Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board - Wednesday, 21 July 2021

Kaipātiki Local Board

21 July 2021

Options for the facilities at Ross Reserve, 1 Ross Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland

File No.: CP2021/10038

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the Kaipātiki Local Board approve the demolition of the buildings of the former Glenfield Bowling Club facilities at Ross Reserve, Glenfield, Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The tenant owned building was vacated by the Glenfield Bowling Club in November 2019. Membership numbers had dwindled to an unstainable level and the group has since been disbanded and their community lease surrendered.

3. By virtue of the terms of the lease and the disbanded group having no resources to remedy the building defects or meet the lease conditions, Auckland Council has inherited the building at Ross Reserve.

4. A building assessment, structural report and land contamination report have been commissioned by council staff. These reports revealed extensive works are required to bring the building up to current building code standard.

5. The findings of these reports were workshopped with the local board in November 2020. Three options from Community Facilities were put forward to the board:

· Do nothing

· Renew the building at a cost of $650,000 from the Kaipātiki Local Board’s renewal budget

· Demolish the building, with the costs to be borne by Community Facilities operational budgets.

6. The board requested officers call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for a community lease before making any decision (refer to the site plan in Attachment A to the agenda report).

7. Staff advertised an EOI in February 2021 and presented their findings to the local board in a workshop in May 2021.

8. Staff stipulated in the EOI that any successful group would be required to undertake works using their own resources to bring the building up to building code standard.

9. Although three groups applied for a new community lease via the EOI process, staff have concerns about the groups’ capacity to undertake the project independently.

10. At the workshop it was also suggested staff investigate options for selling the site.

11. Staff have investigated four options and after assessing all options for the site, staff recommend the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve to demolish the building.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the demolition of the former bowling club buildings and other improvements situated at Ross Reserve, Glenfield.

b) approve reinstatement of the land at Ross Reserve, Glenfield, that was formerly occupied by Glenfield Bowling Club as open green space, which would provide a space for the development of any potential future amenities or activities in the reserve, should the local board resolve to do so.

c) note the cost of the demolition of the buildings on site and reinstatement of the site to open green space will be borne by Community Facilities operational budgets.

Horopaki

Context

12. The Kaipātiki Local Board is the allocated decision-making authority relating to local recreation and community facilities, including community leases, licences, and landowner matters.

13. The building on the site previously occupied by the Glenfield Bowling Club was vacated in 2019 when the club membership reduced significantly, and the club disbanded.

14. The buildings were then inherited by Auckland Council and this report considers options and recommendations in this regard.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The Glenfield Bowling Club building was built in the 1950s by Glenfield Bowling Club Incorporated. The building has been used by the bowling club as their club and changing rooms until ownership reverted to Auckland Council in 2019.

16. The building has two levels. The upper level was used as the club rooms/bar area and offices and the lower level as storage and changing rooms, with a shower.

17. The upper level is in a fair condition but the lower is in very poor condition.

18. A structural assessment of the building was carried out in September 2020 and certain areas of the foundation were found to be in a poor structural condition and in need of repair.

19. An asbestos refurbishment survey report was also completed in September 2020. Asbestos containing material (ACM) was found in the gable ends of the building, soffits as well as the lower-level wall cladding. It is not recommended to remove the ACM at this stage but rather to encapsulate it with the appropriate paint (if a decision is made to refurbish the building).

Discussion

20. Staff have investigated all options put forward to the local board for the site:

Buildings

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Do nothing: This option is not recommended as the building cannot be tenanted in its current state. A vacant property will also deteriorate faster over time meaning a higher renewal cost later.	Basic like for like renewal: This option is not recommended due to the high renewal cost, as well as ongoing maintenance costs. As a minimum for the building to be tenantable, refurbish the upper level only to a reasonable standard. Clean the lower level only (no refurbishment to lower level). Main items are: - Exterior work (paint walls, roof, replace rotten window frames/sills and doors, reinstatement of bowling green, demolishing of exterior buildings) $150,000 - Structural repairs as per structural report $127,000 - Interior work (painting, carpet, vinyl, polyurethane timber floor) $76,000 - Electrical work $33,000 - Consultant’s fees $67,000 Comprehensive renewal: Refurbishment of the lower-level shower, toilets and offices as well as some minor layout changes would be included as part of this option – this is likely to cost approximately $200,000 extra, as there is a lot of work involved in the refurbishment of the lower level especially the toilets, shower and end office.	Demolish: This option is recommended. Demolish clubrooms and exterior blockwork building. Remove weatherboard building for re-use elsewhere. Reinstate the area to grass.
Capex cost estimate: $0	Capex cost estimate: $454,000 (basic renewal option) A comprehensive renewal will cost upwards of $ 654,000 Costs for either renewal option would need to be met through the local board’s renewals budget.	Operational cost estimate: $150,000. Cost would be met through Community Facilities operational budgets.
Maintenance costs are likely to increase over time and a complete renewal will be required at some stage.	Option 2 will incur ongoing building maintenance costs as well as renewals funding in later years.	No building related ongoing maintenance costs or renewal costs in later years (except for mowing).

21. The cost estimate for the basic renewal under option 2 is based on a ‘like for like’ renewal, i.e. the layout of the building on the upper level will remain as it currently exists, except for the removal of the bar and associated fridge. Any changes to the layout will incur additional costs and could possibly trigger a building consent (providing a shower on the upper level for instance).

22. Currently the lower level is not suitable for a separate tenancy and is in very poor condition. If the building is to be retained, staff suggest cleaning this floor, removing the rotten carpets and black mould and closing this floor off.

23. Both options 2 and 3 include the removal of the exterior buildings (block building and weatherboard workshop) as well as reinstatement of the bowling green to grass.

24. There is interest from community groups to possibly lease this space, however it cannot be leased in its current state due to fire safety issues, structural issues, and the general state of disrepair of wall and floor finishes.

25. Should the board decide that they want to lease the building to a community group, the proposed renewal work would need to start as soon as possible to limit further deterioration.

26. The demolition of the building would be funded from the Community Facilities operational budgets.

Lease to a group

27. Staff advertised for EOI in the North Shore Times on 4February 2021 which also included an invitation to an open day at site on 10February. The EOI was advertised on council’s website for the month of February 2021.

28. At the EOI closing date, three applications had been received:

Applicant	Pest Free Kaipātiki	Babylon Charitable Trust	Lifeboat Community Trust
Activity/purpose	The primary activity of the group is to reduce animal, and plant pests and diseases (land and water), manage other ecological threats and restore native biodiversity. The group offer a plethora of activities for the community to engage in.	Community-based services for migrants of Middle Eastern origin within the Auckland region. Services include and are not limited to sports, music and dancing classes to ensure their culture is kept alive.	The primary activity of the trust is to provide community services to families in need such as food parcels, clothing and household items and a drop-in centre for elderly and the homeless. They also offer classes on cooking, budgeting etc.

29. The EOI advert expressly stated any applicant must be able to self-fund the project. This may include external funding, but the group should not rely on local board or other council funding.

30. Due to the required works identified by Community Facilities as being in the region of $650,000, the assessment criteria for the EOI were weighted to consider any applicant’s ability to undertake and fund the works.

31. The other criteria for the EOI assessment matrix were:

· Financial and group stability;

· References;

· Usage and willingness to share the building; and

· Alignment of the activity with both the land status and outcomes / objectives of the local board plan.

32. While staff acknowledge all applicant groups offer a viable community service, their application assessments were impacted by the groups’ ability to demonstrate their ability to undertake the significant works required to bring the building up to standard.

33. All groups that applied via the EOI process already provide their services in the area through other facilities.

34. The EOI assessment panel found Pest Free Kaipatiki (PFK) to have scored the highest with respect to the above-mentioned criteria.

35. PFK have submitted a comprehensive application detailing their vision for the site and their proposed plan to reach this vision. As noted in their application, the group’s vision is to:

· Remedy the structural issues identified in the building;

· Develop the lower level into storage only, which will allow resources of both time and funds to be concentrated on the upper floor and gardens;

· Develop the upper floor into useable office space, operate a tool shed, have a larger room for workshops/seminars and update and tidy facilities;

· Develop an outside nursery on raised growing platforms; and

· Develop a hot composting system to destroy seeds such as moth plant pods and other items which are currently sent to landfill.

36. PFK’s proposal includes a project timeline, estimated costs and a list of professional businesses who will volunteer their services to help keep costs down. PFK do acknowledge that they will approach council to contribute funds for the project and ongoing costs, such as power etc.

37. The application stated PKF’s project would only cost in the region of $150,000 and that they would approach council for all of these funds as they do not have a reserve fund or make mention of approaching external funders for a grant(s). They also requested the ongoing operational costs of a refurbished facility to be paid by council.

38. If the local board choose to progress an EOI applicant staff would recommend an agreement to lease over the entire advertised site of approximately 2,245m²of land and associated buildings to the highest-ranking applicant. The agreement to lease would incorporate terms and conditions around timeframes for completion of the building to a building warrant of fitness (BWOF) standard. Should timeframes included in the agreement not be met, the site will revert to Auckland Council to manage and maintain or to lease to others.

39. It is acknowledged the preferred EOI applicant has only had limited access to the building to complete their scope of works. As such, whilst statutory requirements are being meet the preferred applicant would be granted access to the building to undertake further investigation work only.

Disposal

40. The former Glenfield Bowling Club is located on land that forms part of Ross Reserve on land legally described as Lot 11 Deposited Plan 54933 and Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 Deposited Plan 39781.

41. Lot 11 Deposited Plan 54933 is currently held in fee simple by council as a classified recreation reserve, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

42. Lot 16, Lots 17, 18 and part Lot 19 Deposited Plan 39781 are all held by the Crown through Department of Conservation (DOC) as a classified recreation reserve and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes.

43. Council may only divest land that is held in fee simple by council. Lot 11 cannot be accessed via a road and therefore cannot be disposed of separately.

44. Disposal of the land is therefore not an option in this instance.

Conclusion

45. Options surrounding council undertaking the renewal works are unachievable due to constrained capital budgets. As the building was inherited, no depreciation funds have been allocated for renewals.

46. A renewals project would only bring the building up to a code of compliance standard, not necessarily fit for purpose. The renewal option would also incur ongoing maintenance and additional renewal costs. It would also require the local board reallocating funding for renewal as part of future work programmes, which would have an impact on the local board’s ability to renew other assets in the area that need work.

47. Under the EOI option, whilst acknowledging the EOI applicants are enthusiastic to undertake the work required to bring the building up to building code standard, staff have concerns about the confirmed financial and practical resources of each group to undertake the works.

48. Although some work could be undertaken by volunteers, other aspects of the project must be undertaken by qualified professionals. Staff have concerns that several project plans submitted by the applicants were costed at below 25% of council’s costing, and that other applicants requested council pay the renovation project costs and ongoing maintenance and operating costs.

49. If a group is granted an Agreement to Lease and the group fails to complete the required works in time with their own resources, council will be left with a partially completed project that will require council funding to complete or remedy.

50. As the parcels of land that make up Ross Reserve are owned by both council and the Crown, divesting the land is not an available option.

51. With the age of the building being over 50 years and the issues identified in the investigation and inspection reporting, it is likely there will be further works required that have not been identified or costed. For this reason, along with issues highlighted in the renewals and EOI option, staff recommend the demolition option.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

52. The designated impact level of the recommended decision on greenhouse gas emissions will result in “no impact” because the proposal will create an open green space and does not introduce any new sources of emissions.

53. The demolition project will look to reuse as much of the building material as possible.

54. Climate change will not impact the site as it is away from the coast and is well above sea level.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. The proposal has been reviewed by the Parks and Places Specialist, Senior Community Lease Advisor, and Community Facilities.

56. The Parks, Sports and Recreation Lead did not provide comment as none of the EOI applicants provide for sports activities.

57. A staff member each from council’s Community Empowerment and Local Board Services teams were on the assessment panel for the EOI applications received. Whilst the assessment panel acknowledged that all applicant groups provide a service that helps the community, concerns were raised about the ability of all applicants to undertake the project to bring the facilities up to code.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. Consideration of options for the former Glenfield Bowling Club are an item on the Kaipātiki Community Lease Work Programme 2020/2021 (resolution number KT/2020/129).

59. The recommendations within this report are within the local board’s delegated authority relating to local, sport and community facilities.

60. This item and the assorted options have been discussed with the local board at workshops in November 2020 and May 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan, and individual local board plans.

62. If the local board chooses to proceed with the EOI option, staff will engage with iwi on the preferred group and tenure.

63. Iwi identified as having an interest in the Kaipātiki Local Board area were invited to participate in the EOI process. No iwi group choose to apply.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. There is no funding required from local board budgets on the staff recommended demolition option.

65. The renewals option and pursuing a lease with the applicant most aligned to assessment criteria (Pest Free Kaipatiki) will be at a significant cost to the local board. The renewals option will require the local board to spend between approximately $450,000 and $650,000 from its renewals budget which has already been allocated to other projects. Pursuing a lease with Pest Free Kaipatiki is likely to result in a request to the local board for $150,000 to meet the renovation project costs. The group has also indicated that they wish the board to pay the ongoing operational costs.

66. Although the costs associated with pursuing a lease cannot be accurately quantified, it appears unlikely that Pest Free Kaipatiki will be able to complete the project without funding from the local board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

67. There is no financial risk to the local board if the demolition option is chosen as this will be funded via Community Facilities operational (opex) budgets.

68. Should the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve to proceed with any other option, the risks are that:

· there is no council funding available to renew the facility unless other projects are re-prioritised;

· the resources of any of the chosen groups will be insufficient to complete the project; and

· given the age of the building once renovation is commenced, it is likely that additional works will be required at extra cost that are not budgeted for either by a proposed occupant, council, or local board budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69. Once demolition of the building is approved, a request will be made to add the project to the Community Facilities operational work programme. A deconstruction and waste recovery plan will be developed to identify the materials that can be salvaged from the demolition process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Attachment A Site Plan Ross Reserve	15

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - Acting General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

21 July 2021

Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan Implementation

File No.: CP2021/09862

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the service requirements and staged approach to development of the multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play area located within Birkenhead War Memorial Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Kaipātiki Local Board’s One Local Initiative (OLI) key advocacy project is the implementation of the Birkenhead War Memorial Masterplan (the masterplan).

3. Funding for the OLI programme was re-phased in the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031. The $8 million of renewals funding for the Kaipātiki Local Board OLI is phased for FY25-FY27 and is the only indicative funding for the project available in the next ten years.

4. A multi-use sport facility and upgrades to Osborne Pool (including aquatic play space) were identified as the highest priority projects from the adopted masterplan (2019) for progressing through a detailed business case (DBC).

5. The baseline service requirements focus on a facility for the local community as anticipated in the Community Facilities Network Plan (2015) except for specialist destination indoor climbing facilities and splashpad that will attract a wider catchment.

6. The service requirements include:

· sport, recreation and education programmes and casual play (leisure) - multipurpose room, use of park environment and rock-climbing facilities

· fitness, health, and well-being - gym with exercise stations and fitness room suitable for group fitness activities

· sports club operations - storage, multiple unisex changing rooms, meeting space and spectator seating

· aquatic free-play - splash pad (destination) and surrounding seating, shade and toilet facilities

· aquatic fitness, leisure and learning activities-lane pool, teaching pool, changing and toilet facilities

· accessibility – suitable changing and toilet facilities, pool and facility access, parking

· specialist rock climbing (destination) – the viability of provision options to be assessed prior to inclusion in the DBC.

7. Three options for delivery of this project were assessed:

a) Option 1 - Status quo (essential asset renewals)

b) Option 2 - Progress implementation of Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan

c) Option 3 - Staged implementation.

8. Staff recommend Option 3 (staged implementation), as the first stage can be delivered within the $8 million renewals budget. It provides visible progress in delivering the multi-use sports facility in the masterplan, extends the life and service outcomes of the existing council assets over the medium term, allows for one multi-use sports facility in the future and the total project cost is comparable to three of five Option 2 delivery options.

9. A staged approach is estimated to cost an additional $360,000 to $720,000, compared to delivering the multi-use sports facility in one stage.

10. Northcote Tigers Rugby League Club (NTRL) and Birkenhead City Cricket Club (BCC) are potential partners in shared club, display and office space within the multi-use sports facility stage 2. Staff recommend reopening discussions with NTRL, BCC and any other interested clubs such as Calliope/Harriers Athletics and Northern Triathlon during the detailed business case phase to test interest and viability for all parties.

11. Project risks include uncertainty around timing of funding, asset deterioration, stakeholder and community expectations not being met and cost escalations. These risks will be managed through renewal investment to keep facilities fit-for purpose and proactive communication.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the baseline service requirements for the proposed Birkenhead War Memorial Park multi-use sports facility, upgraded Osborne Pool and integrated aquatic play space for inclusion in the detailed business case:

i) sport, recreation and education programmes and casual play (leisure) requiring multipurpose room, use of park environment and rock-climbing facilities

ii) fitness, health, and well-being requiring a gym with exercise stations and fitness room suitable for group fitness activities

iii) sports club operations requiring storage, multiple unisex changing rooms, meeting space and spectator seating (fixed or movable)

iv) aquatic free-play requiring a splash pad and surrounding seating, shade and toilet facilities

v) aquatic fitness, leisure and learning activities-lane pool, teaching pool, changing and toilet facilities

vi) accessibility solutions for all people including suitable changing and toilet facilities, pool and facility access and parking.

b) endorse further investigation of rock-climbing options within the new multi-use sports facility and their operational viability to inform the detailed business case phase.

c) approve a staged approach to development with stage 1 including:

i) renewals to extend the life of the existing Osborne Pool, classroom/meeting space, high ropes course and Birkenhead Leisure Centre

ii) upgrades and renewals to Osborne Pool and Birkenhead Leisure Centre to improve the customer experience

iii) replacement of multiple unisex changing rooms and storage facilities to cater to resident and visiting clubs.

d) note further work on stage 1 will happen when funding is available in FY25-FY27 as indicated in the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan and a detailed business case for stage 2 will be developed when future funding is identified for completion of the multi-use sports facility, upgrade to Osborne Pool and provision of integrated aquatic play space.

e) endorse inclusion of an option to explore a potential partnership with Northcote Tigers Rugby League Club, Birkenhead City Cricket Club and other interested clubs in the detailed business case to enable provision of a shared club social, display and office space, in addition to the baseline service requirements.

Horopaki

Context

Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan (2019)

12. A masterplan was developed for Birkenhead War Memorial Park (the masterplan) based on extensive research and community engagement throughout 2018 and 2019 and adopted by the Kaipātiki Local Board in August 2019 (resolution number KT/2019/145).

13. The key moves outlined in the masterplan are (refer to Attachment A, slide 3):

· fit for purpose flexible facilities

· fewer facilities providing more space for people to use the park

· people dominating the park rather than cars

· increased opportunities for young people to play and have fun

· flexible spaces able to accommodate new users in the future

· cohesive park with good connections and activity throughout the site.

14. The masterplan sets out six activity zones in the park. Figure 1 below outlines the three zones related to the scope of this project: sport and recreation, aquatic facilities and education:

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan Zones

15. Kaipātiki Local Board identified the multi-use sport facility and upgrades to Osborne Pool (including aquatic play space) as the highest priority masterplan projects for development in the business case.

16. Support was high through the masterplan community engagement for the redevelopment of the existing aquatic facilities and development of a multi-use sports facility,(see Table 1 below). Some management and loss of club identity issues were raised to be addressed in the future phases of the project:

Table 1. Summary of masterplan feedback related to priority projects

Redevelopment of existing aquatic facilities

New multi-use sports facility

· 86% agreed the aquatic project should proceed.

· Respondents agreed that a family-friendly pool with appropriate supporting facilities, such as picnic space and improved changing rooms, would make the site even more attractive for local families.

· Strong support to retain the pool as an outdoor pool and its use as a lap pool.

· Support for additional water play facilities, such as a splash pad.

· People who did not support this proposal were mainly concerned about the cost of the project.

· 87% supported plans for a multi-use sports facility.

· Ranked as the highest priority project.

· Respondents not supportive or unsure were mainly concerned about:

o the scale of investment required,

o the lack of shelter available for casual spectators,

o the risk of individual clubs’ losing their unique identities without their own spaces.

· Some clubs also expressed concern about how a shared facility would be managed.

One Local Initiative (OLI) 10 Year Programme

17. The One Local Initiative (OLI) 10 Year Programme process was initiated through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan to improve the local board advocacy process, including providing more comprehensive advice on local board advocacy projects.

18. Through the development of the OLI programme local boards submitted their key advocacy project for inclusion. Kaipātiki Local Board’s key advocacy project was the Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan implementation.

19. In May 2018, the Finance and Performance Committee agreed that $170 million of funding be included in the 10-year Budget for local community One Local Initiatives. $22 million was earmarked for the Kaipātiki Local Board OLI of which $8 million was allocated from renewals (see Figure 2 below):

Diagram

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 2 Kaipātiki Local Board OLI Budget

20. The OLI programme was placed on hold as part of decisions made around the Emergency Budget 2020-2021. The local board funded the detailed business case and service requirements from its Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

21. In December 2020, the Mayoral proposal for the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031 outlined the tight fiscal environment for Auckland Council due to the impact of COVID 19. Whilst funding of $360 million is allocated to the OLI programme in the LTP, funding is in the outer years and the Kaipātiki Local Board OLI is not identified as one of the priority projects for early implementation.

22. The $8 million renewals funding for the Kaipātiki Local Board OLI is still phased in FY25-FY27, but the allocation of further project budget for all OLIs is to be confirmed after year four of the 2021-2031 LTP and is subject to future Annual Plan and LTP decisions.

23. This phase of the project is focused on:

a) defining the service requirements to inform future designs and business cases:

· the council’s active recreation provision within the park

· key activities the multi-use sports facility could provide and future rock climbing and gym provision

· an integrated aquatic play area.

b) determining the scope of renewal of Osborne Pool

c) exploring partnership opportunities with local sports clubs for the multi-use sports facility

d) exploring options for delivering the Kaipātiki Local Board OLI.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. The masterplan sets out activities within the zones of the park, informed by community and stakeholder engagement and this has been used to inform the service requirements for the multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play space to ensure they are fit-for-purpose and meet community needs.

Service requirements for the local community

25. The service requirements for the multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play space will be used to inform future design briefs and concept designs for the new facilities and set local board and community expectations for what will be delivered. They respond to the desired activities within the sports and recreation, aquatic facilities, and education zones in the masterplan and what staff heard from sport clubs located on the Mahara Ave side of the park.

26. The service requirements are also informed by research and analysis of fitness activity demand and approaches to indoor rock climbing and Education Outside the Classroom (EOTC) provision in Auckland and elsewhere.

27. Table 2 below outlines the service and facility requirements:

Table 2: Service and facility requirements
Baseline Service requirement	Description	Facility requirements
Programmes and learning	Sport, recreation and outdoor experiences for children, youth and adults	· Multipurpose room · Rock climbing facilities · Park environment
Fitness	Fitness suites to improve fitness, health and well-being	· Gym – with exercise stations · Fitness room suitable for group fitness activities e.g., yoga, Pilates, weights, high intensity, indoor cycling
Casual-play	Unstructured play, informal, drop-in, or semi-structured	· Multipurpose room · Rock climbing facilities
Sports club operations	Support functions to service multiple sports clubs	· Storage · Multiple unisex changing rooms · Meeting space · Spectator seating Note provision of shared, social, display and office space to be explored as part of potential partnership in the detailed business case.
Aquatic free-play	Unstructured water fun and play	· Splash pad · Surrounding seating, shade and toilet facilities.
Aquatic fitness and learning	In-water fitness: lane swimming, swim training, aqua-jogging, in-water exercises Learn to swim, water confidence, water-based activities, and safety programmes	· Lane pool · Teaching pool · Changing and toilet facilities
Accessibility	Accessible for full range of abilities	· Suitable changing and toilet facilities, aquatic and building access, parking
Further investigation	Description	Facility requirements
Special leisure – rock climbing (destination)	Rock climbing catering from beginner to advanced	· Options for provision and operational viability to be assessed prior to inclusion of preferred option/s in DBC

28. The local service requirements align strategically with local leisure provision outlined in the Community Facilities Network Plan (2015) which provides for the free-play, fitness, casual-play, learning and community programme functions and the associated facilities in which these occur.

29. Rock climbing is defined as destination leisure provision within the Community Facilities Network Plan (2015). The existing indoor rock climbing attracts a wider than local catchment and is a niche activity for council provision. The performance of the current facility is not optimal and has been constrained by renewals to the leisure centre, uncertainty over mid to long-term investment returns, prioritisation of promotional spending and staff resourcing levels.

30. Whilst rock climbing is included in the masterplan activities, further analysis of options (indoor climbing lead walls including clip and climb and bouldering wall, fixed or movable outdoor climbing walls) and their viability is recommended prior to inclusion in the detailed business case phase to assess the appropriate level and viability of provision within the new multi-use sports facility.

31. Feedback from Northcote Tigers Rugby League (NTRL) and Birkenhead City Cricket (BCC) strongly supports provision of spectator seating to overlook the fields as set out in the masterplan. Spectator seating is not part of council’s core sports facility provision, but exceptions have been made at other sites, for example at Shepherds Park in Beach Haven. Standalone outdoor bleacher seating is an option and could be provided in partnership with the clubs.

32. BCC advocated for indoor cricket net training facilities. Staff do not recommend its inclusion in the baseline service requirements given:

· indoor cricket nets are not included in the masterplan

· indoor cricket nets are not part of council’s core sports facility provision

· benefits derive mainly to individual cricket players

· BCC is not able to contribute financially

· a standard size indoor cricket net facility does not fit on the multi-use sport facility site under the staged approach.

Options assessed to progress delivery of the project

33. Three options were assessed for delivery of this project due to the change in phasing of the OLI programme in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 and the inclusion of $8 million Kaipātiki Local Board OLI budget in FY25-FY27, which can only be used to renew assets (see Table 3 below):

Table 3: Options assessed
Option 1 - Status quo (essential asset renewals)	Focus on renewals only for the next ten years to existing assets to ensure fit for purpose
Option 2 - Advocate to progress implementation of Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan	Advocate for full OLI funding, continue with detailed business case
Option 3 - Staged implementation of Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan	Complete renewals to existing assets and build new club change rooms and storage as Stage 1 of implementing new multi-use sport facility

34. Option 1 includes renewals set out in the FY22-FY24 local board and subsequent work programmes over the next ten years. This option renews and maintains Osborne Pool along with the high ropes course, classroom/meeting space and Birkenhead Leisure Centre which are identified for demolition when the multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play space are developed (refer to Attachment A, slide 14 for the priority renewals).

35. Under Option 2, five options were developed to progress implementation of the masterplan. Cost estimates for the options range from $19 million to $34 million and all options deliver an improved customer entry (currently two entry points) to the facilities. Options contain a mix of functional spaces and number of buildings, some retaining the cricket club in part or whole, and two options for access through the site. (refer to Attachment A, slide 7, slide 8 and slide 15 for details of the options).

36. Under Option 3, three options were developed to partially implement the masterplan ( refer to Table 4 below). Option 3:

· provides club changing rooms and storage, improved customer experience at the pool and leisure centre and ensures operational viability

· ensures existing assets are fit for purpose as per Option 1 until further investment can be made and new facilities built.

37. Refer to Attachment A, slides 17-20 for further detail.

Table 4: Staged delivery Stage 1	Funding source	Timing
Renewals to existing assets to ensure fit for purpose	LB Work Programme	Ongoing
Renewals to existing assets to maintain and improve customer experience	OLI $8 million renewals	FY25-27
Build new club change rooms and storage (3 options 3.1-3.3)		FY25-27
Complete DBC closer to time when Stage 2 funding included in LTP		TBC (in line with future OLI CAPEX funding)
Stage 2	Funding source
Design and construct multi-use sports facility including council leisure services and splash pad on approval of DBC	Future OLI CAPEX funding	TBC

38. Options 3.1-3.3 were assessed with the clubs supporting Option 3.1 as the proposed changing rooms and storage provides a direct interface with the field and does not require demolition and rebuilding of the existing cricket clubrooms. The clubs do not support a through site link between the proposed multi-use sports facility and the field as in Option 3.3, as they believe this will lead to conflict between users (sport users and public using accessway) and a barrier to spectators to view the field.

39. The Pros, cons, implications, and risks of Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3 are outlined in Attachment A, slide 23. Staff recommend a staged approach to implementation (Option 3) as:

· Option 1 does not progress implementation of the masterplan at all

· Option 2 has no funding beyond the $8 million renewals signalled in the LTP and may not be funded at all in the foreseeable future, with limited progress on implementing the masterplan in the meantime

· Option 3 provides visible progress in implementing the multi-use sports facility in the masterplan and:

o stage 1 can be delivered within the $8 million renewals budget

o reduces the burden of ownership maintenance and cleaning of changing room facilities for clubs, consistent with council service levels elsewhere

o extends the life and service outcomes of the existing council assets over the medium term

o allows for one multi-use sports facility in the future to include the clubs if they want to be part of the new facility and it is viable to do so.

o expected full delivery cost of $29 million to $34 million is comparable to three of the five Option 2 delivery options.

Progressing a potential partnership

40. Discussions commenced in October 2020 with clubs based on the park to explore opportunities for a partnership in the proposed new multi-use sports facility. These discussions were facilitated by an independent facilitator and included:

· what interest the clubs had in shared space within a multi-use sports facility

· the form a partnership might take

· which parties were interested

· what financial capacity potential partners had to contribute.

41. BCC, NTRL and Calliope Harriers/Athletics Club have been sharing use of the BCC building since the demolition of the grandstand building. Northern Triathlon Club use the pool, wind train in the leisure centre and have storage on site.

42. The relationship between BCC and NTRL had been strained and proposals for a temporary separate club space were explored on site for NTRL.

43. BCC and NTRL indicated again their interest and desire to work together to share use of the cricket club building when it became apparent funding for the multi-use sports facility was many years off. They have agreed to a third-party ownership entity for the cricket club building which will sustain the viability of their clubs over the foreseeable future. Calliope Harriers/Athletics Club will continue as a user group of the facility.

44. The clubs support a staged development of the multi-use sports facility, with stage one including changing and storage facilities which will add to their existing provision and meet their needs for four changing facilities to service home and away teams. The third-party entity will upgrade the cricket club changing facilities to make them usable for rugby league in the meantime.

45. Longer term they may be interested in joining in a shared club space in the proposed multi-use sports facility. Staff recommend exploring the opportunity for a potential partnership with the new third party entity and other interested clubs in the detailed business case. Calliope Harriers/Athletics Club and Northern Triathlon Club are more likely to be user groups rather than partners, but this can be tested through the detailed business case.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. Subject to funding approval, the facility design and development will include consideration of a carbon neutral building, water sensitive design, use of sustainable and ethical products, use of healthy products and construction waste.

47. Procurement processes for the design team will include environmentally sustainable design experience as a key requirement. In other recent procurements this has included examples of experience designing buildings that meet Greenstar or Living Building Challenge requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. Parks, Sport and Recreation have been involved through the masterplan and service requirements. Active Recreation will manage the services delivered from the new multi-use sports facility, upgraded Osborne Pool, and integrated aquatic play space.

49. Community Facilities will manage the business case processes, design, construction and ongoing building maintenance required for staged delivery. Collaboration will continue to ensure that the facilities will be developed and integrated into operational maintenance and asset management systems once completed.

50. Community Facilities will continue to implement renewals on the existing pool and leisure centre assets over the next four years as part of business-as-usual work programme delivery. Staff will start work delivering the next phase of the recommended staged approach of this project (changing rooms, storage, and customer experience improvements) when funding is available in FY25-FY27. Staff will also update the local board when the project recommences in FY25 and re-engage with stakeholders.

51. Community Facilities also manages the council’s OLI programme and will provide updates to the local board about its phasing and allocation of funding to progress other projects.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52. The OLI is the Kaipātiki Local Board’s key advocacy project identified through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan and the first stage of delivering the masterplan, delivering multiple benefits for the community.

53. Delays to project funding mean community benefits will not be delivered for several years, with status quo remaining in the meantime. The public will see limited progress on the aspirations set out in the masterplan to which they contributed.

54. The agreement between NTRL and BCC will see some improvements to the existing cricket club facilities and provide a more sustainable future for the sports clubs until new facilities are built.

55. Discussions were held with the RSA in late 2020 regarding the relocation of the war memorial located in the Birkenhead Leisure Centre building. Relocation was required due to the proposed demolition of the leisure centre to implement the masterplan projects. This is now on hold as the leisure centre will remain until Stage 2 of the project commences.

56. The proposed service requirements and options to progress development of the masterplan based on the indicative Kaipātiki Local Board OLI budget of $22 million were presented at a workshop with the local board in December 2020.

57. The local board requested a staged approach be considered and assessed, given the updated fiscal position of Auckland Council outlined in the Mayoral proposal for the LTP 2021-2031.

58. The three options developed to progress the project were presented to a local board workshop in April 2021 where members:

a) indicated support for a staged approach to development

b) requested provision of spectator seating be considered

c) indicated support for renewals of the high ropes and low ropes course in the meantime

d) acknowledged providing the splashpad would have greatest impact for the public but there is no identified funding for this as it cannot be funded via renewals

e) indicated support for a third-party entity formed by NTRL and BCC owning the cricket club building

f) discussed advocating to the Governing Body to bring funding forward into the next three years for this project, and funding to be more flexible so it can be applied to new works as well as renewals.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

59. Sport and leisure contribute to outcomes under three directions in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau (2017). The plan, published by the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), provides a framework to Auckland Council for implementing desired cultural, economic, environmental and social outcomes for Māori:

· Direction – Whanaungatanga: social outcome, Māori communities are connected and safe; action, wellbeing of tamariki through provision of facilities and services such as libraries, community centres, swimming pools

· Direction – Manaakitanga: social outcome, Māori enjoy a high quality of life

· Direction – Wairuatanga: social outcome, Māori social institutions and networks thrive

60. IMSB’s plan provides the following key performance indicator for sport and recreation: ‘per cent of Māori who can access at least three public council facilities, such as a library, pool or sports facility within 10-15 minutes travel time.’ Provision of the planned multi-use sports facility to replace the Birkenhead Leisure Centre and addition of the integrated aquatic play space will help to continue to meet this key performance indicator.

61. Extensive review of the park’s cultural heritage, history, functions, and environment was undertaken during 2018 and 2019 to develop the masterplan. Mana whenua engagement included initial feedback gathered during a site walkover and a hui to establish how the masterplan design could incorporate Te Aranga design principles, and to identify locations where these values could come to life in the park. The following iwi were involved:

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Wai

· Ngaati Whanaunga.

62. Masterplan feedback from mana whenua related to the multi-use sports facility focused on:

· sustainable design approach

· possibility to introduce a Māori/cultural purpose facility in one of the spaces.

63. Mana whenua have been kept up to date on this project’s progress via email and written communication in late 2020 and early 2021. Iwi who registered their interest were:

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Kawerau ā Maki.

64. A presentation was circulated to the Parks and Recreation – Mana Whenua North/West Iwi Forum in early June 2021 providing an update on findings to date and project progress.

65. The proposed stage 1 changing rooms and storage and future multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play space will be designed in accordance with the Te Aranga design principles. This will require mana whenua input and involvement during the design process and enable Māori cultural expression within the building form and exterior.

66. There is potential for the multi-use sports facility and integrated aquatic play space to meet Māori outcomes through:

· services provided – mana whenua involvement in service requirements to ensure services that meet the needs of the Māori community

· contribution to sense of place and identity through early involvement in the design of the facility.

67. Further engagement on this project will occur with mana whenua when funding is available in FY25-FY27.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68. Indicative funding of $8 million is earmarked for the Kaipātiki Local Board One Local Initiative (OLI) as part the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

69. The local board advocated to the Governing Body for their OLI funding to be moved forward into the next three years, FY22-FY24, and for the budget to be applied flexibly to renewals and new works to achieve better outcomes for this project.

70. There is currently no budget capacity in the LTP to undertake work on additional OLI projects in the first three years, and limited budget in years four and five to recommence other OLI projects beyond what is approved.

71. Options to apply the $8 million budget more flexibly to renewals and new works will be considered once budget is available in FY25-FY27.

Costing of options

72. A quantity surveyor was engaged to update cost estimates on three options in the staged approach. As no designs exist for the options considered there is a high level of contingency included in the estimates. These are set out in Table 5 below:

Table 5. Option 3 Staged approach	Option 3.1	Option 3.2	Option 3.3
Stage 1- Customer experience related renewals	$1.2 million	$1.2 million	$1.2 million
Stage 1 – Changing rooms and storage	$3.6-$4 million	$4.6-$5 million	$4.9-$5.4 million
Stage 1 – Business case and design	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Stage 1 – Total OLI renewals expenditure	$4.9-$5.3 million	$5.9-$6.3 million	$6.2-$6.7 million
Stage 2 OLI CAPEX	$24.2-$26.6 million	$23.3-$25.6 million	$25.6-$28.1 million
Total cost	$29.1-$31.9 million	$29.2-$31.9 million	$ 31.8-$34.8 million

73. All three Options 3.1-3.3 are financially viable to progress for stage 1 based on the indicative budget of $8 million. The staged approach will cost an estimated additional $350,000-$750,000 dependent on the option compared to delivering the project in one stage.

74. Annual local board work programme renewal funding FY22-FY24, to ensure existing facilities remain fit for purpose, is separate to and in addition to the $8 million OLI renewal funding.

75. Requirements for operating expenditure will be identified in the business case for stage 1 and detailed business case for stage 2.

76. No provision in the cost estimates has been made for a financial contribution from BCC or NTRL as part of a partnership.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

77. Table 6 below provides an overview of the main risks, impacts and mitigations at this phase in the project:

Table 6: Project Risks
Risks Identified	Impact	Mitigation
If limited investment, asset deterioration may occur affecting service levels	Negative impact on customer experience leading to reduced patronage Financial performance is negatively impacted	Invest in renewals through local board work programme to ensure facility remains fit for purpose
Funding for Stage 1 is re-phased or removed in the next LTP	Negative public and stakeholder perception Reputational risk Time to respond to any concerns raised Cost escalation	Develop a communication strategy to engage with stakeholders and the community keeping them informed.
No funding is provided for Stage 2 in the next LTP or beyond	Negative public and stakeholder perception Reputational risk Time to respond to any concerns raised	Develop a communication strategy to engage with stakeholders and the community Work with clubs and other stakeholders on mitigation or alternative actions
Support for the project diminishes due to the delays in delivery	Negative public and stakeholder perception Components of the service requirements may need to change The project may be put on hold indefinitely	Ensure there is transparency in communication with clubs, stakeholders and the community as to why delays have occurred
Stakeholder and community expectations not completely met	Delays in responses to stakeholder and community concerns Negative publicity may arise	Develop a communication strategy to engage with stakeholders and the community Maintain regular communication at key points in the future
Cost escalation because of delays to the funding the project	Future budget requirements to deliver stage 2 result in a negative cost/benefit ratio	Address delivery options through the detailed business case

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

78. Update stakeholders via email on the staged approach to delivery of the Birkenhead War Memorial Park OLI and priority renewals as part of the local board work programme.

79. Further engagement with mana whenua and stakeholders will recommences when project funding is available in FY25-FY27.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshop Slides April 2021	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Nicola Terry - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation

Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services Planning, Investment and Partnership

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust quarter four report	61

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Bayview Community Centre quarter four 2020/2021 report	67
b ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project quarter four 2020/2021 report	71
c ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Glenfield Community Centre quarter four 2020/2021 report	73
d ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Hearts and Minds quarter four 2020/2021 report	77
e ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Highbury House quarter four 2020/2021 report	79
f ⇩	18 August 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Kaipatiki Youth Development Trust quarter four 2020/2021 report	83

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board appointments to external organisations 2019-2022	97

Kaipātiki Local Board

21 July 2021

Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022

File No.: CP2021/09803

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 to the agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki 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) (resolution number 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 (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report).

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 (resolution number 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 communities.

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 ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Kaipātiki Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022	105
b ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Review of Auckland Council’s Council Controlled Organisations - Report of Independent Panel	121

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

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

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry – Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Equity of Service Levels and Funding Draft Report June 2021	227
b ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Draft KLB feedback - equity of service levels and funding	267

Kaipātiki Local Board

21 July 2021

Draft proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/09855

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 Kaipātiki 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 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report). 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 (resolution number 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 ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Attachment A - Draft proposal for new signs bylaw and controls	287

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Victor Faletutulu - Graduate Policy Advisor

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

[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	John Gillon
Deputy Chairperson	Danielle Grant, JP
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Melanie Kenrick
	Cindy Schmidt
	Andrew Shaw
	Adrian Tyler

External organisation	Member	Reason for appointment
Uruamo Maranga Ake Marae Charitable Trust

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Wairau catchment working group meeting notes and action points	427
b ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Auckland's Wastewater Services presentation	433
c ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Stormwater Treatment presentation	461
d ⇩	21 July 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - WCWG Briefing: Freshwater Management Tool presentation 25 June 2021	475

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager