the use of these funds will be included in the equity-based funding allocation being considered by the Governance Framework Review.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. 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

37. If the local board chooses to retain some or all of its grants then it will need to amend its grant programme criteria to include rates grants. This can be completed in April and May 2021 as part of the annual review of local boards grant programmes

38. 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.

39. 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 ⇩	Transitional Rates Grants Recipients with Subdivision	109
b ⇩	Legacy Rates Remission Schemes	113
c ⇩	Local Transitional Rates Grants Rodney	125

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Jestine Joseph - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for November 2020 to February 2021

File No.: CP2021/03644

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Rodney Local Board with an integrated Auckland Council Performance Report for November 2020 to February 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the local board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2020/2021 work programme.

3. The key activity updates from this period are:

· the Huapai Hub Activation Co-ordinator was appointed and started in December 2020, and organised a successful Christmas concert

· concept planning commenced for the Shelly Beach Reserve play space in collaboration with Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara

· physical works got underway in Helensville and Warkworth as part of the town centre revitalisation projects

· refurbishment of the toilet block at Algies Bay Reserve was completed in February 2021.

· approval to initiate a master plan for Wellsford Centennial Park in February 2021

· twenty-two applications were received for the Rodney Healthy Harbours and Waterways Fund, enabling a full subscription of the funds for this financial year

· A coordinator for the Forestry Ambassadors Programme was appointed and engagement with forestry block landowners commenced

· ongoing volunteer restoration work, including weed and animal pest control and rubbish clean-ups continued at key sites acrossthe Rodney Local Board area. The combined volunteer time of 1,335 hours was recorded for November 2020 to January 2021.

4. All operating departments with agreed work progammes have provided an update against their work programme delivery. This is provided in Attachment A. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged). There are no activities with a red status

5. The financial performance report compared to budget 2020/2021 is provided as Attachment B to the agenda report. There are some points for the local board to note. Overall, the net operational financial performance of the local board is tracking below the revised year to date budget (90 percent). Revenue is above budget for the year to date and is likely to be above the target for the full financial year.

6. From the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year, although some projects may require funding to be carried forward to 2021/2022 to ensure completion.

7. Capital projects completed or underway include Ti Point Wharf investigation and renewal, development of community space at Huapai Service Centre Riverbank, Town Centre Re-vitalisation planning at Helensville, remediation of the wharf pontoon and boardwalk at Warkworth Town Centre, refurbishment of Leigh Hall interior, and renewal of minor assets at Sunburst Reserve and Tamatea Esplanade.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for November 2020 to February 2021.

b) approve the reallocation of $20,000 from the Greenways Prioritisation and implementation project (ID 1823) to the Parks Ecological and Environmental Programme (ID 52), which is a transfer of funding within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational work programme

c) approve the allocation of $2,000 from the Film Revenue Income to be split evenly between the volunteer libraries in Point Wells and Leigh (ID 1883) within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational work programme.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Rodney Local Board has an approved 2020/2021 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events

· Parks, Sport and Recreation

· Libraries and Information

· Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew

· Community Leases

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services.

9. Since the work programmes were approved the Customer and Communities Services directorate has been formed. Two new departments were created - Connected Communities and Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships, and the Southern Initiative and Western Initiative moved into the directorate as a new department - Community and Social Innovation. Units from the previous departments Arts, Community and Events; Libraries and Information; and Service, Strategy and Integration were incorporated into the three new departments. The table below shows the distribution

Table 1: Changes to Departments in Customer and Communities Services directorate

Previous Department - Unit	Current Department - Unit
Arts, Community and Events - Community Places	Connected Communities – Community Places
Arts, Community and Events - Community Empowerment	Connected Communities – Community Empowerment
Arts, Community and Events - Community Empowerment (Youth)	Community and Social Innovation – Youth Empowerment
Arts, Community and Events - Arts & Culture	Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships – Arts & Culture
Arts, Community and Events - Events	Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships – Events
Service, Strategy and Integration	Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships – Service and Asset Planning
Libraries	Connected Communities – Libraries
The Southern Initiative	Community and Social Innovation – The Southern Initiative
The Western Initiative	Community and Social Innovation – The Western Initiative

10. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph. [standard paragraph]

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

11. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), and activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

12. The graph below shows the activity status of activities which shows the stage of the activity in each departments the work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates

13. Activities to note include:

· Strong and resilient communities Rodney (ID 1015 / page 2 of Attachment A) – the Huapai Hub Activation Co-ordinator started in December 2020 and organised a successful Christmas concert

· Shelly Beach Reserve – renew play spaces (ID 2744 / page 9 of Attachment A) – concept planning has commenced in collaboration with Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara

· Rodney Town Centre Revitalisation (Warkworth ID 3229) and Helensville (ID 3228) – physical works are underway in both town centres, and civic events will be planned on the completion of the works.

· Algies Bay Reserve – refurbish toilet block (ID 3582 / page 17 of Attachment A) – refurbishment of the toilet block was completed in February 2021

· Wellsford Centennial Park Masterplan (ID 1641 / page 20 of Attachment A) – the local board approved initiation of a master plan for Wellsford Centennial Park at its February 2021 business meeting

· Rodney Healthy Harbours and Waterways Fund (ID 1607 / page 23 of Attachment A) – A strong response to the fund was observed, with twenty-two applications received, enabling a full subscription of the fund for this financial year. A memo outlining the approved applications is due to the local board

· A coordinator for the Forestry Ambassadors Programme was appointed and engagement with forestry block landowners commenced

· Ecological volunteers and environmental programme (ID 52 / page 29 of Attachment A) – ongoing volunteer restoration work, including weed and animal pest control and rubbish clean-ups continued at key sites in the Rodney Local Board area, with combined volunteer time of 1,335 hours recorded for November 2020 to January 2021.

14. Activities with significant issues There are no activities with identified significant issues (red RAG status activities), however a number of events were impacted due to COVID-19 either directly, due to the level 3 lockdown in February, or due to perceived risk of cancellation. This included a civic event organised at Point Wells which was impacted by the February lockdown. This event is now being re-scheduled.

Activities on hold

15. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

· Warkworth Library – report on structural development options (ID 3108) – this project is on hold while a memorandum is being prepared and the local board makes a decision for the report requirements for Warkworth Town Centre.

Changes to the local board work programme

Activities with changes

16. The following work programmes activities have been amended to reflect minor budget change, the implications of which are reported in the table below. The local board was informed of these minor changes and agreed the changes could be made by staff under delegation.

Table 3: Minor change to the local board work programmes

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Change	Reason for change	Budget Implications
2745	Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew	Rodney - review and renew cardax system in community places	Budget Increase of $12,462	The tender price for emergency lights and exits at Kaukapakapa Hall came back higher than expected but are required to meet consent requirements.	No impact to the 2020/2021 approved work programme due to local renewal cost efficiencies saved. These savings are able to be reallocated to fund the budget shortfall of $12,462.
3582	Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew	Algies Bay Reserve - refurbish toilet block	Budget Increase of $15,000	Replacement of the urinal in the men's toilet will be required which has increased the projects budget requirements.	No impact to the 2020/2021 approved work programme due to local renewal cost efficiencies saved. These savings are able to be reallocated to fund the budget shortfall of $15,000.
TBC	Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew	Rodney – renew park structures 2017/2018	Budget Increase of $5,500	Due to receiving the final invoice for the furniture renewal work at the Puhoi Domain in FY20/21 the final payment must be funded within the FY20/21 local renewal budget.	No impact to the 2020/2021 approved work programme due to local renewal cost efficiencies saved. These savings are able to be reallocated to fund the budget shortfall of $5,500.
TBC	Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew	WSF – Rodney – Warkworth Showgrounds wastewater	Budget Increase $3,330	The last piece of work required to complete this project is replacing a zone of the dripper irrigation soakage area before final handover to Small Waters. Local renewals is sought to fund this final component.	No impact to the 2020/2021 approved work programme due to local renewal cost efficiencies saved. These savings are able to be reallocated to fund the budget shortfall of $3,330.
	Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew	Sandspit Reserve – renew playspace	Budget Increase $9,250	$3,500 was approved in 2020/2021 to complete the ground surveying work of the playspace area. The variation amount of $9,250 proposed is to enable delivery of the preliminary design and consultation process. Further funding is proposed next financial year to deliver the detailed design and consenting process.	No impact to the 2020/2021 approved work programme due to local renewal cost efficiencies saved. These savings are able to be reallocated to fund the budget shortfall of $9,250.

17. The following table details requests for funding allocations or reallocations that require formal approval from the local board.

Table 3: Work programme changes that require formal approval by the local board

ID/Ref

Work Programme Name

Activity Name

Summary of Change

Budget Implications

1823

Parks, Sport and Recreation: park services

Greenways prioritisation and implementation

The allocated funding of $20,000 is not required to progress the greenways prioritisation work, which is being progressed using staff time. It is proposed that the funding be reallocated to the ecological volunteers and environmental programme (ID 52) which also sits within the parks services department. This reallocation would enable expansion of work, with $12,000 allocated towards planting preparation for several new proposed school planting sites (Kaukapakapa Library and Hall reserve, Kumeu River Reserve, Matheson Bay Reserve, Wellsford Centennial Park, Murray Jones Reserve, and Rautawhiri Park), and $8,000 towards weed tree controls to support community restoration projects, especially where activities fall outside of volunteer capabilities and are safer with qualified contractors

This reallocation of funding would have no impact on the wider work programme as it is an equal transfer of funding within the Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) work programme.

The local board approved funding of $246,000 towards the ecological volunteers and environmental programme in 2020/2021; this transfer of $20,000 would bring the total funding allocated to this project line to $266,000.

N/A

Parks, Sport and Recreation: park services

Local board film income

The Rodney Local Board received film income of $6,247 during the 2020-2021 financial year. This income is received during the year and is therefore not allocated when the local board approves its work programme at the start of the year. It is proposed that $2,000 of this film income is allocated to provide additional support to the volunteer libraries in Point Wells and Leigh (ID 1883) to provide an additional local board funding of $1,000 to each of these two libraries.

This allocation of funding would have no impact on the wider work programme as it is an allocation of a portion of income the local board has received during the year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

19. Work programmes were approved in August 2020 and delivery is underway. Any changes to the timing of approved projects are unlikely to result in changes to emissions.

20. The reallocation of funding from the greenways prioritisation and implementation project (ID 1823) to the ecological volunteers and environmental programme (ID 52) is not expected to negatively impact climate change. It is likely to increase the environmental benefits of the programme due to the expansion and nature of the work.

21. The allocation of funding from the film revenue to the volunteer libraries in Leigh and Point Wells is not expected to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the boards. As this is an information only report there are no further impacts identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance for November 2020 to February 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. Where aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on activities of importance to Māori then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

25. The Arts, Communities and Events (ACE) team is leading a programme of work that aims to engage local iwi to identify, scope and deliver projects that will support iwi to realise their aspirations in the Rodney Local Board area. Delays have occurred due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussions are about to recommence with Ngati Manuhiri.

26. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management have integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga, and there is focus on incorporating this in our work programme, for example Te Uri O Hau Settlement Trust are involved in growing many of the plants for the Rodney Healthy Harbours and Waterways Fund.

27. The Community Facilities work programme ensures that all facilities and open space assets continue to be well-maintained to benefit the local community, including Māori. When developing and delivering work programmes consideration is given to how the activities can contribute to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. This report is provided to enable the Rodney Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the Rodney Local Board 2020/2021 work programmes. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

29. The overall operating result for the first eight months of the year is one per cent below the budget due to higher revenue and lower expenditure. Revenue is above budget by nine per cent while expenditure is two percent below budget overall. Asset based services expenditure has continued with some disruptions caused by COVID-19 restrictions. In Locally Driven Initiatives expenditure is below budget by 21 per cent. Capital expenditure delivery is below the budget by 40 per cent and mainly focused on local asset renewals.

Financial comments

30. Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) is under budget by $446,000 for the year to date, while the LDI operational projects are currently $696,000 below budget. This is due to a variety of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations as well as some projects slightly behind schedule.

31. Capital spend of $1.4 million represents investment in Ti Point Wharf investigation and renewal, development of community space at Huapai Service Centre Riverbank, Town Centre Revitalisation planning at Helensville, refurbishment of Leigh Hall interior, remediation of the wharf pontoon and boardwalk at Warkworth Town Centre, and renewal of minor assets at Sunburst Reserve and Tamatea Esplanade.

32. The complete Rodney Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

34. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The local board will receive the next performance update for March 2021 to June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Financial report	139
b ⇩	Work programme update	173

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Anwen Robinson – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 April 2021

Addition and amendment to the 2021-2022 Rodney Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2021/02861

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the addition of a meeting date to the 2021-2022 Rodney Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate 10-year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes and to amend the the location of the 21 July 2021 meeting from the Warkworth Town Hall to the Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae Māori Cultural Centre.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Rodney Local Board adopted the 2021 and 2022 meeting schedule on 9 December 2020 (RD/2020/184).

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to 10-year Budget 2021-2031 were unknown.

4. The local board is being asked to approve a meeting date as an addition to the 2021-2022 local board meeting schedule so that the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes can be met.

5. The local board is also being asked to approve the amended meeting venue for the 21 July meeting from the Warkworth Town Hall to the Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae Māori Cultural Centre.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the addition of a meeting date to the 2021 and 2022 Rodney Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate 10-year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes for Wednesday 5 May 2020, 1.30pm, at the Orewa Service Centre, 50 Centreway Road, Orewa

b) approve the amended meeting venue for the 21 July meeting from the Warkworth
Town Hall to the Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae Māori Cultural Centre.

Horopaki

Context

Meeting schedule

6. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

7. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

8. The Rodney Local Board adopted its 2021 and 2022 business meeting schedule at its 9 December 2020 meeting.

9. The timeframes for local board decision-making in relation to the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

10. The board is being asked to make decisions in early-May to approve the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 consultation feedback and input process. These timeframes are outside the local board’s normal meeting cycle.

Change of venue

11. The Rodney Local Board received a deputation from the Te Hana Charitable Trust on 19 February 2020, during which an invite was extended to the Rodney Local Board to hold future business meetings at the venue.

12. The Rodney Local Board, in collaboration with the Te Hana Charitable Trust, held a successful Have Your Say Event on the 10-year Budget consultation at the Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae Māori Cultural Centre on 16 March 2021. Feedback from members who attended the event was very positive, with strong interest expressed towards holding future business meetings at the venue.

13. Relocation of the business meeting in July from the Warkworth Town Hall to Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae Māori Cultural Centre also aligns with the local board’s desire to strengthen its relationships with Māori, and its commitment to holding meetings in and across the Rodney Local Board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule an additional meeting to the meeting schedule and to amend the 21 July meeting venue.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. The relocation of the local board’s July business meeting aligns with the local board’s desire to forge stronger connections and grow its relationship with Māori.

18. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from the additional meeting requested in May.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. If the local board decides not to add this business meeting to their schedule this will cause a delay to the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process, which would result in the input of this local board not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration and inclusion in the Budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

[1] For example, local parks, reserves, civic spaces, footpaths and roads.

[2] Markets and stalls, mobile shops, outdoor dining, fundraising, hire of recreational equipment, distribution of promotional goods and materials, street performance (including busking and pavement art), micromobility and outdoor display of goods.

[3] Trading and Events in Public Places Guidelines 2015, Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017 and Auckland Film Protocol.

[5] Local board representatives were Troy Churton (Ōrākei Local Board) and Sandra Coney (Waitākere Ranges Local Board)

[6] Include reference to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, Reserves Act, requirements for landowner approvals, rules around the use of drones; consider the effects of activities on the environment and its wildlife, a more explicit definition of an event and exemptions for whānau gatherings or children to sell ice-cream or lemonade in front of their houses.

Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Deputy Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Members	Brent Bailey
	Steve Garner
	Danielle Hancock
	Tim Holdgate
	Louise Johnston
	Vicki Kenny
	Colin Smith

Author	Justin Kary – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager