Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of the Whau Local Board

Whau Local Board

05 May 2021

Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

File No.: CP2021/03524

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To summarise consultation feedback from the Whau Local Board area on:

· proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Whau Local Board Agreement 2021/2022

· regional topics for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

2. To recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that it will need to consider or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process.

3. To seek input on the proposed regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Local board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives for each local board area. Local board agreements for 2021/2022 will be included in the Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.This included consultation on the Whau Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022, and advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 to be included in its local board agreement.

6. Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the region and 592 submissions from the Whau local board area.

7. In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· any local board advocacy initiatives.

The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year Budget decision-making process in May/June 2021.

8. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Whau Local Board priorities and activities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

b) receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 from people and organisations based in the Whau Local Board area.

c) approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement

d) provide input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

9. Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the Whau Local Board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects priorities in the Whau Local Board Plan 2020 through local activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives.

10. The local board agreements 2021/2022 will form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, as well as local board priorities and proposed advocacy initiatives to be included in the local board agreement 2021/2022.

12. Due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, significant pressure has been placed upon the council’s financial position. This has created significant flow on effects for the council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, in particular in the first three years.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Consultation feedback overview

14. As part of the public consultation Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.

15. In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

· in person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars), one of which was held in the Whau Local Board area, alongside one informal engagement event. Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform).

· telephone interviews – two people made submissions via our telephone interview option.

· social media – 78 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media channels.

16. All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback submissions for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031” and will be accessible from 3 May 2021 through the following link: akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/submissions-budget-2021-2031.

Information on submitters

17. Auckland Council received written feedback from 592 people who identified as being residents of the Whau Local Board area during the consultation period. The majority of this feedback was received via the online form.

18. 60 submissions were received from people in the Whau which have been classified as pro forma as they gave identical responses in respect of Question 1 (the proposed investment package) which referenced the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance. Their responses on other questions varied somewhat, though there was an overall theme of opposition to any additional council spending.

19. 13 people provided feedback at a community event in Archibald Park, Kelston on 27 February where informal feedback was received. Feedback was generally supportive of the local priorities, with particular support for progressing open space planning and park development.

20. Five people attended a formal Have Your Say event held at Bay Olympic Football Club, New Lynn, on 9 March, where members of the public could provide their comments directly to elected members. The key themes included:

· Transport – including support for enhanced public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure, and in particular concern about parking (or lack of parking) in and around New Lynn

· Concern that council is not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions or mitigate against the impacts of climate change

· Concern that council is not providing sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of rapid growth in the Whau.

21. Graphs 1.1 and 1.2 below indicate the demographic categories with which people identified. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

Graph 1.1 – demographic breakdown of submitters from the Whau Local Board area by age and gender

22. Relative to the regional demographic data provided, submitters from the Whau Local Board area were somewhat younger than the regional average, where 36 per cent of submitters were aged 35 to 54, compared to 43 per cent in the Whau.

Graph 1.2 – demographic breakdown of submitters from the Whau Local Board area by ethnicity

23. Relative to the regional demographic data provided, submitters from the Whau Local Board area included a significantly higher proportion of Pacific people (22 per cent) and a relatively lower proportion of European people than Auckland as a whole (where 10 per cent identified as Pacific and 66 per cent as European).

24. While proportion responses from Asian submitters in the Whau (21 per cent) was consistent with the regional average this is a relatively low rate of response when compared to the very high number of Asian people (around 40 per cent of the total population) who reside in the Whau Local Board area according to census data.

Feedback received on the Whau Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

25. The Whau Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2021/2022:

· provide open space planning to support growth and protect the environment

· investigate and design a new urban park for New Lynn

· increase funding to the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy

· expand the Whau Arts Broker role

· refresh our community grants programme to highlight our renewed commitment to Māori

· work with business associations around the impacts of COVID-19 and develop initiatives to support recovery

· conduct placemaking activities to regenerate town and neighbourhood centres

· strengthen our partnership with Hoani Waititi Marae to support residents of the Whau

· continue our partnerships supporting improved water quality along the Whau River

· continue with the implementation of our Pacific and Ethnic Peoples’ plans.

26. The Whau Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

· provide site identification and delivery of the Whau aquatic and recreation facility

· increase regional resourcing to support the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, other ways to increase urban tree cover and advocating to central government to strengthen tree protection rules.

· support the Unlock Avondale Programme and deliver the Avondale multipurpose community facility

· advocate for the reinstatement of funding for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the level it was before the 2020/2021 financial year

· develop a new multi-storey park-and-ride facility in New Lynn to realise the recommendations of the New Lynn Urban Plan

· funding to complete the remaining parts of Te Whau Pathway.

27. 592 submissions were received on Whau Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives.

28. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving its local board agreement between the 14-18 June 2021. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

Key themes

29. Key themes in respect of the Whau Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives included:

· 76 per cent supported all or most of the local board priorities and 13 per cent did not support all or most priorities but very few submitters commented directly or explicitly on the individual local priorities or local board advocacy issues

· Urban development, parks, open space, environmental protection and transport (in particular walking and cycling) were the areas that attracted the most comments

· For the small number who indicated non-support of the local priorities, very few provided any clear reason other than a general desire to reduce spending

· Comments in support were wide-ranging but common themes included prioritisation of open space, tree protection and the natural environment.

30. Comments on the advocacy initiatives were generally positive, with the exception of a handful of negative comments in respect of the advocacy initiative for a multi-storey park-and-ride in New Lynn. These submitters indicated a preference for improved public transport links to New Lynn rather than a parking facility. Very few comments addressed the local board transport capital fund in any way, but transport itself was a very significant area of concern for many submitters.

31. Feedback received at the informal community engagement event at Archibald Park on 27 February was generally supportive of the local priorities, with particular support for progressing open space planning and park development.

32. Feedback received at the formal Have Your Say event held at Bay Olympic Football Club, New Lynn, on 9 March included the following key themes:

· Transport – including support for enhanced public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure, and in particular concern about parking (or lack of parking) in and around New Lynn

· Concern that council is not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions or mitigate against the impacts of climate change

· Concern that council is not providing sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of rapid growth in the Whau.

Requests for local funding

33. Requests for local funding through the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 consultation included a request for ongoing operational funding from the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust. The Trust is already a key partner to the local board and has been receiving funding through the local board’s locally driven initiatives (LDI) operating budget (administered through the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme) for some years.

34. This funding request is already managed via the local board work programme process, with planning already under consideration for the 2021/2022 Financial Year, and there is no need for its further consideration via the LTP process.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the 10-year Budget from the Whau Local Board area

35. The proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget asked submitters to respond to five key questions on:

1) The proposed investment package

2) Climate change

3) Water quality

4) Community investment

5) Rating policy.

36. The submissions received from the Whau Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Proposed investment package – 479 submitters

37. Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital investment programme over the next ten years, allowing the council to deliver key services and renew our aging assets. The proposal includes a one-off 5 per cent average general rates increase for the 2021/2022 financial year, rather than the previously planned 3.5 per cent increase, before returning to 3.5 per cent increases over the remaining years.

38. The proposal also includes higher borrowings in the short term, a continuation of cost savings and the sale of more surplus property. Without the greater use of rates and debt, around $900 million of investment in Auckland would be delayed from the next three years.

39. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Whau Local Board area, including pro forma submissions.

40. Responses from the Whau were evenly split on this issue. Comments against the proposal focused on the perceived unaffordability of rates. Comments in favour of it tended to focus on the need to invest in infrastructure to keep pace with growth.

41. It should be noted that this was the one question where the pro forma submissions had a significant effect on results for the Whau. Excluding the pro forma submissions, 51 per cent supported the proposal and 35 per cent opposed it.

42. Responses from the Whau were generally more supportive of the proposal in comparison to responses the regionwide responses, where only 32 per cent supported the proposal. With pro forma submissions excluded, 42 per cent of responses regionwide were in support of the proposal with 43 per cent indicating that they did not support it.

43. Across Auckland’s 21 local boards, submitters from the Whau indicated amongst the highest level of support for the proposal, with only Waitemata being significantly more supportive.

44. The majority of mana whenua entities which provided a response to this question were supportive, with only one specifically opposed.

Key Question 2: Climate Change – 477 submitters

45. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to provide additional investment to respond to climate change challenges. This includes enabling a quicker transition from diesel to cleaner electric and hydrogen buses, diverting more waste from landfill and enabling significant planting initiatives.

46. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Whau Local Board area.

47. Many of the comments by people from the Whau who did not support the proposal suggested that this is a central government responsibility and that local government interventions are likely to be ineffective, particularly transport initiatives such as replacement of the bus fleet.

48. Comments by people from the Whau in support noted that this was a very high priority issue. Comments were mostly general, but there were themes around transport and waste minimisation. Some submitters also mentioned trees and green space.

49. Responses from the Whau were relatively more favourable to the proposal than the regionwide response, with 61 per cent supporting the proposal across Auckland.

50. Across Auckland’s 21 local boards there was a wide range of support with only 41 per cent of submitters in Rodney supporting the proposal and 74 per cent of submitters in Puketapapa. Whau again had one of the highest levels of support amongst its submitters.

Key Question 3: Water quality – 460 submitters

51. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate for another three years – from 2028 until 2031 – as well as increasing the targeted rate annually in line with proposed average increases in general rates. The Water Quality Targeted Rate funds projects to improve water quality in Auckland’s harbours, beaches and streams.

52. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Whau Local Board area.

53. Comments by people from the Whau were largely supportive, and focused on the critical importance of water. Many submitters noted in particular the health of the Manukau and Waitemata Harbours.

54. Responses from the Whau were moderately more favourable towards the proposal when compared to responses regionwide, where 45 per cent supported the extension and increase, 28 per cent supported the increase only and 18 per cent opposed the proposal.

55. Again, across Auckland’s 21 local boards there was significant variation in levels of support, with only 27 per cent of submitters in Rodney supporting the proposal compared to 67 per cent in Waitemata.

Key Question 4: Community investment – 419 submitters

56. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on a proposal that would see council adopt a new approach for community services to enable them to reduce building and asset maintenance related expenditure. The proposal involves consolidation of community facilities and services, increased leasing or shared facility arrangements, and an increased focus on providing multi-use facilities and online services in the future.

57. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Whau Local Board area.

58. This proposal received the most polarised responses from people from the Whau (after the rates rise proposal). While comments from the majority of supporters of the proposal indicated that they could see a case for improved efficiencies, there was a significant minority of submitters who indicated support for this proposal but made comments that suggested a degree of misunderstanding of the proposal (for example that the main point of the proposal was to enable an overall increase in investment in community facilities).

59. Responses from the Whau were slightly less favourable than responses regionwide, where 56 per cent supported the proposal and 29 per cent opposed it.

60. Across Auckland’s 21 local boards there was relatively little variation in levels of support between different areas, with responses from the Whau being among the least supportive.

61. It should be noted that support tended to be lowest in the local board areas with relatively small numbers of existing community facilities, and in the more isolated areas (in particular Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke and the Waitakere Ranges), but there did not appear to be a particular correlation with deprivation.

Key Question 5: Rating policy

62. Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on a raft of proposed rating changes impacting different properties across Auckland differently. Proposed changes also included, for example, the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate until June 2031, along with options to extend the Urban Rating Area.

63. Whau residents seemed broadly supportive of the proposals with levels of supporting ranging between 59 per cent and 69 per cent.

64. Of the various proposals consulted on within Question 5, the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate received the most responses amongst submitters from the Whau, with 389 responses, 69 per cent of whom supported the extension.

65. Responses to most of the other ratings were wide-ranging and indicated a relative lack of engagement with the proposals, with many submitters using it as an opportunity to raise other issues. Regionwide, submitters were generally less supportive of the proposals than submitters from the Whau.

Recommendations on local matters

66. This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process, in May 2021.

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

67. Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended locally targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. Note that these proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented. Local boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the targeted rate.

68. No targeted rate or BID targeted rate proposals were consulted on in the Whau Local Board area for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

69. Local boards are allocated funding for locally driven initiatives (LDI) annually, to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision-making over the LDI funds but need approval from the Governing Body where:

· operational LDI funding is to be converted into capital LDI funding

· the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose

· a LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

70. These conditions do not apply to the Whau Local Board for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Local board advocacy

71. Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement, taking into account the consultation feedback above.

72. This allows the Finance and Performance Committee to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 in May/June.

73. The Whau Local Board consulted on six advocacy initiatives as noted in the summary of local feedback above. As submitters were not invited to address these initiatives directly as part of the feedback form, relatively few responses were received.

Local board input on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

74. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

75. Local board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide the development of local board agreements (LBAs), local board annual work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

76. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next 10 years.

77. Projects allocated funding through this 10-year Budget process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

78. Submitters from the Whau Local Board area identified climate change as a key concern. This is consistent with previous consultations and is reflected strongly in the Whau Local Board Plan 2020.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

79. The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

80. The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

81. Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

82. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

83. Local board plans, developed in 2020 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.

84. Analysis provided of consultation feedback received on the proposed 10-year Budget includes submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

85. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

86. Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. The potential impacts on Māori, as part of any project progressed by Auckland Council, will be assessed appropriately and accordingly as part of relevant reporting requirements.

87. A mataawaka engagement event focused on the three western local board areas was held (electronically due to COVID-19 restrictions) on 8 March 2021. At the time of writing this report, the feedback from this event has not been received or analysed.

88. One mana whenua entity, Ngati Tamaterā, made a submission on the Whau Local Board’s consultation content. All local initiatives and advocacy items were supported.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

89. This report is seeking the local board’s decisions on financial matters in the local board agreement that must then be considered by the Governing Body.

90. The local board also provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

91. The council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2021. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the 10-year Budget by mid May 2021, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the 10-year Budget on 25 May 2021.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

92. The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes in June 2021.

93. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

94. The final 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 22 June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Mary Binney – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

05 May 2021

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04974

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the draft decision-making responsibilities policy for inclusion in the long-term plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body is required by legislation to allocate decision-making responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council to either itself or local boards. This allocation is outlined in the Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards policy that is published in each long-term plan and annual plan.

3. The policy also records delegations given to date by the Governing Body to local boards and provides a list of statutory responsibilities that are conferred on both governance arms.

4. An internal review of the policy was undertaken in early 2021 and considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 22 March 2021. The review outlined some proposed changes to the policy as well as some recommendations on how to take forward other issues that do not yet lend themselves to a policy amendment. The recommendations adopted by the Joint Governance Working Party have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) endorse the draft Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards policy.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Governing Body and local boards obtain their decision-making responsibilities from three sources:

· statutory responsibilities - functions and powers directly conferred by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) 2009

· non-regulatory activities that are allocated to local boards and the Governing Body in accordance with a set of principles (section 17(2) LGACA)

· delegations – these can be regulatory or non-regulatory responsibilities; the Governing Body has delegated some of its responsibilities to local boards.

Allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities

6. The primary purpose for the policy is to set out the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities. However, it incorporates other sources of decision-making authority for completeness and context, including a register of key delegations which have been given by the Governing Body to local boards.

Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP)

7. To facilitate a review by the JGWP, staff provided an analysis of issues raised, mainly by local boards, and proposed recommendations in relation to those issues. The report containing this advice can be found in the record of the Joint Governance Working Party Meeting, 23 March 2021.

8. The JGWP carefully considered the issues that were in scope for the review as well as the staff advice and raised some questions and issues that staff are exploring further. These are discussed in the advice below.

9. This report only covers the discussions relating to the recommended changes to the policy. A memo will be provided to each local board providing a summary of the issues considered in the review and outlining a staff response to specific issues, if any, that individual local boards raised in their feedback.

10. Following their review, the JGWP agreed as follows:

That the Joint Governance Working Party:

(a) note the feedback from local boards on the decision-making responsibilities policy

(b) request the following amendments to the decision-making responsibilities policy:

(i) request that staff report with urgency that local boards can be delegated approval for developing and approving area plans, provided the Governing Body can make its views known on such plans

(ii) that the local boards can take responsibilities for decision making over drainage reserves provided such decisions are constrained to those that will not negatively affect the drainage functions and stormwater network operations.

(iii) provide for local boards to tailor locally delivered projects within regional environmental programmes, subject to advice from staff on the types of projects that can be tailored

(iv) provide explicit reference to Health and Safety obligations and requirements that local boards and Governing Body must consider in their decisions

(v) local boards can object to a special liquor licence and this be enabled by an appropriate administrative process.

(c) note the recommendations that the next phase of the Waiheke pilot should consider some of the issues that have been raised including:

(i) trialing delegations from Auckland Transport on decision-making relating to street trading for roads and beaches, placemaking and urban design decisions

(ii) Identifying opportunities and non-regulatory decision-making elements in relation to town centres that the Governing Body can consider when making allocation

(d) recommend that Auckland Transport consider if there are types of community activities that can take place on road reserves without impacting the roading network.

(e) request staff scope out a review of the role of the Governing Body in regional governance within the shared governance model of Auckland Council, taking into considerations the recommendation of the CCO Review.

The following members requested that their dissenting votes be recorded as follows:

Cr A Filipaina against e)

Member R Northey against e)

The following members requested that their abstention be recorded as follows

Cr S Henderson against (b)(i)

Cr R Hills against (b)(iii)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Request for further advice or implementation support

Area plans

11. Local boards requested that the responsibility for adoption of area plans, which is currently allocated to the Governing Body, be assigned to them. This can be done through allocating the responsibility to local boards or through the Governing Body delegating this allocated responsibility to local boards to exercise on their behalf.

12. Staff have considered this request and advised the JGWP as follows.

· Area plans are an important tool in council’s spatial planning framework. It is used to strategically plan an area usually for the purpose of seeking and/or supporting changes to the Unitary Plan. The responsibility for the Unitary Plan rests with the Governing Body.

· Area plans, as a stand-alone non-regulatory tool and decision, appear ‘local’ in nature given their focus on local planning which is a responsibility allocated to local boards.

· However, area plans also meet the exceptions in section 17(2) of the LGACA: specifically that for these decisions to be effective, they require alignment or integration with other decision-making responsibilities that sit with the Governing Body. These include plan changes and amendments to the Unitary Plan, infrastructure prioritisation and regional investment.

· During the Waiheke pilot, the Waiheke Local Board sought a delegation to sign off the Waiheke Local Area Plan. This delegation was granted with conditions that included a requirement to ensure the involvement of a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board. This suggests delegations on a case-by-case basis can be possible and provides an alternative route if a standing delegation is not given to local boards.

13. The JGWP carefully considered the advice of staff but were not all in agreement with it. Members had strong views about the need to empower local boards in their local planning role and have requested staff to reconsider their advice and to explore the risks and possible risk mitigation of enabling local boards to adopt the plans through a delegation from the Governing Body.

14. Whilst the practice already ensures high involvement of local boards in the development of these plans, it was the view of the JGWP members that delegating the adoption decision with relevant parameters is more empowering for local boards. JGWP members felt that this would enable local boards to make local planning decisions that are aligned with their local board plan aspirations and other community priorities without requiring further approval from the Governing Body, whose members may not be as familiar with these local priorities.

15. JGWP members agreed that area plans, while local, often require funding and alignment to other plans that are developed by the Governing Body. Keeping the responsibility and accountability allocated to the Governing Body ensures the decision continues to sit at the right level but that this does not necessarily need to be exercised by the Governing Body on all occasions.

16. The JGWP have requested advice from staff on how to pursue a Governing Body delegation. Staff will seek to provide further advice to the JGWP. If the JGWP considers recommending a delegation from the Governing Body on this issue, staff will present the request to the Governing Body for consideration. A delegation can be given at any time and it will have immediate effect.

Special liquor licence administration process for notifying local boards

17. One of the issues raised in the local board feedback is special liquor license applications. On this matter, the request was for clarification that local boards can object, as per the delegation from Governing Body granting the ability to make objections under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Elected members perceived this is not being enabled as notifications on these licences are not proactively shared with them in the same way that information about other applications (on, off and club licences) are.

18. The JGWP has recommended that this be clarified in the policy and request that staff enable notifications to be sent to local board where public consultation is required for special licence applications.

Proposed changes to the Allocated decision-making responsibilities (part c)

Local purpose (drainage) reserves

19. During discussions with local boards on the scope of the review, many local boards raised concerns about the interpretation of the policy.

20. An example raised by Upper Harbour Local Board demonstrated the need for clarity, especially in areas where decision-making authority allocated to both governance arms overlap. During the development of the board’s local park management plans, staff had advised that those reserves that are primarily dedicated to stormwater drainage should be treated as part of the stormwater network. This advice appeared to suggest that local boards do not hold any decision-making over a subset of local parks since it is the Governing Body that is responsible for management of the stormwater network.

21. Through discussions with staff as part of this review, the advice has been revised. Staff accept this is an example of where there is clear overlap in activities and decision-making responsibilities. Staff will need to work closely with local boards to develop protocols that enable decision-making by the Governing Body on stormwater issues to be exercised efficiently and effectively.

22. The JGWP were supportive of the staff recommendation to clarify that the exercise of decision-making in relation to stormwater network and how it functions must be properly enabled on local parks. This is done by acknowledging that these considerations and decisions about the stormwater network constrains local board decision-making over local parks (or parts of local parks) that have a stormwater drainage function. This clarity will also help staff to understand that the local board continues to retain the decision-making responsibility over all other activities of local parks.

Role of local boards in environmental programmes and grants

23. Some local boards feel the current policy wording and ways of working does not provide a meaningful role for local boards on regional environmental issues, specifically regional environmental programmes. These local boards have also requested that local boards be enabled to monitor the progress of any locally-delivered projects (funded by regional environmental programmes) through the established work programme reporting mechanism.

24. Local board input into regional environmental programmes is at the policy and/or programme approval stage. The approved programme direction provides sufficient guidance to staff, acting under delegation from the Governing Body, when developing an implementation plan and prioritising projects for delivery.

25. At the operational level, where identified priorities and project ideas are to be delivered in local parks or other key locations within the local board area, local board input is sought by staff at workshops. This is to ensure locally delivered projects are tailored to local circumstances. While it is possible to capture this current practice in the policy, this needs to be done in a way that continues to enable relevant local boards to add value to projects without too many administrative requirements. A member of the JGWP also expressed concern about signalling all projects can be tailored to local circumstances as this is not the case.

Other changes

Health and Safety – parameters for decision-making

26. Council decisions need to take account of Health and Safety considerations, as well as reflecting a shared approach to risk.

27. Staff advise that Health and Safety considerations should be explicit in the policy to protect the council from liability. The JGWP supports this recommendation and a reference to complying with health and safety legislation and plans has been inserted in the policy.

Issues relating to delegations

28. The review considered requests for new delegations or additional support to implement delegations given to local boards. Some of these were requests for delegation from Auckland Transport.

29. The review considered that before recommending or agreeing any new delegation, the delegator, whether it be Governing Body or Auckland Transport, must first weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences (through a delegation) against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district (through itself retaining the responsibility, duty, or power concerned).

30. Staff advised the JGWP to recommend that the Waiheke pilot (part of the Governance Framework Review) which is about to enter another phase, expands to include a trial of delegated decision-making on key issues raised in this review. They include several issues that relate to Auckland Transport, namely street trading and town centre/urban design. Piloting these delegations can help Auckland Transport to identify any practical issues that need to be considered before a formal delegation to all local boards can be given on any of the issues identified.

Other issues

JGWP resolution on role of Governing Body

31. Some members of the JGWP expressed concerns about what they perceived to be a heavy focus on local board responsibilities.

32. Both sets of governors were invited to identify issues to be examined in the review. The Governing Body, in workshop discussions, did not identify any major issues that it wanted to review but was open to including any issues raised by local boards. As a result, almost all of the issues raised were suggested by local boards and the majority of them relate to their areas of decision-making responsibility. This may have given the impression of a bias towards examining the role of local boards.

33. To address this concern, the JGWP requested that staff scope a review of the role of the Governing Body. Staff will provide advice to the JGWP in response to this request at an upcoming meeting.

Escalation process for any disputes relating to the Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for non-regulatory activities

34. The process for resolving disputes relating to allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities (including disputes over interpretation of the allocation table) will vary depending on the issue at hand. The chart below outlines the basic escalation process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. This report relates to a policy and does not have any quantifiable climate impacts.

36. Decisions that are taken, in execution of this policy, will likely have significant climate impacts. However, those impacts will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate responses will be identified as required.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Council departments support and implement decisions that are authorised by this policy.

38. Feedback received to date from some departments reinforces the need for guidance notes to aid interpretation of the allocations in the decision-making policy. This work will be done in consultation with departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. This report canvasses issues that had been raised by local boards and focuses on those issues that warrant an amendment to the policy.

40. All other issues raised by local boards in their feedback were canvassed in the staff advice that formed part of the review. This information is available to all local boards.

41. Staff have also prepared responses to specific issues raised by local boards and have shared this information in a memo.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. There are no decisions being sought in this report that will have a specific impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. There are no financial implications directly arising from the information contained in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The are no identified risks other than timeframes. The Governing Body will be adopting this policy in June as part of the Long-term Plan. Local board feedback is requested in early May in order to provide time to collate and present this to the Governing Body for consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Staff will prepare guidance notes to aid the interpretation of the decision-making policy following its adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments