Agenda of Whau Local Board - Wednesday, 28 July 2021

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

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.

Specifically, members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of the Whau Local Board:

Member

Organisation

Position

Kay Thomas

· New Lynn Citizens Advice Bureau

· Friends of Arataki

· Western Quilters

· Citizens Advice Bureau
Waitākere Board

Volunteer

Committee member

Member

Chair

Susan Zhu

· Chinese Oral History Foundation

· The Chinese Garden Steering Committee of Auckland

Committee member

Board member

Fasitua Amosa

· Equity NZ

· Massive Theatre Company

· Avondale Business Association

Vice President

Board member

A family member is the Chair

Catherine Farmer

· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society

· Blockhouse Bay Historical Society

· Portage Licensing Trust

· Blockhouse Bay Bowls

· Forest and Bird organisation

· Grey Power

Member

Trustee

Patron

Member

Te’eva Matafai

· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust

· Miss Samoa NZ

· Malu Measina Samoan Dance Group

· Aspire Events

Co-Founder

Director

Director/Founder

Director

Warren Piper

· New Lynn RSA

· New Lynn Business Association

Associate member

Member

Jessica Rose

· Women in Urbanism-Aotearoa, Auckland Branch

· Forest & Bird

· Big Feels Club

· Frocks on Bikes

· Bike Auckland

· Department of Conservation

Committee member

Member

Patron

Former co-chair

Former committee member

Employee

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

External organisation	Leads	Alternate
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Warren Piper	Catherine Farmer
Avondale Business Association	Kay Thomas	Warren Piper
Blockhouse Bay Business Association	Warren Piper	Fasitua Amosa
New Lynn Business Association	Susan Zhu	Kay Thomas Warren Piper
Rosebank Business Association	Fasitua Amosa	Warren Piper
Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Fasitua Amosa	Jessica Rose

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 23 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 Whau Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022

File No.: CP2021/09957

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 CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 that is provided as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) adopt the Joint CCO 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 CCO 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 CCOs 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’s 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.

Customised engagement plans

27. 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.

28. 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 CCOs 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.

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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

32. Adopting the Joint CCOs 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.

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

34. 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

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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

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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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.

43. 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.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022	15

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

Approval for one new public road name, two new private road names and the extension of two existing public road names at 5 Clinker Place, New Lynn

File No.: CP2021/09875

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Whau Local Board to name one new public road and two new private roads, being commonly owned access lots (COALs), created by way of a subdivision development at 5 Clinker Place, New Lynn.

2. Formal approval is also sought to name two new sections of public road as ‘Clinker Place’ and ‘Crown Lynn Place’, these being extensions of these existing public roads.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. 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.

4. On behalf of the developer and applicant, Rankin Property Development Limited, agent Joe Holden of Avanda Group has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

5. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Guidelines and the Australian and New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the 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.

6. The proposed names for the new public and private roads are as follows:

Road reference	Applicant’s preference
Public Road 4	Brickmakers Lane
COAL 1	Dorothy Thorpe Way
COAL 2	Clay Works Lane
Pool of alternative names:
These alternative names can be used for any the roads above.	Ringrose Lane
	Neo Court (‘Court’ only if chosen for COAL 1, otherwise corresponding road type as above.)
	Brocade Court (‘Court’ only if chosen for COAL 1, otherwise corresponding road type as above.)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) approves the following names for one new public road and two new private roads (commonly owned access lots), created by way of subdivision at 5 Clinker Place, New Lynn, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974:

i) Public Road 4: Brickmakers Lane

ii) COAL 1: Dorothy Thorpe Way

iii) COAL 2: Clay Works Lane.

b) approves the name Clinker Place for the new section of public road that connects to the existing section of Clinker Place, providing access to the new subdivision at the end of this road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

c) approves the name Crown Lynn Place for the new section of public road that connects to the existing section of Crown Lynn Place, providing access to the new subdivision at the end of this road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent reference BUN60352581 (subdivision reference number SUB60352153) was issued in November 2020 to undertake a staged super lot subdivision (Stages 2-7), which will result in the creation of six super lots, two public roads, two private roads, a public pedestrian accessway and two public road extensions.

8. 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.

9. In this instance the public road requires a name and both of the new COALs require a road name because they each serve more than five lots.

10. Site and location plans of the development, the new public road, the COALs and extensions of ‘Clinker Place’ and ‘Crown Lynn Place’, can be found in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. 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.

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

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

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

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

13. Theme: The section of the site where the new roads are located was the original clay quarry from which the bricks raw material was dug out and manufactured into bricks. Many existing roads in the area surrounding this development have names that refer to the bricks and pottery history of the area, such as ‘Crown Lynn Place’ (ceramics manufacturer in this area), ’Clinker Place’ (clay bricks), ‘Ambrico Place’ (‘Ambrico’ is the name of the parent company ‘Amalgamated Brick and Pipe Company Limited’ before it became known as Crown Lynn) and ‘Clark Street’ (named after the Clarks who were the original largescale pottery manufacturers).

14. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines also state that road names should not be commercially based. The applicant originally wanted the name ‘Avanda Way’ in the pool of alternatives. However, this is not permitted as Avanda is in reference to the developer and the name that they have traded under.

15. For this reason, the Applicant chose names to compliment this existing local theme, as detailed in the table below:

Road number	Proposed name	Meaning
Public Road 4	Brickmakers Lane (applicant’s preference)	This new road is at the intersection of existing Clinker Place and Crown Lynn Place, so all those names relate to the history of bricks and pottery etc. in the area and hence the Brickmaker reference.
COAL 1	Dorothy Thorpe Way (applicant’s preference)	Crown Lynn ceramics commissioned international designers like the American Dorothy Thorpe. In Dorothy Thorpe’s heyday (probably 1930's and on into the 1950's) she purchased glass and ceramics from various companies, decorated it, and sold it. The Crown Lynn ‘Santa Barbara’ range launched in 1965. Later designs included the ‘Pine’ and ‘Palm Springs’ range. Dorothy Thorpe’s work is very sought after today. Dorothy Thorpe passed away in 1989.
COAL 2	Clay Works Lane (applicant’s preference)	The original clay quarry from which the bricks raw material was dug out and manufactured into bricks was located around the proposed new road. The developer also managed to get enough old bricks from the demolition of the church next door to build walls as part of the entry into Stage 2. It should be recognised that those bricks are going back to the original site of their “birth” and the COAL’s name should reflect that.
Pool of alternative names:
These alternative names can be used for any COALs listed above, with the corresponding road types as above.	Ringrose Lane	Richard Ringrose was one of the owners of one of the many brickworks in the area back in the 1860s. As no full name is proposed to be used, it can’t be traced back to a specific person.
	Neo Court ‘Court’ only if chosen for COAL 1, otherwise corresponding road type as above.	‘Neo’ means new and references the new development and road.
	Brocade Court ‘Court’ only if chosen for COAL 1, otherwise corresponding road type as above.	This is a reference to a pattern designed by Dorothy Thorpe.

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: ‘Lane’, ‘Way’ and ‘Court’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads.

19. Consultation: 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. On 8 June 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:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua)

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara (Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust)

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust)

· Te Kawerau ā Maki (Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust)

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

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

· Ngāti Tamaterā (Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust

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

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Waikato – Tainui (Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated).

25. By the close of the consultation period indicated in the Guidelines, the only response received was from Waikato-Tainui who indicated support for mana whenua to take the lead role in this matter.

26. No mana whenua have identified an interest or responded to the request for feedback to date and the applicant has signaled a desire to proceed to a decision on the basis of the names supplied.

27. Noting the scale of the development and that the site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua, it is considered that a suitable period of time has been made available to receive comments from mana whenua and the road naming process can continue.

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 ⇩	Attachment A - Site & Location Plans	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrea Muhme - Planner

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

Draft proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/09840

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

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

PDF Creator

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

Reporting back decisions made under delegation

File No.: CP2021/09687

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report back two decisions of the Whau Local Board made under delegation to provide feedback to inform Auckland Council submissions.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 28 April 2021 the Whau Local Board resolved (resolution number WH/2021/1) as follows:

That the Whau Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

b) note that the local board can continue to use its urgent decision process to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, if the Chair and Deputy Chair choose not to exercise the delegation sought in recommendation (a).

c) note that this delegation will only be exercised where the timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

d) note all local input approved and submitted for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission is to be included on the next local board meeting agenda for the public record.

CARRIED

3. On 16 June 2021 the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson signed off under delegation feedback from the Whau Local Board for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission to Te Waihanga New Zealand Infrastructure Commission's consultation document He Tūāpapa ki te Ora, Infrastructure for a Better Future, Aotearoa New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy.

4. This feedback and its supporting documentation are appended as Attachment A. Further information can be found on the Infrastructure Commission’s website: https://infracom.govt.nz/strategy/have-your-say/.

5. On 23 June 2021 the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson signed off under delegation feedback from the Whau Local Board to be included in Auckland Council’s submission on Hīkina te Kohupara – Kia mauri ora ai te iwi - Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050’ discussion document.

6. This feedback and its supporting documentation are appended as Attachment B. Further information can be found on the Ministry of Transport’s website: https://www.transport.govt.nz/consultations/hikina-te-kohupara-discussion/.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the decision made under delegation on 16 June 2021 providing feedback from the Whau Local Board for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission to Te Waihanga New Zealand Infrastructure Commission's consultation document He Tūāpapa ki te Ora, Infrastructure for a Better Future, Aotearoa New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy

b) receive the decision made under delegation on 23 June 2021 providing feedback from the Whau Local Board to be included in Auckland Council’s submission on Hīkina te Kohupara – Kia mauri ora ai te iwi - Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050’ discussion document

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Local Board feedback on the Infrastructure Commission consultation document He Tūāpapa ki te Ora, Infrastructure for a Better Future, Aotearoa New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy	185
b ⇩	Whau Local Board feedback on the consultation document Hīkina te Kohupara – Kia mauri ora ai te iwi – Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050	195

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

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

Whau Local Board

28 July 2021

Whau Local Board Workshop Records

File No.: CP2021/10313

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present the records of the workshop held by the Whau Local Board on 16 June and 7 July 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Briefings provided at the workshop were as follows:

16 May 2021 (Attachment A)

· Staff and members check-in: informal session

· Feedback development session:

Ø Infrastructure Commission

Ø Reducing transport emissions

Ø Governance Framework Review (GFR)

· Pre-meeting session (run-through)

· Extraordinary Business Meeting to adopt Local Board Agreement 2021/2022

· Blockhouse Bay Community Centre: Annual Presentation

· Whau Grants quick response - round three 2020/2021

· Kai Whakaawe (Māori broker for the three Western Local Boards): Annual Report.

7 July 2021 (Attachment B)

· Staff and members check-in: informal session

· Waitākere ki tua: Update

· Community Facilities: Update

· Waikumete Cemetery: Update

· Connected Communities (formerly CEU): Update.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) note the records of the workshops held on 16 June and 7 July 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Local Board workshop records - 16 June 2021	207
b ⇩	Whau Local Board workshop records - 7 July 2021	209

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Rodica Chelaru - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - July 2021	213

[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	Kay Thomas
Deputy Chairperson	Fasitua Amosa
Members	Catherine Farmer
	Ulalemamae Te'eva Matafai
	Warren Piper
	Jessica Rose
	Susan Zhu