Agenda of Franklin Local Board - Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - the Made Group - Charles Ma 5

8.2 Deputation - Franklin Tourism Group 6

8.3 Deputation - Swings for the disabled 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Approval for a new private road name at 293 Kitchener Road, Pukekohe 9

12 Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 19

13 Draft proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 39

14 Urgent Decision - Provide local board feedback on a Notice of Requirement for a secondary school on Jesmond Road 183

15 Governance Forward Work Calendar July 2021 187

16 Franklin Local Board workshop records 193

17 Process to appoint trustees to Te Puru Community Charitable Trust 205

18 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

19 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 209

C1 CONFIDENTIAL: Appointment of trustees to Te Puru Community Charitable Trust 209

1 Welcome

The Chair will open the meeting and welcome everyone present.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 22 June 2021 as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - the Made Group - Charles Ma

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Charles Ma, CEO of the MADE Group, will be in attendance at the Franklin Local Board meeting to address the board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. MADE Group will present the latest update on the Auranga development to the local board.

3. This follows an earlier on-site walk-around by the local board with MADE Group representatives.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Charles Ma, CEO and Ray Chan, Director of Engagement from MADE Group, for their attendance and presentation on the Auranga development.

8.2 Deputation - Franklin Tourism Group

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The Franklin Tourism Group will be in attendance to address the board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Mandy Scott-Mackie, the current chair of Franklin Tourism and Mike Marsden, the incoming chair, will address the local board on the topic of encouraging visitors to Franklin and leveraging the economic benefits of tourism for the area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Mandy Scott-Mackie and Mike Marsden of the Franklin Tourism Group, for their attendance and presentation on the economic benefits and opportunities for tourism in the area.

8.3 Deputation - Swings for the disabled

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Jacky Ansty will be in attendance to address the board on the topic of swing equipment for people with disabilities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Jacky Ansty is representing a group fundraising for swings for people with disabilities and will be presenting on their project.

3. The group has indicated they wish to install a swing in a playground in the Wairoa sub-division of the Franklin Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Jacky Ansty for her attendance and presentation on the matter of swing equipment for people with disabilities.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Approval for a new private road name at 293 Kitchener Road, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2021/09047

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 293 Kitchener Road, Pukekohe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. On behalf of the developer and applicant, J.G. Van Lieshout, agent, Tingran Duan of TSC Ltd, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the Local Board.

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

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 293 Kitchener Road, Pukekohe are:

· Ilam Hardy Way (Applicant Preferred)

· Madsen Way (Alternative 1)

· Māratupu Way (Alternative 2)

6. Ngāti Tamaoho have suggested the following additional options:

· Onehua

· Te Kumete

· Te Rourou

· Whenuahua

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) approves the name Ilam Hardy Way (applicant’s preferred name) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 293 Kitchener Road, Pukekohe, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references R/JSL/2017/1516 and SUB60219377).

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent reference R/JSL/2017/1516 (subdivision reference number SUB60219377) was issued in September 2017 for the creation of 14 new residential freehold lots and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

8. A location plan of the development can be found in Attachment A.

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

10. Therefore, in this development, only one new COAL requires a road name because it serves more than five lots. This can be seen in Attachment B, where the COAL that requires a name is highlighted in yellow.

11. The four new dwellings (Lots 15,16, 17 and 18) facing the existing street, Kitchener Road will have street names allocated off Kitchener Road, as they can be accessed via Kitchener Road. The two new dwellings to the north (Lots 5 and 14) facing the existing street, Green Lane will have street names allocated off of Green Lane, as they can be accessed via Green Lane.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region. The Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval

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

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

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

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

14. Theme: The applicant put a lot of effort in researching the history of the application site and the local area. For this reason, the applicant chose names to represent the local history, which are detailed in the table below:

Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Ilam Hardy Way (Applicant preferred)	Ilam Hardy is an early season potato variety which has historically been grown on Pukekohe Hill for many years, due to favourable frost-free conditions and elevation of the hill. Many other potato varieties have come to the market, but Ilam Hardy still remains the early season variety of choice.
Madsen Way (Alternative 1)	Dan (Thyge Blovskov) Madsen designed many subdivisions around Pukekohe and surrounding areas. One comment made recently was that “He changed the face of Pukekohe”. His name is on many survey plans from when he started work as Sir William Birch’s surveyor cadet in the early 1960s, partnering Bill in Birch Madsen & Partners and owning his own company Madsen Lawrie Consultants until his passing in July 2018.
Māratupu Way (Alternative 2)	The sustaining/thriving gardens. Name suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho

15. Ngāti Tamaoho have also suggested additional names

Proposed name	Meaning (as described by Ngāti Tamaoho)
Onehua	Productive soils
Te Kumete	A type of bowl often used for serving or carrying food
Te Rourou	A type of harakeke basket used for carrying food
Whenuahua	The fruitful lands

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

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

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

19. Permission from relatives has been obtained for the use of the name Madsen.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25. On 2^nd March 2021, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the Guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust)

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua (Makaurau Marae Māori Trust)

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Waikato – Tainui (Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated)

· Ngāti Tamaoho

26. By the close of the consultation period, responses have been received from Waikato-Tainui Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho.

Waikato-Tainui supports the mana whenua of the area to take lead role and recommended the developer to engage with them.

Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua agreed with the direct engagement of the active kaitiaki in the rohe, Ngāti Tamaoho.

The applicant has engaged Ngāti Tamaoho on 11^th March for further consultation on proposed road names. Ngāti Tamaoho has recommended six names that can represent the history of the area. “Māratupu” was chosen from the recommended names and proposed by the applicant as one of the alternative road names. LINZ has confirmed that “Te Ipukai” as one of the names suggested by Ngāti Tamaoho is not suitable to be used at this location, because there is an existing “Te Ipukai” Drive within the 25km threshold. The remaining four names have been included in Paragraph 6 and 15 for the local board’s consideration.

27. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua. Due to the extent of feedback received and the scale of the development, it is considered that mana whenua consultation has been satisfactorily undertaken in this instance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location plan	15
b ⇩	Site Plan	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

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

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022

File No.: CP2021/09791

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. For the local board to adopt its Joint Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Engagement Plan 2021-2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The review panel for the independent review of Auckland Council’s substantive council-controlled organisations presented its findings to the Governing Body and local board chairs in August 2020. All 64 recommendations were adopted.

3. Recommendations 6, 34, and 53 were designated as those that CCOs would work with local boards to implement. Recommendation 34 (b) of the 2020 CCO Review advised the preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board.

4. A template for the joint engagement plan has been developed in conjunction with local board members and CCO staff over the last six months. While it will be signed, it will be a live document that will be updated as required.

5. Workshops have been held at all 21 local boards with CCO staff. Local boards have provided their views on CCO delivery and engagement in their area, and the degree of engagement they expect for each project or programme, both for the local board and for the community.

6. These discussions have formed the basis of the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 that is provided as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) adopt the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 as agreed between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations: Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare

b) note that the Joint Engagement Plan is a live document that will be updated as needed, with changes reported to the local board each quarter.

c) authorise the chair of the local board to sign this agreement on behalf of the local board, in conjunction with representatives from the four CCOs.

Horopaki

Context

7. In November 2019, the Governing Body approved the draft terms of reference for an independent review of Auckland Council’s substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs) (GB/2019/127).

8. These terms of reference required the independent review panel to consider whether CCOs were an efficient and effective model for delivering services, and whether the CCO decision-making model had enough political oversight, public transparency and accountability.

CCO Review Findings

9. The independent panel presented the findings of the CCO Review to the Governing Body and local board chairs on 11 August 2020.

10. The review made 64 recommendations noting that the recommendations should be considered as a package. On 27 August 2020, the Governing Body resolved to agree in principle all of the review’s recommendations (GB/2020/89).

11. Local boards provided input to the CCO Review by:

· participating in the CCO Review process

· providing feedback on the final report to the Governing Body in August 2020.

12. The 64 recommendations were divided up into categories of work:

· those to be implemented by the council’s chief executive

· those the council’s chief executive would work with CCO chief executive(s) to implement

· those that the Panuku Development Auckland board would consider and report back on

· those that CCOs would work with local boards to implement; this last group includes recommendations 6, 34, and 53.

13. Recommendation 34 was that CCOs and local boards reset how they engage with one another, by means of:

a) a workshop to develop a more meaningful way for CCOs and local boards to work together

b) the preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board

c) more initiative by local boards in integrating their own planning with CCO planning

d) liaison between CCOs and local boards at a more senior level so CCOs can quickly remedy local board concerns

e) the preparation of joint CCO six-monthly reports for each local board

f) the communication of clear, up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on projects in their area.

14. This report focusses on activities undertaken to deliver part (b) of recommendation 34, the preparation of a joint CCO engagement plan for each local board.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Developing a joint CCO engagement plan template

15. Prior to the 2020 CCO Review, the Governance Manual for substantive council-controlled organisations set the expectation that each CCO would prepare a local board engagement plan every three years, by 31 July following local board elections, and report to local boards accordingly. These engagement plans were created separately by the five CCOs, and were generic across all 21 local boards.

16. Recommendation 34 (b) of the 2020 CCO Review advised the preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board.

17. A template for the joint engagement plan has been developed iteratively over the last six months, with input from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare staff.

18. The template includes:

· CCO responsibilities

· local board commitments

· local board plan outcomes and objectives

· names of local board members and staff from the CCOs and local board services

· leads and/or delegations in place

· an overview of the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum that is used to indicate the degree of engagement in each project

· work programme tables for each CCO.

19. The sections on CCO responsibilities and local board commitments have largely been imported from previous engagement plans, or directly from the Governance Manual.

20. Local board plan outcomes and objectives have been included to ensure these are front and centre when CCOs are working with local boards.

21. While directly addressing recommendation 34(a), the joint engagement plan also addresses other elements of recommendation 34 as follows:

· documents key contacts, including senior CCO representatives of the organisation well placed to quickly respond to and resolve local concerns (34d)

· gives local boards the opportunity to highlight projects likely to be most significant to them as governors, and contributes to a “no surprises” environment

· the process of developing, agreeing and documenting levels of engagement for each project or programme is the first step towards ensuring the communication of clear, up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on projects in their area (34f).

22. This template was shared with local boards for feedback via the Chairs’ Forum (December 2020 and May 2021) and via a memo in May 2021.

23. It will be used for the 2021 financial year, with feedback from this 2021 process taken into account and any necessary changes incorporated for future years.

A workshop to develop a more meaningful way for CCOs and local boards to work together

24. In delivering parts (a) and (b) of recommendation 34, staff have linked the two outcomes together and supported local boards and CCOs to customise the content of each local board’s engagement plan via a joint workshop.

25. Staff from the four CCOs have attended joint workshops facilitated by Local Board Services at each of the 21 local boards between May and July 2021.

26. These workshops have provided local boards with the opportunity to share their views on CCO delivery and engagement in their area. They included an outline of each CCO’s work programme relating to the local area, and local boards have provided their views on the degree of engagement they expect for each project or programme.

27. The local board also indicated their preference for whether and how community engagement is undertaken for each project.

Customised engagement plans

28. The discussions that took place at the joint workshops are reflected in the customised version of the engagement plan provided for this local board as Attachment A.

29. This plan represents a point in time, and will be subject to change over the course of the year. It is a “live document” that will be updated when needed. Major changes to the CCO work programme, or to the agreed level of local board and public engagement, will be workshopped with the local board ahead of any change. Minor changes will be summarised and reported on each quarter.

30. Work programme items that will be confirmed with the formal adoption of the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) will be included as they become available. This includes items from the Economic Development Action Plan, and the Regional Land Transport Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The adoption of the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations does not have a direct impact on climate.

32. Each CCO must work within Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework and information on climate impacts will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Adopting the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 is likely to have a positive impact on other parts of the council as well as between the respective CCOs within each local board area.

34. These plans will be shared with the integration teams that implement local board work programmes, and will give council staff greater visibility of CCO work programmes.

35. To avoid or reduce disruption, staff will align the processes for the local board work programme and the updating of the CCO engagement plans over time.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. Local board engagement plans will enable local boards to customise engagement between CCOs and communities in their areas, by signalling those issues and projects which are of most significance within their communtiies.

37. Local boards provided input to the CCO Review by:

· participating in the CCO Review process

· providing feedback on the final report to the Governing Body in August 2020.

38. Local boards have been kept up to date on the development of the engagement plan template via:

· input and feedback at December 2020 Chairs’ Forum

· update at May 2021 Chairs’ Forum

· a memo to all local board members in May 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. Adopting the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 is likely to have a positive impact on local engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka.

40. While both CCOs and local boards have engagement programmes with Māori, the engagement plan will allow a more cohesive and coordinated approach to engagement, with more advance planning of how different parts of the community will be involved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. The adoption of the Joint Engagement Plan 2021-2022 between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations does not have financial impacts for local boards.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42. It is likely that there will be changes made to work programme items in the engagement plan during the year, or to the level of engagement that the board or the community will have. This risk is mitigated by ensuring that the document states clearly that it is subject to change, contains a table recording changes made since it was signed, and will be re-published on the local board agenda quarterly, to ensure public transparency.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. With the engagement plans completed for all 21 local boards, staff will develop a reporting framework that best responds to the type of projects and the level of engagement to which local boards and CCOs have agreed.

44. CCOs will work with local boards to ensure that any major changes to the work programme or to engagement levels are workshopped with the board, and well documented.

45. Minor changes will be noted within the live document and shared with the local board each quarter.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Franklin - Joint Council Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2021-2022	25

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead – Senior Advisor Operations and Planning, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Draft proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/09846

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek support on the draft proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls before it is finalised for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to decide whether to support a proposal to make a new signs bylaw and associated controls, staff have prepared a draft proposal.

3. The draft proposal is the culmination of decisions by the Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport on the review of the current Signage Bylaw 2015. These decisions were made at meetings to consider the review’s findings in June 2020 and options in October 2020 and April 2021 and provided direction on the content of the draft proposal.

4. The draft proposal would continue to enable council to manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places^{^[1]}, the Auckland transport system and environment.

5. The main draft proposals in comparison to the current bylaws about signs are to:

· combine the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013

· increase the current portable sign prohibited area to cover the entire City Centre Zone

· increase the maximum area of flat wall-mounted signs in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m² (currently 2.88m² for sale of a property and 5m² for goods, services or events)

· retain the intent of the rules in the current bylaws (unless otherwise stated) in a way that is up to date and more certain

· use a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.

6. Staff recommend that the local board support the draft proposal.

7. There is a reputational risk that the draft proposal or the local board’s support 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.

8. Local board support on the draft proposal will help develop a proposal for the Regulatory Committee to recommend to the Governing Body and for the Board of Auckland Transport. Public consultation is scheduled for September and October, deliberations for March 2022 and a final Governing Body and Board of Auckland Transport decision for April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Local Board:

a) support the draft Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls for public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

The draft proposed Bylaw and controls regulate most signs in Auckland

9. The draft proposed new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls seek to manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, Auckland transport system and environment.

10. The draft proposed new bylaw and controls:

· would continue to provide for signs related to activities on the same property as long as they meet certain conditions for their design, construction and duration of display

· would continue to limit signs unrelated to the day-to-day activities on the land it is located (for example signs on footpaths)

· would continue to provide more opportunities to display signs about elections, polls and referendums during an election period that would not normally be allowed

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

· would remain part of a wider regulatory framework^{^[2]}

· must be adopted using a public consultative process and commence before 28 May 2022 to avoid a regulatory gap (the Signage Bylaw 2015 expires on 28 May 2022).

The proposal is the outcome of a statutory review of the current signage bylaw

11. The Regulatory Committee (committee) and Board of Auckland Transport (board) requested staff commence the process to make a new bylaw and controls following a statutory review of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015 (refer diagram below).

2015 Signage Bylaw review process

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

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

13. The local board has an opportunity to support the draft proposal in Attachment A by resolution to the Regulatory Committee and the Board of Auckland Transport before it is finalised for public consultation.

14. 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 improves how council manages signs in Auckland

15. The draft proposal makes a new bylaw and controls about signs to better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, Auckland transport system and environment.

16. The table below summarises the main proposals in comparison to the current bylaws:

Main proposals	Reasons for proposals
· To make a new bylaw and associated controls that combine the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013. · The current bylaws will be revoked.	· reduce confusion from having two bylaws about signs. · clarify intention to provide more opportunities to display election signs during pre-election periods than would otherwise be allowed for a sign that does not relate to activities on the property.
· To increase the current portable sign prohibited area to cover the entire City Centre Zone.	· prioritise the area for pedestrians and place-making activities. · remove potential safety risks, nuisance and clutter. · improve accessibility for mobility and vision-impaired pedestrians.
· To increase the maximum area of flat wall-mounted signs in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m².	· allow more visible display of information in an area which has a larger built form and a lower priority on amenity values. (current maximum is 2.88m² for sale of a property and 5m² for goods, services or events on a property).
· To retain the intent of the rules in the current bylaws (unless otherwise stated) in a way that is up to date and more certain.	· retain the effect of rules considered to still be appropriate. · ensure rules are current, clear, and easier to understand and comply with.
· To use a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.	· ensure rules are easier to understand and comply with. · comply with current council bylaw drafting standards. · assist future reviews of the Auckland Unitary Plan in relation to the most appropriate distribution of sign rules.

The draft proposal complies with statutory requirements

17. The draft new bylaw and controls has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements to:

· help manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment

· use a structure, format and wording that are easier to read, understand and comply with than the current bylaws about signs and meet current council bylaw drafting standards

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

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

· not be inconsistent with other Acts, regulations and bylaws (refer footnote 2).

Staff recommend the local board support the draft proposal

18. Staff recommend that the local board consider whether to support the draft proposal by resolution to the Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. 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

20. The draft proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit and Parks, Sports and Recreation Department, Auckland Unlimited, Panuku and Auckland Transport.

21. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the draft proposal and their implementation role, and the proposal is being developed jointly with Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The draft proposal impacts local governance, for example it regulates signs about community events and signs on local facilities and parks.

23. Representative local board views were provided in April 2021 through a joint working group established by the Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport.^{^[3]} Group members unanimously supported a new bylaw and controls that would be more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and provided suggestions on the detailed content of the Bylaw.^{^[4]}

24. The Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport considered these views on 20 April 2021 (REG/2021/20) (29/04/2021:18). The committee and board directed staff to draft a new bylaw and controls. Group suggestions on detailed content have been considered in preparing the draft proposal.

25. This report gives the local board an opportunity to provide its support on the draft proposal by resolution to the Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport.

26. The local board will have further opportunity to provide its views to a Bylaw Panel on how the Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal related to its local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The proposal contributes to the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Auckland Plan 2050’s Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome by supporting Māori who want to make their businesses uniquely identifiable and visible.

28. The proposal also helps protect all people living in Tāmaki Makaurau from the potential harms and nuisances that signs can cause.

29. People identifying as Māori presented views during the 2015 signage bylaw review. This feedback primarily identified ways to improve inappropriate signage standards. The draft proposal addresses those views by clarifying and updating standards.

30. Staff will 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The draft proposal or the local board’s support do not reflect the view of people in the local board area.	There may be negative views about council’s process to develop the proposal.	The local board will have an opportunity to consider any public feedback and provide its formal views to a Bylaw Panel on how the Panel should address the matters raised in the feedback prior to the final decision being made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Staff will present a proposal and any local board support to the Regulatory Committee and Board of Auckland Transport in August 2021.

34. If at any time a joint bylaw is not able to progress, Auckland Council will continue to progress a bylaw for sign-related matters it is responsible for.

35. If the Governing Body of Auckland Council and the Board of Auckland Transport decide to proceed with a joint bylaw, the subsequent steps include public consultation, local board views on public feedback, Bylaw Panel deliberations and a final decision by the Governing Body of Auckland Council and Board of Auckland Transport (refer to the diagram in Context).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Draft proposal for new signs bylaw and controls	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Victor Faletutulu - Graduate Policy Advisor

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

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

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

PDF Creator

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Urgent Decision - Provide local board feedback on a Notice of Requirement for a secondary school on Jesmond Road

File No.: CP2021/09740

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To report on the urgent decision made by Franklin Local Board to provide local board feedback on a Notice of Requirement for a secondary school on Jesmond Road.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 26 November 2019 the Franklin Local Board resolved (FR/2019/168) the following in relation to urgent decision-making:

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) adopt the urgent decision-making process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and hold a meeting with requirements of a quorum.

b) delegate authority to the chair and deputy chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board.

c) agree that the relationship manager (or any person/s acting in this role) will authorise the urgent decision-making process by signing off an authorisation memo.

d) note that all urgent decisions will be reported to the next ordinary business meeting of the local board.

3. The Minister of Education has served a Notice of Requirement (NoR) on Auckland Council for a designation at 401 Jesmond Road and part of 281 and part of 341 Jesmond Road, Drury West. The NoR seeks a designation for education purposes, including a secondary school and early childhood education centre at this address.

4. Local board views were not able to be provided at the previous business meeting on 15 June 2021, and the resolution was passed to provide these views in a timely manner via Urgent Decision. The Urgent Decision process was completed on 30 June 2021.

5. This decision is presented to the July business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) note the urgent decision completed on 30 June 2021, to provide local board views on the Notice of Requirement for a new secondary school and early childhood education centre at 401 Jesmond Road and part of 281 and part of 341 Jesmond Road, Drury West, as follows:

i) support the Ministry of Education acquisition of land for a school at Drury West, noting that a school will be an important centre for this growing community

ii) request that the Ministry of Education work with Auckland Transport proactively to identify a suite of actions needed to be addressed by the Ministry in the development of the site, e.g. pedestrian crossings, footpath network, cycling infrastructure

iii) encourage investigation of opportunities for provision of shared open space facilities

iv) endorse the local board appointment of Andrew Baker, Chairperson of the Franklin Local Board to speak to the local board views at a hearing (if one is held) on the Notice of Requirement.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision- local board feedback on the Notice of Requirement for a new secondary school on Jesmond Road.	185

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Franklin Local Board governance forward work calendar July 2021	189

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Franklin Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2021/09905

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for workshops held on 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 June 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Franklin Local Board holds weekly workshops to facilitate oversight of projects in their work programme or on matters that have significant local implications.

3. The local board does not make decisions at these workshops. Workshops are not open to the public, but a record of what was discussed and presented at the workshop are reported retrospectively.

4. Workshop records for the Franklin Local Board are attached for 8, 15, 22 and 29 June 2021

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for 8, 15, 22 and 29 June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	1 June 2021 Franklin Local Board workshop record	195
b ⇩	8 June 2021 Franklin Local Board workshop record	197
c ⇩	15 June 2021 Franklin Local Board workshop record	199
d ⇩	22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board workshop records	201
e ⇩	29 June 2021 Franklin Local Board workshop record	203

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

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

Franklin Local Board

27 July 2021

Process to appoint trustees to Te Puru Community Charitable Trust

File No.: CP2021/10062

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Franklin Local Board on the process for appointing trustees to Te Puru Community Charitable Trust (Te Puru).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Te Puru is a non-substantive Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act 2002 and council are responsible for appointing all members of the board.

3. The Franklin Local Board has been delegated the power to make appointment decisions for Te Puru board.

4. Te Puru has identified four new candidates to join the trust board following two recent resignations. A report on the confidential agenda seeks approval for these appointments.

5. Te Puru trust deed sets out the attributes and skill-sets required by trustees, including that they should represent the diversity of the local community.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) note the update and that a report on the confidential part of the agenda will seek approval to appoint four new trustees to Te Puru Community Charitable Trust.

Horopaki

Context

6. Te Puru is responsible for providing recreational services in their facility in Te Puru park to provide for the recreational, social and community needs of the residents of the Beachlands, Maraetai, Whitford and Clevedon areas of Franklin.

7. Appointment to the boards of non-substantive CCOs are guided by the Appointments and Remuneration Policy for Council Controlled Organisations and the trust deed of the CCO.

8. The Appointments and Performance Review Committee appointed six trustees to Te Puru board. These trustees had been casual appointments filling vacancies caused by resignations of former trustees. In addition to the six casual vacancies, one trustee was appointed to a second term on the trust. (APR/2020/6).

9. The Appointments and Performance review committee delegated the power to make future appointments to the Franklin Local Board until September 2022 under the same resolution.

10. Since then, two of these trustees have resigned and this has reduced the total number of trustees to five.

11. In March this year, Te Puru began a process to identify replacement trustees. This included seeking candidates through the following channels:

· the Pohutukawa Coast Times

· Te Puru Community Centre website

· local Facebook community pages

· Appoint Better Boards website

· Directly approaching members of the local community where their skills and experience met existing gaps on the board.

12. A review of governance arrangements for council’s non-substantive CCOs including Te Puru is underway. Future reports to the Franklin Local Board will seek decisions on this topic.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Te Puru currently has five trustees which is the minimum allowed by the trust deed. Appointing four additional trustees will increase this to nine which is the maximum allowed by the deed. Appointing the maximum number of trustees provides a buffer in case of further resignations from the board.

14. The Appointments and Remuneration Policy for Council Controlled Organisations sets the standard term length for trustees at three years and can be reappointed for a maximum of two further terms.

15. Te Puru trust deed requires that trustees have an association with the local area and seeks that the following skills be (without limitation) included amongst the board:

· business skills and experience

· sales and marketing skills

· experience in governance and financial control

· communication skills

· an involvement in community affairs (which includes recreational and cultural activities)

· a knowledge of recreation and facility management.

16. In addition, the trust deed seeks that the composition of the board should provide gender balance, reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of the wider community and include recognised business and community leaders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. There are no climate impacts that arise directly from appointments to the trust board.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. There are no significant impacts on other parts of the council group from appointments to Te Puru.

19. A mix of trustee skill-sets are sought, including those with business skills and experience, and a background in governance and financial control.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. Te Puru was established to benefit the residents of the Beachlands / Maraetai / Whitford and Clevedon areas of Franklin. Appointment of appropriate board members will assist Te Puru in achieving their purpose.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. Te Puru’s trust deed seeks that the board composition reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of local communities.

22. The Appointments and Performance Review committee resolution APR/2020/6 included that the committee:

agree that future appointments, or the filling of casual vacancies, emphasise the requirement for greater diversity on the board, particularly Māori candidates.

23. Te Puru’s performance objectives are set by the Franklin Local Board and these include requirements to engage with mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The trustee positions are voluntary and unpaid and therefore do not have financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. The risks common to all board appointments include are outlined in the table below along with their mitigations.

Table 1: Key risks

Risk

Mitigation

Candidates identified are unsuitable

Candidates are appropriately screened by the trust to meet the skill requirements of the board.

Recommended candidates complete a director consent form. This form requires their confirmation that there is nothing that would compromise their effectiveness as a board member.

The board lacks a balance between experienced and fresh personnel

It is generally desirable that boards contain a range of institutional knowledge and fresh thinking. In recent years, there has been high turn-over on Te Puru board.

Adding four new trustees brings fresh thinking in the short term but also helps to provide a pool from which institutional knowledge can be gained in future, particularly if a rate of natural attrition continues.

26. Overall accountability for Te Puru trust is managed through the funding agreement and performance objectives that are set by the Franklin Local Board.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. If appointments are approved, staff will notify the successful candidates.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

James Stephens - Senior Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

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

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

[3] Local board representatives were Margi Watson (Albert-Eden Local Board) and Mike Turinsky (Howick Local Board)

[4] Suggestions included: retaining the current size of signs advertising commercial sexual services in non-residential areas as there is insufficient evidence to justify a change; requiring council event signs to meet the Bylaw’s standards; clarifying requirements for landowner approval and the definition of community event; clarifying how election signs are regulated between parliamentary and local elections, and within and outside of the election period..

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