Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 16 September 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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) a financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

ii) a non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 19 August 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Business North Harbour update

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To outline concerns about the proposed Business Improvement District (BID) Policy review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Kevin O’Leary, General Manager of Business North Harbour, will be in attendance via Skype for Business to discuss concerns around the timing of the draft BID Policy review and in particular, the content of the funding agreement.

3. A letter outlining these concerns is presented at Attachment A to the agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation and letter from Kevin O’Leary from Business North Harbour and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Letter from Business North Harbour to Auckland Council re BID Policy review............................................................ 433

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.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 19 August 2021	11
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 19 August 2021	23

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Detailed design for the path network improvement at Fernhill Escarpment Reserve, Rosedale - Albany

File No.: CP2021/13226

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the detailed design for the improvement of the path network at Fernhill Escarpment Reserve (66 Bush Road, Rosedale, Albany) and to progress the project to construction.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The improvement of the path network at Fernhill Escarpment Reserve was identified via community feedback and a strategic assessment. The local board requested that staff look at the possibility of improving the path network to provide safe and easy access to recreational walking and improve the connectivity of the walking network in the Albany area.

3. The local board has allocated $682,000 of funding ($100,000 local discretionary initiative funding (LDI) and $582,000 local renewals funding) towards the renewal and upgrade of the path network. The project will deliver on Local Board Plan 2020 Outcome 2: ‘an efficient and accessible travel network’ and was approved by the local board as part of the 2021/2022 Community Facilities work programme (resolution number UH/2021/71).

4. A concept design has been developed incorporating the recommendations from the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve walkway development plan that was approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board in 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/38). The concept design further considers feedback received from the Fernhill Escarpment volunteer group, Massey University, Department of Conservation, Te Kawerau a Māki, ITM Albany, Bei Group, and Northwood Resident Group.

5. The concept design outlining options for improvement of the path network in and around Fernhill Escarpment Reserve was presented to the local board at a workshop held in February 2020.

6. The local board indicated support of the recommended partial upgrade of improvements to the path network within Fernhill Escarpment Reserve, referenced as option 2. The improvements include the decommissioning of some tracks, upgrading of the main track and construction of a new pedestrian bridge, providing better linking paths within and adjacent to the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve.

7. Resource consents for the overall improvements of the path network were granted in May 2020. Building consent for new the bridge was granted in May 2021.

8. Staff seek approval of the detailed design (for the improvements as per option 2 in this report) and to progress the project to procurement and construction.

9. The expected key risks for this project are implications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic on costs for the works as well as weather conditions that could potentially delay the project and lead to cost overruns. These risks will be managed by addressing them early with potential contractors during the procurement process and continuously monitoring during construction.

10. The project will have a positive impact on the environment as it will provide greater walking opportunities and include planting which will support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

11. Following the approval of the proposed detailed design, the procurement process will begin, and physical works are expected to commence in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the detailed design for the improvements to the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve path network located at 66 Bush Road, Albany, as per Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) request staff progress to construction the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve path network project located at 66 Bush Road, Albany.

Horopaki

Context

12. The Fernhill Escarpment is a reserve in Albany which runs along a section of the Ōtehā River valley. The proximity of Massey University and the nearby shopping centre of Albany make the escarpment a key transit route for pedestrians and cyclists.

13. The reserve is a conservation zone and significant ecological area (SEA), containing totara and tanekaha trees. There appears to be limited, or no, presence of kauri.

14. The Fernhill Escarpment Reserve is bound by roads at either end. To the west it meets Bush Road and to the north, the Albany Highway.

Image 1: Aerial view of Fernhill Escarpment

Background

15. The existing path network is in very poor condition and without wayfinding signage. Users have raised concerns around getting lost in the reserve due to the track quality and lack of signage.

16. Other reserves to the north of the Albany Highway have seen greenways and path network upgrades in past years and so connections to a renewed path at Fernhill Escarpment Reserve has the potential to create high quality access and transit options for the local community.

17. This improvement was prioritised by the local board and a project was added in the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Facilities work programme 2017/2018 to investigate options for the development of the path network within the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve.

18. At the business meeting held on 17 May 2018, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve walkway development plan (resolution number UH/2018/38). Subsequently the project was approved in the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Facilities work programme for financial years 2019/2020 and 2021/2022 to action recommendations from the development plan and undertake track improvements in line with the walkway development plan.

19. A concept plan with recommendations for the improvement of the path network was presented to the Upper Harbour Local Board at a workshop in February 2020. Not all recommendations can be delivered within the project budget, so a partial upgrade of the path network was proposed, including those recommendations within Fernhill Escarpment. Other recommendations focus on the network in the adjacent reserves and were proposed to be considered in a project in future years. The proposal was supported by local board members.

20. Based on the concept plan, resource consent was lodged and granted in May 2020. Further works were delayed due to the implications from the COVID-19 pandemic, but design works recommenced in January 2021.

21. The project was approved as part of the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 Community Facilities work programme with an overall project budget of $682,000 (consisting of $100,000 of LDI funding and $582,000 of local renewals funding).

22. While the current path network is not well signposted and can be confusing, the recommended upgrade of the path networks within Fernhill Escarpment Reserve will see a clear loop track introduced and the provision of wayfinding signage which will help visitors stay well oriented.

Link to Local Board Plan 2020 and other strategic documents

23. The project aligns with the following strategic documents:

Plan	Outcome
Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020	2: An efficient and accessible travel network
Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan, revised October 2019	Connect – Creating a green network across Auckland by linking our parks, open spaces and walking and cycling networks
Upper Harbour Greenways Plan, September 2019	1.L – 1.K Create north-south local path connections from Albany through Rosedale to Unsworth Heights Opportunities* Link into an off-road east west connection through Burnside and Fernhill Escarpment

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. In line with the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve walkway development plan, improvement opportunities were identified. These consider the wider network of paths that lead through the Fernhill Escarpment Reserve as well as the adjacent Northboro Reserve, Brookfield Park and Days Bridge Esplanade Reserve (refer to image 2 below):

Image 2: Aerial overview of reserves adjacent to Fernhill Escarpment

25. The table below outlines the identified improvement opportunities that form the basis for the options presented in this report:

Improvement opportunity		Description
1	Upgrade the existing main walking track through Fernhill Escarpment		The existing main track through the Fernhill Escarpment is in poor condition and does not provide a safe user experience. An upgrade of these tracks will improve the quality of the track, including drainage which will reduce the potential for degradation of root structures of established vegetation. Improving the internal tracks will provide a track extending from Albany Highway to the proposed new bridge (refer opportunity 3 below).
2	Decommission two existing walking tracks: a) the track that extends from the ford through the escarpment towards the Massey University main campus b) the current track within the riparian margin (adjacent to Bei Group land)		Conversations with both Massey University and the Bei Group were held. Massey University confirmed that they have sold the western campus and will be gradually exiting the site meaning the paths leading up to the university will not be needed in future. The Bei Group are investigating further mixed housing development opportunities of the site that Massey University will vacate. They are proposing a 3m wide active greenway/walkway in future, but details could not be confirmed at this stage. As a new path will be created in the future, the existing informal path should be decommissioned.
3	Install a pedestrian bridge between Fernhill Escarpment and Northwood Reserve		A pedestrian bridge is proposed behind 22 Villanova Place to improve accessibility to the tracks within Fernhill Escarpment to create a connection to the existing paths in Northwood and Brookfield Park and a circuit route.
4	Widen the existing concrete path within Northwood Reserve and Brookfield Park		Widening the existing paths from 1.5m to 2m through Northwood Reserve and Brookfield Park will allow greater usability of the paths by both pedestrians and cyclists and provide improved commuter routes through the area.
5	Create two new sections of shared access walkway; one from Northwood Reserve to Bush Road, and the other through Brookfield Park to connect with the existing path at the eastern end of Northwood Reserve		New concrete path could be constructed to enable the pathways in reserves adjacent to Fernhill Escarpment to be used as ‘commuter routes’. Both paths will require approval of landowners which are the Bei Group and Standard 200 Limited (ITM Albany). No agreements are in place at the moment and would require further investigation. Standard 200 Limited however indicated they would only agree to the use of their land if there would be a monetary or other benefit to them.
6	Re-direct and upgrade the existing track on the north-eastern portion of the escarpment		The track east of the proposed bridge is very narrow and currently in poor condition and ends on a section of Bush Road that does not have a pedestrian path, making it difficult to access safely. The track could be upgraded to complete the connection to Bush Road if a safe connection along Bush Road would be established.

26. Further detail on the above improvement opportunities is provided in the Options Evaluation Report at Attachment B.

Options assessment

27. With consideration of the above identified improvement opportunities, the following options were considered for this project as outlined in the table below.

Options	Analysis	CAPEX (preliminary estimate only)	Advice
Option 1 Do nothing	Without any work undertaken to the tracks, they will become an increased risk to the health and safety of users, as the condition of the track will continue to deteriorate.	$0	This option is not recommended as it will not ensure the track remains safe for use. It also does not support the outcomes sought in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020.
Option 2 Improvement of the path network within Fernhill Escarpment	This option incorporates a selection of the improvement opportunities within the Fernhill Escarpment, including: · upgrade the main walking track on the northern side of the stream · decommission walking tracks to Massey University and Bei Group land · install a pedestrian bridge (north of 22 Villanova Place). In addition, wayfinding signage will be installed to improve orientation for users.	$ 672,700	This option is recommended as it will improve the usability of the paths within Fernhill Escarpment and create a connecting loop track. The above improvements can be achieved within the approved project budget and provide good value for money.
Option 3 Improvement of the path network within Fernhill Escarpment and adjacent reserves	This option would include all of the improvement opportunities outlined in the table (paragraph 25) across the Fernhill Escarpment and adjacent reserves, including wayfinding signage. This option supports the long-term benefits that the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan seeks. However, it cannot be achieved within the approved project budget and will require additional investment and easement agreements for land owned by the Bei Group as well as Standard 200 Limited (ITM Albany). While initial conversations have been held with both parties and continue to be a possibility, an easement is not achievable in the short term.	$1.2 million	This option is not recommended as it cannot be delivered within the project budget and the current financial year.

Preferred option

28. Option 2 is the recommended option as it will address the poor condition of the tracks and will provide an enhanced experience for users of the reserve. It will also support the local board’s strategic plans to create an accessible travel network and provide better links between our reserves.

29. The option will also allow for future enhancements and integration into a wider path network when funds become available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

31. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in carbon emissions from construction, including contractor emissions. Staff will seek to minimise carbon and contractor emissions as far as possible when delivering the project.

32. The renewal of the path and improvements to the path network will provide greater connectivity for pedestrians and thereby will potentially support the reduction of vehicle use.

33. The works will involve the disestablishment of tracks and the replacement planting of many native plants, thereby mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

34. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions will also be achieved through sourcing of low-carbon material options (including sourcing materials locally) where possible.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Council staff from within the Customer and Community Services (Community Facilities operational management and maintenance, and Parks, Sports and Recreation) have been consulted. They are supportive of the improvement of the path network as it will improve accessibility and recreational activities for the local community and visitors to the area.

36. The project will deliver significant improvement to those using the path network regularly as current paths are in poor condition and do not allow for good connection to paths in the adjacent reserve on the opposite side of the stream.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. The renewal of walking tracks and installation of the new pedestrian bridge will increase the amenity value of Fernhill Escarpment, as well as the pedestrian options, by creating new linkages and formalised pathway networks. The project thereby supports the outcomes sought in the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan (September 2019).

38. This connection will also help work towards meeting Outcome 2 in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020, aiming for ‘an efficient and accessible travel network’ and specifically, the objective ‘to have an accessible walking and cycling network within our neighbourhoods’.

39. Fernhill Escarpment is located within the key focus area 1, as defined in the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan 2019 and will support the objective to create a key ‘network of express paths to connect into and around Albany and Rosedale’.

40. An overall design for the implementation of the walkway development plan were presented at the Upper Harbour Local Board workshop in February 2020 and local board members indicated their support for the recommended components that have been included in the detailed design and that could be delivered within the project budget. Other components are to be considered as part of a project in future years work programmes.

41. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the Fernhill Escarpment walkway development plan at a business meeting on 17 May 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/38).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and local board plans.

43. The design of the tracks considers the Te Aranga design principles as outlined in the Auckland Design Manual.

44. Ngāti Manuhire, Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Te Kawerau a Maki were engaged prior to lodging the resource consent. Ngati Manuhire has provided a cultural impact assessment and Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust provided a kaitiaki. The works are generally supported by iwi and hapu with an interest to remain involved as the projects progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. A total budget of $682,000 has been approved by the local board for this project.

46. The following table outlines the estimated project costs based on the engineers estimate for the recommended partial upgrade of the path network:

Project funding		Estimated total
Design and project management
	Surveys and design charges	$64,330
	Consenting charges	$19,359
	Internal charges (project management, consent processing etc.)	$26,715
Construction
	Upgrade path network	$534,301
	Wayfinding signage	$28,000
Total project cost		$672,705
Project budget		$682,000
Remaining contingency		$9,294

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Risks identified	Mitigation
Timeframe
Poor weather may hold up the delivery	The works can only be completed in favourable weather conditions and extreme heat, or wet weather can cause delays to the delivery timeframe. The delivery timeframe was planned during the favourable months of the year to mitigate the risk of weather-related delays.
Supply shortage and long delivery timeframes for timber	The implications from the COVID-19 pandemic caused a New Zealand-wide shortage in timber and other supplies which can cause delays to the delivery of projects. Staff will work with the construction contractor to ensure that orders for material are placed as early as possible to avoid delays to the project.
Health and Safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during construction phase	To mitigate health and safety risks for the public, access to the site will be restricted. Fencing and warning signage will be used to alert the public to the works. The successful physical works contractor will need to provide a site-specific safety plan and outline measures that will help keep the public and all workers safe. Regular health and safety audits will also be undertaken to ensure controls are in place and working.
Budget
Limited access to site may cause additional costs to the project	The improvements to the path network stretch over a large section and there is very limited vehicular access. It is likely that access issues will arise. Staff will work closely with the contractor to identify best access ways and mitigate the likelihood of unforeseen costs; however, a small risk remains that the restrictions may lead to additional construction costs which will only become apparent during the construction works.
Construction
Damage to ecological environment	While working around trees and bush, the contractor will put controls and work practices in place that ensure the environment is disturbed as little as possible and re-instatement actions are in place if any damage is caused during the construction works.
Contamination
Possible risk of contamination	There is always a risk of possible contamination when working close to streams and staff will ensure that the physical works contractor will put effective sediment management controls in place in line with the requirements specified in the resource consent.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48. The following table summarises the anticipated next steps and estimated delivery timeframes for the project. The estimated timeframes assume successful and timely completion of each identified project step. Unforeseen delays in the procurement of a build partner have the potential to delay completion of the project beyond the identified timeframe.

Project phase

Planned completion timeframe

Procure physical works contractor/build partner

The tender will be submitted to a number of local contractors that have previous experience of delivering quality track upgrades.

November 2021

Physical works

Accurate commencement and duration of the physical works is not known at this time and will be confirmed once the physical works contract is awarded.

February 2022 – April 2022

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Fernhill Escarpment Reserve walkway improvements - design drawings	45
b ⇩	Fernhill Escarpment walkway improvements - options evaluation report	53

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kris Bird - Manager Sports Parks Design and Programme

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

84 (part) Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville disposal recommendation

File No.: CP2021/00814

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the disposal of part of 84 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The property at 84 Hobsonville Road comprises two parcels of land acquired by the Auckland Council for open space, access, and stormwater purposes. Approximately 3851m² (subject to survey) of 84 Hobsonville Road has been identified as no longer required for open space, access, and stormwater purposes.

3. Eke Panuku has engaged with council and its council-controlled organisations (CCOs), iwi authorities and the Upper Harbour Local Board on this site. No public work requirement has been identified through this engagement.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board requested information relating to the intensity of planned developments on land adjacent to 84 Hobsonville Road. In response, council departments confirmed to Eke Panuku that while the adjoining landowner is seeking to acquire the council-owned land, information regarding the level of intensification the developer is planning is unknown.

5. A resolution approving the disposal of this site is required from the Finance and Performance Committee before the proposed divestment can be progressed. Sales proceeds from the proposed disposal will be allocated towards the asset recycling target contained in council’s Recovery Budget (Long-term Plan 2021-2031).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the disposal of approximately 3851m² (subject to survey) of 84 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville.

Horopaki

Context

6. Asset recycling is an important lever for Auckland Council, providing capital to be invested in the most strategically important activities. The council’s Recovery Budget includes $70 million to be realised from asset recycling in the 2021/2022 financial year. This is to be comprised of proceeds from the sale of surplus council-owned property and alternative commercial arrangements.

7. Eke Panuku, on behalf of Auckland Council, is required to undertake ongoing review of council’s property assets. This includes identifying properties in the council portfolio that are no longer required for service-use purposes and may be suitable for sale and development if appropriate.

8. For all properties that are potentially no longer being required for public work purposes, Eke Panuku engages with council departments and its CCOs through an expression of interest process to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded public work.

9. Once a property has been internally cleared of any public work requirements and has been identified as suitable for disposal or development purposes, engagement is then undertaken with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors.

10. All sale recommendations must be approved by the Eke Panuku Board before a final recommendation is made to Auckland Council’s Finance and Performance Committee. The committee makes the final decision to approve a property for disposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property information

11. The property at 84 Hobsonville Road comprises two parcels of vacant land totaling 5766m². Both parcels were acquired in 2016 by Auckland Council for open space, access, and stormwater purposes.

12. An area of 1905m² is to be retained in council ownership, with the remaining 3851m² parcel being the subject of review following a purchaser enquiry from the adjacent landowner.

13. The subject 3851m² parcel is a narrow 20m wide strip bordered on two sides by 86 Hobsonville Road. It was originally planned as an entrance to the proposed Rawiri Stream greenway, a route in the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan (September 2019). However, an alternative entrance will be formed directly from a new ‘Spine Road’ currently under construction. The new Spine Road will include a separated walkway and cycleway along its entire length within the road corridor to facilitate access from Hobsonville Road to the start of the Rawiri Stream greenway.

14. Council’s Healthy Waters department confirmed that it does not require the subject 3851m² parcel to form the Rawiri Stream greenway or for stormwater management purposes.

15. Council’s Community Investment team (formerly the Parks and Recreation Policy team) assessed the subject 3851m² parcel in July 2020 and advised it is not required to form the proposed aspirational greenway. Due to its size, shape and location, it is not needed to help meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets now or in the future. As this parcel is no longer needed to form the greenway, there is no strategic reason to retain the subject parcel. As such, the Community Investment team advised Eke Panuku that the subject 3851m² parcel is suitable for rationalisation.

16. The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning is ‘Open Space – Informal Recreation’. The entirety of 84 Hobsonville Road has a council rating valuation of $230,000. The land at 84 Hobsonville Road is not subject to offer-back obligations to the former owner in accordance with section 40 Public Works Act 1981.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. The proceeds of sale from the disposal of 84 Hobsonville Road will be allocated towards the asset recycling target contained in Auckland Council’s Recovery Budget. Asset recycling allows capital to be invested in council’s strategic activities and better allows council to respond to climate impacts through delivery of the Auckland Climate Action Plan.

18. It is not known at this point what the potential future use of the subject site will be and therefore, what the potential impacts could be on carbon emissions. A sale of the site could lead to land use changes. It is acknowledged that any form of construction and development can increase carbon emissions.

19. The land at 84 Hobsonville Road is not located in a flood prone area and is not a coastal property likely to be impacted in the future by rising sea levels.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Council’s Community Investment team and Healthy Waters department previously confirmed there are no identified public work requirements for 84 Hobsonville Road. Eke Panuku consulted all other relevant council departments and CCOs on the proposed disposal. No substantive feedback was received in response.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Eke Panuku provided the Upper Harbour Local Board with an information memorandum regarding 84 Hobsonville Road and attended a local board workshop in February 2021.

22. Board members queried whether council’s Planning department has provided comment on the proposed disposal of part of 84 Hobsonville Road and enquired about the nature of the adjacent residential subdivision proposed for 86 Hobsonville Road.

23. In response, council’s North, West and Island Planning team and the North-West Consents team provided advice to Eke Panuku that a pre-lodgment meeting has been held with the adjoining developer of 86 Hobsonville Road regarding the planned development. However, the plans received by council do not show in any detail the level of intensification the developer is planning. Advice was also received that indicated the adjoining developer is unlikely to confirm plans for the area until a decision is made on whether 84 Hobsonville Road is surplus to council requirements and has been approved for disposal.

24. This report provides the board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding 84 Hobsonville Road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Nineteen mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted for site-specific feedback on the proposed sale of part of 84 Hobsonville Road. This engagement sought to understand if there were any issues of cultural significance with the proposed disposal. Information regarding the size and configuration of this site was provided as part of the engagement undertaken.

26. Eke Panuku received a notification of cultural significance from Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua. Eke Panuku has acknowledged the notification and confirmed its interests have been noted on the property files. Eke Panuku has further discussed with Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua how council can recognise the significance, and it has been confirmed there is no more interest beyond noting the cultural significance as part of the decision-making process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. Capital receipts from the sale of properties not required by Auckland Council contribute to the Recovery Budget and the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. No risks associated with the recommendations contained in this report have been identified. Should the Upper Harbour Local Board resolve not to support the proposed disposal, its views will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee to consider as part of the decision-making process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. Subject to receipt of the Upper Harbour Local Board’s resolution, the recommendation to disposal of 84 Hobsonville Road will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee for a decision.

30. The adjoining landowner is seeking to purchase the subject part of 84 Hobsonville Road should it be approved for sale. The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Images - 84 Hobsonville Road	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Matt Casey – Team Leader Portfolio Review, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Asset Optimisation, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Public Trading Events and Filming Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2021/12905

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, staff have summarised the feedback and provided a structure for deliberations.

3. The proposal helps to minimise safety risks, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places (for example footpaths, local parks and civic spaces) by continuing to regulate trading, events and filming activities.

4. Council received responses from 75 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Continue to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current bylaw
Proposal 2	Clarify the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are
Proposal 3	Clarify which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the bylaw
Proposal 4	Update the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

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

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 20 October 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive public feedback on the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 (refer Attachment B to this agenda report).

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

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

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

8. The current Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 / Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Hokohoko, Whakahaerenga i ngā Wāhi Tūmatanui 2015 seeks to protect public safety, minimise nuisance and misuse of council-controlled public places caused by trading activities, events and filming.

9. The rules are enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

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

· Reserves Act 1997, Resource Management Act 1991, Food Act 2014, Road User Rule 2004, Trespass Act 1980, Fair Trading Act 1986, Customer Guarantees Act 1993, Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 and Auckland Unitary Plan

· Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, Signage Bylaw 2015, Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 and Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019

· Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015.

11. The current bylaw will expire on 26 February 2022 and council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

12. On 27 May 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 (bylaw) for public consultation (resolution number GB/2021/51).

13. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

14. The proposal helps to minimise safety risks, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places (for example, in local parks, reserves and civic spaces) by:

· continuing to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current bylaw

· clarifying the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are

· clarifying which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the bylaw

· updating the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with.

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 59 people and 16 organisations. In addition, the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received 525 hits.^{^[1]}

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

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

17. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

19. A total of three people and one organisation from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal. There was majority support for proposals 1 and 4, split support for proposal 2 and limited support for proposal 3. Proposals 1 and 4 had similar support to the totals from all people who provided feedback while proposal 2 and 3 had less.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal

Total support from local board area

Total support from people across Auckland

1: Continue to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current bylaw

75 per cent support

25 per cent oppose

66 per cent

(40/61 submitters)

2: Clarify the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are

50 per cent support

50 per cent oppose

74 per cent

(46/62 submitters)

3: Clarify which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the bylaw

25 per cent support

25 per cent ‘other’

50 per cent oppose

75 per cent

(44/59 submitters)

4: Update the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with

75 per cent support

25 per cent oppose

83 per cent

(48/58 submitters)

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

· should encourage better enforcement of the rules

· addresses the health and safety risks of rental micromobility devices.

21. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback. Attachment B contains a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution and, if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The proposal impacts the operation of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, Events in Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships Unit, Alcohol Licensing and Environmental Health Unit, Auckland Unlimited (previously known as Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development), and Screen Auckland. These teams are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

25. The proposal may also impact the Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015. Auckland Transport is aware of the proposal. Auckland Transport has also made council aware of Auckland Transport’s review of its bylaw.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The proposed new bylaw impacts on local governance as it regulates trading, event and filming activities in council-controlled public places, for example local parks.

27. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal in April 2021. The draft was supported in full by 13 local boards and with suggested changes by eight local boards.

28. A summary of local board views and changes made to the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 11 May 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda, page 191 (Attachment B to Item 12).

29. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Māori have strong bonds to the land as kaitiaki. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by minimising the misuse of council-controlled public places and facilitating opportunities for Māori business owners.

31. The proposed rules for trading, events and filming in council-controlled public places apply to activities undertaken by Māori, particularly major or international events.

32. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in person.

33. Those submitters who identified as Māori supported proposals 1, 3 and 4 which is consistent with the overall percentage of the Auckland-wide feedback. Comments included that the proposed regulation seems sensible and provides appropriate balance between mitigating risks and enabling businesses to operate. While the support for proposal 2 was split, submitters agreed that rental micromobility should remain regulated.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. On 20 October 2021, the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021 (refer to the ‘Process to make the new Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022’ diagram in the ‘Context’ section of this report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report	81
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	127

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Sam Bunge - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/12926

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend Auckland Council’s bylaw and associated controls about animals before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal seeks to improve the current bylaw and controls to better minimise animal-related risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places.

4. Council received responses from 189 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as following:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000m2 (no approval currently required)
Proposal 2	Incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property
Proposal 3	Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the bylaw and controls
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

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

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 29 October 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls (refer Attachment B in this agenda report).

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

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

9. The rules are enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

10. The bylaw and controls are one part of a wider regulatory framework, including the:

· Animal Products Act 1999 and Animal Welfare Act 1999 for animal welfare

· Resource Management Act 1991 and Biosecurity Act 1993 to protect the environment

· Dog Control Act 1996 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 for the care and control of dogs.

Council proposed amendments to improve the bylaw for public feedback

11. On 27 May 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to improve the bylaw and controls for public consultation (Item 11, resolution number GB/2021/50).

12. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the bylaw (see figure below).

13. The proposal seeks to better regulate the keeping of animals by:

· requiring an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000m2 (no approval currently required)

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

· updating the definitions, structure, format and wording of the bylaw and controls to make them easier to read and understand.

14. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 177 people and 12 organisations.

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

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

16. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

18. A total of six people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal via online and email feedback.

· for proposal 1, there was majority support from the local board area, greater than the total support from all people who provided feedback

· for proposals 2 and 3, there was majority support from the local board area, similar to the total support from all people who provided feedback.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board area feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000m2 (no approval currently required)	50 per cent support 0 per cent oppose (want more rules) 33 per cent oppose (want less rules) 17 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	34 per cent support 6 per cent oppose (want more rules) 48 per cent oppose (want less rules) 10 per cent ‘other’ 2 per cent no response
2: Incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property	66 per cent support 17 per cent oppose 17 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	62 per cent support 15 per cent oppose 12 per cent ‘other’ 11 per cent no response
3: Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the bylaw and controls	83 per cent support 17 per cent oppose 0 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	64 per cent support 10 per cent opposed 15 per cent ‘other’ 11 per cent no response

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

· allow more hives than the currently proposed two

· maintain current rules

· consider changing the size of the premises the rules apply to.

20. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback. Attachment B contains a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

21. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution and, if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The proposal impacts council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance team who implement the bylaw. The unit is aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The bylaw is important to local boards as a topic of high community interest.

25. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal in March and April 2021. The draft was supported in full by 13 local boards and with suggested changes by seven local boards. One local board opposed the proposal for public consultation.

26. A summary of local board views and changes made to the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 11 May 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda (Attachment B to Item 11, page 101).

27. This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The bylaw has significance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports the key direction of kaitiakitanga in the Independent Māori Statutory Board Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by minimising the misuse of council-controlled public places.

29. The proposed amended bylaw also supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by clarifying how the bylaw applies to Māori and papakāinga. For example, the proposal clarifies that limits on the ownership of animals in urban areas do not apply to papakāinga within the Māori Purpose Zone of the Auckland Council Unitary Plan.

30. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

31. The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback support proposals 1 and 3 (consistent with the overall public feedback). The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback opposed proposal 1 (consistent with the overall public feedback).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. On 29 October 2021, the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Animal Management Bylaw 2015’ diagram in the ‘Context’ section).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	157
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	185

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Saralee Gore - Policy Advisor

Breanna Hawthorne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua - Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan

File No.: CP2021/13268

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek support for the draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua -Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The number and diversity of older Aucklanders is growing and this creates challenges and opportunities for improving the age-friendliness of our environment, infrastructure, and services now and in the future.

3. Older people experience barriers to participation across all areas of life.

4. The draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua Action Plan (action plan) is our commitment to supporting older Aucklanders to participate fully in their communities.

5. It is a region-wide, cross-sector plan that commits the council, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and sector partners to improve outcomes for older Aucklanders through the delivery of tangible and meaningful short, medium and long-term actions.

6. To develop the action plan, staff listened to over 3000 Aucklanders who shared their thoughts on what is needed to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

7. Engagement with kaumātua and whānau to hear what is important to Māori led to the development of our unique Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework. The framework combines the World Health Organisation domains with Te Ao Māori concepts and reflects the bicultural identity of Aotearoa and the diversity of Tāmaki Makaurau.

8. Many activities within the plan will benefit people of all ages and what we do now to improve older Aucklander’s accessibility and quality of life will also benefit future generations.

9. The action plan is constrained by actions needing to be delivered within existing resources, or as and when new funding can be secured. Greater or quicker impact could be possible in the future if budget is not such a limitation.

10. By working together, council and cross-sector partners can however, leverage resources to achieve greater collective impact and prioritise efforts to where it is needed most.

11. Over time, the plan will help create an age-friendly lens that becomes embedded in the way council and partners design and deliver services and infrastructure. This will result in ongoing and incremental change that makes a tangible impact on the lives of older people.

12. Community engagement on the draft action plan is underway and will be completed in September 2021.

13. The final action plan will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee for adoption in November 2021.

14. The adopted action plan will enable Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland to join the World Health Organisation’s Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) support the draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan.

Horopaki

Context

15. Auckland Council has a strong interest in the wellbeing of older people because:

· Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland is home to New Zealand’s largest population of older people^{^[2]} - this number will more than double between 2018 and 2043

· of the current 65+ population, most are well-placed but some face hardship and this will increase^{^[3]}

· diversity in life stage, needs and abilities, culture, language, living situation and financial stability affect how older people contribute and participate in the community.

16. In view of this, in July 2018, Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee resolved to become an age-friendly city and seek membership to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities (resolution number ENV/2018/88).

17. The network includes cities that are committed to supporting each other and creating inclusive and accessible environments for all people to enjoy. It identifies eight interconnected domains of urban life that contribute to improving the wellbeing and participation of older people.

18. To obtain membership to the network, council has led a process to develop a region-wide cross-sector action plan that will deliver over 80 actions to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

19. To develop the action plan, staff listened to over 3000 Aucklanders who shared their thoughts on what is needed to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

20. The action plan has been created to ensure infrastructure, activities and services are developed or adapted to respond to the diverse needs of Auckland’s growing and increasingly more diverse ageing population.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The problem/opportunity

21. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s older population is growing faster than any other age group and faces challenges and barriers to participation across all areas of life.

22. Our older people are taonga and deserve to live full, meaningful lives where they can participate and are valued for the contribution they make to our communities.

Our services and infrastructure need to respond and adapt to older peoples’ diverse needs

23. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s growing and increasingly diverse ageing population means we need short-term as well as longer-term, system-level solutions to ensure older people can actively participate in their communities now and in the future.

24. The burden on the environment, infrastructure and on services such as healthcare will expand exponentially as the older population grows to a projected 432,800 Aucklanders by 2043. To enable older people to live active and full lives in Tāmaki Makaurau, we need to ensure infrastructure, activities and services are developed or adapted to respond to their diverse needs.

Older Aucklanders told us they face challenges related to accessibility across all areas including public space, buildings, transport, and housing options

25. Older people told us they need:

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

Older Aucklanders can find it difficult to access information and to keep up to date with technology

26. Older people told us they need:

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Older people can feel invisible, disconnected, and discouraged from taking an active role in their community

27. Older people told us they need:

Timeline

Description automatically generated

Our response to the problem/opportunity

28. The development of Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan (Attachment A).

29. This is a cross-sector action plan that responds to the diverse needs and aspirations of older Aucklanders to improve their wellbeing and quality of life; and to make Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland a more age-friendly region.

Strengths

A cross-sector action plan will deliver collective impact in an innovative, sustainable, and equitable way

30. Auckland Council has worked with a range of organisations and communities who are active in advancing the wellbeing of older Aucklanders, including:

· 19 organisations with different specialities, such as health, recreation, and housing

· regional and local organisations ensuring a breadth of reach across communities.

31. Together we identified and developed actions that will address the challenges and opportunities raised by older Aucklanders. This approach:

· enables collaboration between the council, aged-sector organisations and communities

· creates opportunities to leverage resources and deliver greater collective impact over time

· develops an action platform for organisations to build upon

· encourages interest and participation from other organisations to be part of delivery

· recognises that improving the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland relies on many different groups and agencies playing their part

· ensures the delivery of actions that have impact for older Aucklanders of all ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs.

32. It is anticipated that having a shared vision for an age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau will continue to build momentum within the organisations who are responsible for delivering actions.

33. The intent is that over time an age-friendly lens will become embedded in the way council and partners design and develop services and infrastructure across the region.

34. The result of this will be ongoing action and incremental change that makes a tangible impact on the lives of older people.

The action plan includes a mixture of over 80 new and existing actions

35. Impact will be delivered through a mix of short, medium and long-term actions. They are spread across all 10 domains, but not equally.

36. Some domains have more actions than others, for example the Housing Domain has fewer actions than the Respect and Social Inclusion Domain. This is because some things, such as refurbishing Haumaru Housing units, take time and money to implement whereas supporting community-led social activities can use existing resource or may build upon activities that are already happening.

37. Council’s actions are primarily focused in the areas where most council services are provided. These are:

· Te Taiao; council maintains outdoor spaces and facilities for the community

· Respect and Social Inclusion; council hosts region-wide and local community events and activities that foster belonging and inclusion for diverse Aucklanders, and

· Communication and Information; council informs communities about what is happening and offers support through libraries and community centres.

It has a unique Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework to reflect our bicultural foundations

38. Staff developed the Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework in response to feedback from kaumātua.

39. The framework provides a holistic way to frame the plan that integrates the WHO domains with Te Whare Tapa Whā- a Māori wellbeing framework - and Te Ao Māori values.

40. It includes two additional domains and expanded another:

· Culture and Diversity and Kaumātua and Kuia domains were added to reflect Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s diversity and bicultural foundations

· The WHO Domain of Outdoor Spaces and Buildings was expanded to become Te Taiao representing the natural and built environment.

41. The framework is unique to Tāmaki Makaurau. It ensures the actions within the plan are meaningful, achievable and impactful for older Aucklanders.

42. The framework will continue to be used to guide how we collectively improve and evaluate the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

The action plan will have a wider community and intergenerational impact

43. The actions within the plan will benefit older people and others in the community now and in the future. For example, ensuring all buses are accessible will benefit small tamariki (children) and disabled community members.

44. Many activities within the plan benefit people of all ages and stages and what we do now to improve older Aucklander’s accessibility and quality of life will also benefit future generations.

Constraints and limitations

It will take time to see the full, long-term impacts of the action plan

45. The Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan will deliver impact but that will happen over time.

46. Some actions are small and local and will not have significant or regional impact. However, there is opportunity for these local activities to be expanded as the age-friendly vision and plan gains traction.

47. Some actions will be delivered immediately or are in progress, others will take time. For instance, making roads, buildings and parks more accessible will be achieved over time subject to the roll-out of relevant capital works and renewal programmes.

Council, CCOs and partner organisations are constrained by the financial impact of COVID-19 and operating within existing budget and resources

48. The action plan has been developed on the basis that everyone is operating in a constrained financial environment and actions will be delivered within existing resources.

49. The current assumption is that:

· no additional budget will be available

· where new funding is required, it will need to be reprioritised from elsewhere, secured through grants, or considered through budget-setting processes.

50. Consequently, the first one to five years of the action plan focus on existing or new actions that are easier and more affordable to carry out within existing budgets.

51. There is potential for this to change as the action plan evolves and if more funding becomes available in the medium to long term (5-10 years).

Success relies on cooperation, ongoing commitment and resources to support collaboration

52. The action plan relies on the dedication and commitment of council and partner organisations working together to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland:

· many of the partner organisations are community-led with limited capacity and dependant on ongoing public funding

· larger entities and agencies (including government and council departments) may have competing priorities

· success is dependent on all parties continuing to prioritise age-friendly outcomes and delivering the actions they have developed.

53. Resources will also be needed to support sector collaboration. It will take time and effort to facilitate organisations working together and supporting each other to build an age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau.

54. As part of council’s commitment to the plan, council staff will play a key backbone role in keeping the action plan alive, bringing partners together, and monitoring implementation and impact.

Community views

55. Staff undertook extensive community engagement in 2019-2020 to ensure the voices of diverse older Aucklanders were at heart of the plan. We developed surveys, held workshops across the region, hui with kaumātua and had one-on-one interviews with rainbow community members.

56. Targeted engagement was facilitated by Age Concern, Toa Pacific, New Zealand Indian Senior Citizens Association, Hindu Elders Foundation Inc and The Selwyn Foundation to ensure we heard the diverse voices of older Aucklanders.

57. Over 3000 people shared their vision for an age-friendly Auckland and told council what actions they think will support older people to live full, active and healthy lives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

58. During our engagement we heard, particularly from kaumātua, that environmental wellbeing was missing from the WHO framework. The wellbeing of the natural environment is important to our own wellbeing, and we have a role in looking after our environment in all its forms.

59. In response, we have expanded the existing WHO Domain Outdoor Spaces and Buildings to include Te Taiao (the natural environment) to recognise that the environment’s wellbeing and our own are connected.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60. This action plan includes actions developed with CCOs, including Auckland Transport.

61. The Seniors Advisory Panel acted as kaitiaki throughout the process providing advice, guidance and feedback and contributing to workshops and action planning sessions.

62. The Seniors Advisory Panel will continue to provide support and guidance on the action plan as it is delivered.

63. Auckland Council, the Seniors Advisory Panel and CCOs are aware of the impacts of the action plan and their role in implementation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64. Local boards have a strong interest in the wellbeing of older people. All local boards have outcomes that foster social inclusion and participation among their residents, and many have age-friendly specific goals and actions.

65. Community engagement was held at locations across the region in 2019-2020, from Warkworth to Pukekohe.

66. Two reports were produced on the findings, the Community Engagement Findings Report and the Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Report.^{^[4]} These were shared with elected members, stakeholders and the community. These reports were also published on the council Age-friendly website.

67. Staff attended local board workshops in August and September 2021 to share the draft action plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

68. The action plan is relevant to Māori as tangata whenua and kaitiaki of the sky, land and sea and supports the ‘Māori Identity and Wellbeing’ outcome within the Auckland Plan 2050.

69. In the 2018 Census, older Māori made up over 4 per cent of the Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland over-65 population.

70. Older Māori have lower levels of equity, income and rely heavily on superannuation. Actions that are focused on kaumātua delivered by Māori organisations and others will make a positive impact on wellbeing.

71. The involvement of kaumātua, whānau and organisations has been influential on the design of the framework, work on implementation, and ensuring this is a living document.

Engagement to better understand the needs of kaumātua and Te Ao Māori

72. To ensure the action plan is relevant and effective for kaumātua, mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to a dedicated hui in February 2020. The hui was organised in partnership with Te Kōtahi a Tāmaki and hosted at Manurewa Marae.

Recognition of tangata whenua, hauora Māori concepts and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are important to kaumātua

73. Kaumātua also told us:

· importance of building and marae accessibility – safety of our kaumātua

· utilising marae more e.g., events, programmes, line dancing, tai chi, learning Te Reo

· age-appropriate housing design

· more disability parking

· more Te Reo visible everywhere

· environmental recognition – care for Papatūānuku and te taiao incorporated into plan

· sport and recreation options available for older people and open areas for activities

· affordable digital communication.

74. Te ao Māori values from the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s (IMSB) Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau are also embedded in the framework:

· Whanaungatanga (Develop Vibrant Communities), in relation to the different opportunities to engage and participate in their own and other cultures

· Rangatiratanga (Enhance Leadership and Participation), in relation to the activities under Respect and Social Inclusion

· Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life), in relation to the action plan’s outcome of improving the hauora of older Aucklanders

· Wairuatanga (promoting distinctive identity), in relation to valuing and protecting Māori heritage and Taonga Māori

· Kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to protecting Te Taiao now and in the future.

75. These values underpin the way people and organisations will work together to deliver this plan with and for our communities.

76. The action plan supports the IMSB’s Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021 by addressing social, cultural, environmental and wellbeing for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

77. The Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework incorporates the WHO framework, Te Whare Tapa Whā and te ao Māori. The unique framework contributes to the awareness, education and understanding of Māori perspectives.

78. Mana whenua and mataawaka will have an opportunity to provide further feedback during public engagement on the action plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

79. The action plan has been designed to be delivered within the existing budgets and resources of council, CCOs and sector partners.

80. Where additional investment is desired by Auckland Council to implement new or joint actions, this will need to be considered through long-term plan or annual plan processes.

81. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decisions to support the action plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk	Mitigation
Adoption of a new plan may create expectations that there will be additional budget to support age-friendly outputs.	All public-facing communications and guidance about the new plan will reference that actions will be funded from existing budgets. Where new funding is required, this will be sought through grants and processes such as the long-term plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

82. Public engagement for the action plan is expected to be completed by the end of September 2021.

83. A summary of all feedback, including from local boards, and a final action plan will be reported for adoption by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in November 2021.

84. Following adoption of the action plan, staff will seek membership to the WHO network.

85. An annual progress report will provide details on the impact and success of our actions. This will include an update on the delivery of actions against the identified measures of success, high-level wellbeing indicators and examples of good and promising practice. This will be presented to the Governing Body, the WHO and shared with all organisations supporting delivery.

86. The Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan will be reviewed every five years.

87. Baseline research was carried out in 2017 - The Older Aucklanders: A Quality of Life Status Report. The research is across the domains that contribute to quality of life and wellbeing. This research is being conducted this year and will be carried out every five years to help monitor progress and guide the development of future actions.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua - Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau (draft)	211

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cleo Matthews - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager Community and Social Policy

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/13337

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed amendments to the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para / Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The proposal helps to protect the water and water networks from damage misuse and interference and assist in the provision of reliable, safe and efficient water and wastewater services in Auckland.

4. Council received responses from 46 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	To further define the rules regarding unauthorised taking of water from the water supply network
Proposal 2	To further define the rules regarding unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network
Proposal 3	Clarification of linkages to other legislation, bylaws and other documentation
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 5 November 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive public feedback on the proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para / Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 in this agenda report.

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

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw protects the water supply and wastewater networks

8. The Governing Body adopted the Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para 2015 / Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 on 25 June 2015 (resolution number GB/2015/62). This Auckland Council bylaw is administered by Watercare Services Limited.

9. This bylaw seeks to protect the water supply and wastewater networks by:

· requiring authorisation from Watercare to connect to or disconnect from the water supply or wastewater network and enabling Watercare to refuse connections where there is insufficient network capacity

· ensuring appropriate standards for any new infrastructure under Watercare's control

· protecting the quality of the water supply and prohibiting illegal use from hydrants

· managing work near the water supply and wastewater network to protect it from damage

· allowing for restricting the water supply to maintain enough drinking water in the event of drought or other emergency

· managing inflows and illegal dumping of material into the wastewater network to avoid wastewater overflows.

10. The bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework. Issues related to access to private property are addressed under the Local Government Act 2002 while those related to the compliance with water quality are addressed under the Health Act 1956.

11. In addition, uniquely to Auckland, Watercare has a contractual relationship with its customers. This enables the bylaw to focus on matters relating to the impact of household and businesses’ behaviours on the public assets, while the customer contract addresses the rights and obligations for each customer’s water and wastewater connection.

Council proposed amendments to the bylaw for public feedback

12. On 25 February 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to make amendments to the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2021/11).

13. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Water and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

14. The proposal helps to clarify and further define the rules in the bylaw by clarifying:

· the rules around the unauthorised taking of water from the water supply network

· the definitions around unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network

· linkages with other bylaws and documentation.

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 43 people and three organisations. In addition, the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received 396 hits.^{^[5]}

Process to amend Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

Graphical user interface, text, application, chat or text message

Description automatically generated

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

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

17. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

19. A total of two people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal. There was majority support for proposals 1, 2 and 3. This is similar to the total support from all people across Auckland who provided feedback:

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Total support from the Upper Harbour local board area	Total support from people across Auckland
1: To further define the rules regarding unauthorised taking of water from the network	50%	70%
2: To further define the rules regarding unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network	50%	79%
3: Clarification of linkages to other legislation, bylaws and documentation	50%	76%

20. Key themes of feedback from people in the local board area are consistent with key themes from all public feedback:

· generally supportive of all amendments

· one respondent suggested that the proposed restriction of prohibited items in the wastewater network is unenforceable.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The bylaw impacts the operations of many Watercare teams in charge of the operations and the planning of water sources and water and wastewater networks. It also impacts some Auckland Council teams involved in compliance and stormwater management. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Local board members were invited to give feedback on the bylaw in December 2019. This included an offer by staff to present workshops to interested local boards at their meetings.

26. Communication was received from one local board in relation to wastewater overflows, a matter unrelated to bylaw and already covered by the Resource Management Act 1991.

27. This low interest in the bylaw review is consistent with the Auckland Council’s classification of the bylaw as ‘low impact and low interest to local boards’ under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019.

28. An update on the findings and options stages were included in Watercare’s local board communications in June 2020.

29. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. The bylaw contributes to the Māori plan’s key directions and aspirations of Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life ‘Satisfaction with our environments and standard of living’) and Kaitiakitanga (Ensure Sustainable Futures ‘lntergenerational Reciprocity’) by ensuring the public water supply and wastewater network is future-proofed and not contaminated or damaged, which would be detrimental to the people and the natural environment.

31. Input by mana whenua was sought at a special hui of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in January 2020. The main concerns related to environmental issues beyond the bylaw scope, such as archaeological sites and clarifications of asset ownership and responsibilities.

32. Staff sought input by mana whenua on the proposed options in June 2020. A meeting with the chairperson of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum confirmed his support for the direction taken and recommended a written update at the June 2020 forum to carry on the engagement.

33. Watercare staff presented an update of the bylaw review process to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in mid-October 2020.

34. Those respondents who identified as Māori during the public consultation were all generally supportive of the three proposals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. On 5 November 2021, the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in February 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to make the amend the Water and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015’ diagram in the ‘Context’ section of this report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report	263
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board submissions	269

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sharon Danks – Operations Delivery Manager, Watercare

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi

File No.: CP2021/13357

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The BID Team has implemented a review of the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi and supporting documents, as advised in the memo to local board members dated 23 April 2021. The memo can be found on the Auckland Council website, InfoCouncil.

3. The review sought informal and formal feedback from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council-controlled organisations (CCOs), council departments and other external stakeholders.

4. The review has focused on strengthening those parts of the policy relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, the financial sustainability of BID programmes.

5. The review also focused on elected member needs and identifying any political risks and mitigations.

6. The draft BID Policy (2021) has been before the Finance and Performance committee at a workshop on 18 August 2021. Feedback received has been incorporated into this version of the BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

7. Staff are now seeking formal feedback from local boards on the draft BID Policy (2021) provided as Attachment A.

8. Following formal feedback received from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, CCOs, council departments and other external stakeholders, the final version of the BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee for adoption on 9 December 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) and supporting documents by 1 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Auckland BID programme

9. BID-operating business associations are membership-based organisations independent of Auckland Council. The draft BID Policy (2021) supports the independent nature of the BID-operating business associations. They are responsible for the BID programme delivery, its success, and are accountable to BID members/BID affiliates.

10. Local boards have the primary relationship with BID-operating business associations in their area:

· Local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals. Working collaboratively achieves greater outcomes.

· Local boards have significant allocated decision-making responsibility for BID programme establishments, amending existing BID programmes, BID boundary changes, continuation/discontinuation and issue resolution.

11. Auckland Council requires BID-operating business associations to fully comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Kaupapa Hereā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (refer Attachment A).

12. The BID policy sets out the process for:

· establishing, continuing/discontinuing BID programmes

· changes to the BID programme boundary area/map

· changes to the BID targeted rating mechanism

· issue resolution

· key stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

13. The BID policy includes the engagement and reporting requirements for BID-operating business associations to ensure all BID members/BID affiliates have access to the relevant BID programme information. BID-operating business associations must use their Annual General Meeting (AGM) process to obtain formal member approval for the BID programme delivery, budget, and to confirm their BID targeted rate grant amount for the following financial year.

14. The BID policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability role council has for monies collected as a public sector organisation. This balance is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence with the Auckland Council BID programme.

The review

15. Commencing April 2021, the review of the current policy began with communicating with local boards and all stakeholders involved in the management and operation of BID programmes across Tāmaki Makaurau, both BID-operating and non-BID business associations, council departments and interested parties. The process to date has included informal feedback and comments on the current policy.

16. The review process focused on strengthening parts of the policy (and updating supporting documents) relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, financial sustainability of BID programmes.

17. The review has also provided the opportunity to clarify the documentation between Auckland Council (collecting the BID targeted rate and the funder) and the BID-operating business association relating to the BID Programme Agreement (2016) document.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rationale for the review

18. The primary objective for reviewing the current 2016 policy is a focus on the issue resolution sections. Experience in this space over the last five years has illustrated gaps in the usefulness of the current policy to address and resolve issues in a timely manner.

19. The review provided an opportunity to update parts of the policy relating to Auckland Council changes in operation, current business practices and where the advancement of technology has contributed to how business is done, for example zoom meetings.

20. There was also an early opportunity to capture informal feedback from local boards and BID-operating business associations.

21. The information and informal feedback collected in May, June and July of this year has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy 2021 (Attachment A) and supporting documents (Attachments B and C). A summary of the BID Policy (2021) requirements is provided with this report (Attachment D).

22. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Participants in the review

23. In addition to local boards, there are a range of stakeholders involved in BID programmes, both internal and external to Auckland Council. The BID team set a programme of informal engagement, outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Key engagement activity

Stakeholder	Engagement	Dates
BID-operating business associations Business associations without BID programmes	BID communication including newsletters and emails: Sent to 50+ BID-operating business associations and other interested parties	March, April, May, June and July 2021
	Three network meetings	May, June and July 2021 An average attendance exceeded 20+ BID-operating business associations
	Four special workshops - topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 23+ BID programmes were represented at each workshop.
Local boards	18 local board workshop presentations	June and July 2021 Introduction memo and BID policy review information
Local boards	Three special topic workshops - topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 16 local board elected members attended each workshop
Local Board Services Division Lead team	Presentation and information feedback received	Presentation on 18 June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee	Memo on BID policy review project	April 2021
Council departments including: · Legal Services · Connected Communities · Ngā Mātārae · Risk and Assurance · Finance and Policy · Local Board Services	Regular meetings, engagement and feedback	May, June, and July 2021
Independent polling agent	Engagement and feedback regarding the ballot/polling process	June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee workshop	The draft BID Policy (2021) V1 and support documents were presented and feedback received	18 August 2021

24. The process to undertake the review of the current policy (2016) takes place from February 2021 to June 2022. Progress to date is set out in Table 2 below:

Table 2 - Progress to date

Date (2021)	Progress
Feb/March	· Project planning, stakeholder communications
April to July	· Directed consultation with local boards and stakeholders on the current BID policy and identified themes o issue resolution o conflicts of interest o board charter development
May/June	· Cross council, external engagement and feedback
June/July	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents created
18 August	· Finance and Performance Committee workshop
August/September	· Distribution of draft BID Policy (2021) for formal feedback

Informal local board feedback

25. Discussions with local boards during workshops centred around:

· issue resolution – how to do this fairly and in a timely manner

· operational issues – relating to management and governance of BID-operating business associations

· opportunities for collaboration and cost savings between BIDs

· elected members involvement with BID-operating business associations

· growth opportunities for BID-operating business associations

· continued dependence on local board funding.

Seeking local board formal feedback on the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

26. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (2021) and support documents (Attachments A, B and C). Local boards are encouraged to engage with BID-operating business associations in their local board area (where relevant/possible) to help to inform this feedback process.

27. Any feedback from local boards will help the further development of BID Policy (2021). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on proposed changes set out in Tables 3 and 4 below.

28. Feedback from local boards, external stakeholders and any further feedback from BID-operating business associations will be reviewed by staff and this will help inform the final version of the policy. Formal feedback can be sent to bids@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

29. Once the BID Policy 2021 is approved, other support material will be made available on the BID Auckland Council website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and include:

· BID-operating business association constitution (template 2021)

· BID-operating executive committee board charter (template 2021)

· individual BID programme area maps

· BID affiliate/BID business association membership qualification diagram

· local board BID representative position description

· template documents, including:

o AGM agenda

o AGM minutes

o BID programme income and expenditure budget (for BID grant $120,000).

Summary of changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

30. The key proposed changes incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 3:

Table 3 - Key changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Key change from current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Issue resolution	Improving the ability to resolve issues with a clear process in a timely manner	An issue is identified as non- compliance with the BID policy	3.5, Requirement 24
BID Programme Funding Agreement (2021) Attachment B	Replaced BID Programme Agreement (2016)	Clarifies the relationship between the parties	3.1, Requirement 18
Size and scale of BID programmes Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 No change from 2016	Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 remains A new requirement for legacy BID programmes (11 in total) that currently receive less than $120,000pa to increase their targeted rate up to that amount over the next five years A variety of options are suggested to achieve this	This requirement is a result of local board feedback on concerns to continually fund non-financially sustainable BID programmes	1.4, Requirement 3 and 4
Exceptional or unexpected circumstances	Council may, at its discretion, depart from the requirement set out in section 2.4 (25% of total voting forms must be returned for the ballot to be valid	Council will consider evidence of support to date, what is fair and any impact from amending the voting threshold mandate	3.4.2
BID operating business association constitution (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their constitution to suit their local needs, on the basis it’s not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12
BID operating executive committee board charter (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their board charter to suit their local needs, on the basis it’s not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12

31. Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 4 below:

Table 4 - Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Minor changes to current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Other council funding	Organisational view on risk regarding BID-operating business association receiving other council funding	The draft BID policy acknowledges other council funding grants allocated to BID-operating business associations	2.3.4, Requirement 16
Local boards – other roles	Updated	Refer to elected member conflicts of interest policy A link to these documents can be found here	2.5.3
BID Annual Accountability Report (2021) Attachment C	Name change from BID Annual Accountability Agreement (2016)	To include BID targeted rate grant amount and copy of AGM resolution	3.2, Requirement 22, Table 2, item 9
Audit – provision for a review audit or full audit	Recognition of increased risk and increased reporting requirement based on the amount of targeted rate received	Set as a sliding scale BID targeted rate grants less than $200,000pa must commission a review audit BID targeted rate grants more than $200,000pa must commission a full audit	3.2, Requirement 23, Table 2, item 4
Rating mechanism - flat rate	Lifted the maximum flat rate amount from $500 to $900 per rateable property	To provide more flexibility for BID-operating business associations when considering BID programme budgets and the impact of BID targeted rates on ratepayers	3.1.2

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. The BID Policy (2021) focuses on the governance and accountability for BID-operating business associations. Individually the BID programme, through targeted rate-funding, can focus on advocacy and activities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Formal feedback will be sought from other council teams including CCOs and those who work and have an interested in the BID programme and business community space.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. Local boards have engaged with the review of the BID Policy (2016) and their informal feedback has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents. Table 1 outlines local board engagement to date.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. Officers are working with Auckland Council’s Ngā Mātārae Unit to ensure that the BID Policy (2021) aligns with the Auckland Council Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. There are no financial implications for local boards under the draft BID Policy (2021).

37. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from the draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

39. The policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

40. The draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents set out the requirements and obligations for BID-operating business associations and are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, and to undertake and meet all requirements set out in the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Following formal feedback received from local boards, CCOs, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council departments, other external stakeholders and those with an interest in BID programmes, a final BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be updated and the steps outlined in Table 5 below will be completed by the BID team:

Table 5 - Progress to completion

Date	Progress
2021 August	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents updated to post Finance and Performance Committee workshop feedback
Mid-August to 1 October	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents distributed to local boards, BID-operating business associations, council departments, CCOs and other stakeholders for formal feedback · Update www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz website with feedback link · Feedback open 24 August to 1 October
October	· Update draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents incorporating formal feedback
9 December	· Presentation of final version of BID Policy (2021) and support documents to Finance and Performance Committee meeting
2022 January/February	· Post Finance and Performance approval actions, communications with local boards, BID-operating business associations, all stakeholders, and update www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz website
March to June	· BID Policy (2021) communication, support and advice · The BID team will provide assistance to the 50 BID-operating business associations to comply with the BID Policy (2021), including guidance with aligning their individual constitutions and governance documents to meet the timing of their 2022 AGM timeframes

42. The BID Policy (2021), if approved by the Finance and Performance Committee in December 2021, would become operational on 1 July 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft BID Policy (2021)	285
b ⇩	BID Funding Agreement	307
c ⇩	BID Annual Accountability Report	319
d ⇩	Draft BID Policy requirements	321

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Local board feedback on the kerbside refuse charging mechanism policy

File No.: CP2021/13374

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide formal feedback from local boards on the kerbside refuse charging model policy review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently committed to expanding the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) funding model for kerbside refuse collection across the Auckland region. This reflects the policy within council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 to provide consistent waste services across the region.

3. This would involve moving the legacy Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas away from a rates-funded service to a PAYT funding model.

4. Before making this shift, Waste Solutions is reviewing the evidence to support the decision to move these areas to a PAYT model to assess whether PAYT is still the best solution for achieving the objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5. Evidence gathered so far is being assessed against three options:

· all areas pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)

· keeping a hybrid model (currently 55 per cent of the region’s refuse collection is rates-funded, 45 per cent PAYT)

· all areas rates-funded.

6. The options will have a different impact on each local board area depending on the current service charging mechanism relative to the proposed service change (Attachment A).

7. A memo was circulated to all local boards on 23 July 2021 (Attachment B) outlining initial conclusions reached through the analysis of evidence gathered to date. This was used as a basis for discussion with local boards at workshops throughout August 2021 to understand their views on the risks and impacts of the potential options within their respective areas.

8. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards, using the template in Attachment C as a guide, to inform the recommendation that staff will present to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the kerbside refuse charging model policy review.

Horopaki

Context

9. The 2012 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) made provision to move all Auckland households towards a user-pays charging system for refuse collection, known in Auckland as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT). This transition to a consistent regional PAYT refuse service (weekly, changing to fortnightly over time) was confirmed in the WMMP 2018.

10. The decision was based on:

· best evidence at the time that this was the most effective way to incentivise diversion from landfill and enable householders to reduce their waste costs

· the understanding that technology would be available to enable pay-per-lift charging through radio-frequency identification (RFID) chipped bins.

11. In legacy rates-funded areas, it was decided that the move to PAYT would take effect after the introduction of a food scraps collection service to reduce the financial impact on households.

12. Since then, more information has become available about the effectiveness of PAYT, particularly in the context of the other complementary services that the council has rolled out. For example, regionwide recycling and the pilot food scraps service are due to be rolled out regionwide from early 2023. Prior to making the change to PAYT, Waste Solutions is reviewing the evidence base for this shift.

13. In this review, several factors are being assessed, including:

· the potential effects of each funding model on communities

· the potential waste minimisation impacts of each funding model

· the expected cost to implement each funding model taking into account the changing financial circumstances of both ratepayers and council.

14. To assist with this review, Waste Solutions commissioned independent consultants, Morrison Low, to examine the evidence currently available against the following aspects of the refuse collection service and its impact on the council, customers and the environment:

· waste minimisation

· cost effectiveness

· reputation

· technology

· household responsibility / accountability

· access / equity

· downstream impacts on the collections industry

· climate change

· amenity

· health and safety.

15. Evidence gathered so far is being assessed against three options:

· all areas PAYT

· keeping a hybrid model (currently 55 per cent rates-funded, 45 per cent PAYT)

· all areas rates-funded.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Currently, 55 per cent of Auckland households (legacy Auckland City and Manukau City) are provided with a rates-funded refuse service, with the remaining 45 per cent (legacy Franklin, Waitākere, Papakura and North Shore City Council) on a PAYT service provided by either the council or a private operator. There is no council refuse collection service in legacy Rodney but under current policy, there is a commitment to provide a PAYT service in the future. See Attachment A for a breakdown of council refuse collection services by local board area.

17. Detailed analysis and advice were provided to local boards in a memo dated 23 July 2021 (Attachment B).

Conclusions on key issues

18. Aotearoa/New Zealand is unique in having side-by-side competition between private and council services in the residential refuse collection market. This impacts the way PAYT operates and introduces a number of challenges not experienced overseas.

19. Financial modelling currently indicates that PAYT is less cost-effective for the council than rates-funded solutions because of more complex systems, duplication of workloads by multiple suppliers and the council’s need to offer the service to properties across the entire region.

20. Evidence from overseas found only a very weak link between marginal pricing changes and change in refuse quantities. This is consistent with a 2021 examination of refuse tonnages which found no clear evidence that PAYT areas of Auckland produce less refuse per capita than rates-funded areas.

21. The current price in Auckland does not appear to be a sufficient economic driver to motivate behaviour change in households.

22. International evidence indicates the greatest waste minimisation is achieved through providing easy access to services that divert waste away from landfill (such as the recycling and food scraps collection services), good community education programmes, and reduced access to refuse volume to encourage use of the diversion services.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Enhancing access to diversion and resource recovery, along with optimising efficiencies around collecting refuse at the kerbside, presents opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions directly (for example, through the reduction of vehicle movements and diversion of organic material from landfill) and indirectly by encouraging better resource use.

24. Therefore, considerations to take into account when assessing options include the opportunities to minimise both direct and immediate impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, for example:

· Emissions can be mitigated where the council retains greater control over household behaviour and container size (larger customer base) to drive higher participation rates from households in the weekly food scraps service which is critical to reducing methane emissions from landfill.

· Emissions can be mitigated by choosing the option that will bring efficiencies to vehicle servicing routes. This includes reducing duplication of refuse collectors operating side-by-side in the same areas of Auckland.

25. The rates-funded option provides the opportunity to reduce total truck kilometres travelled from a sole supplier, the ability to specify the truck requirement through the procurement process, and efficiencies in route design.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. This review is about the way in which council charges for domestic kerbside rubbish collections and so views have not been sought from the wider council family.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Local boards provided feedback through the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 development process. All local boards supported the proposed WMMP. Only Devonport-Takapuna, Manurewa, Ōrākei and Papakura Local Boards expressed views on refuse charging mechanisms within their responses.

28. Staff provided a detailed memo to all local boards on 23 July 2021 outlining the early findings of the review, acknowledging that detailed works on costs and equity were still being completed.

29. Staff attended workshops with local boards between 29 July and 24 August 2021 to present on the key points of the review and seek views on the current refuse collection services. Informal feedback was noted during these workshops.

30. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board using the template provided in Attachment C to inform the recommendation to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua and mataawaka were engaged in the development of the 2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and identified priority actions for Māori.

32. The council partners with Para Kore ki Tāmaki – a Māori-developed and implemented programme that integrates mātauranga Māori and zero waste principles and practices to support marae, Māori organisations, Kura Kaupapa Māori and Kōhanga Reo to divert significant quantities of recycling and organic waste from landfill.

33. Staff outlined the purpose of the review and early findings to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Regional Hui on 9 July 2021 and then at a Regional Projects Workshop on 20 July 2021. Members of the forum receiving the presentation raised concerns that poorer communities had fewer choices in relation to controlling their waste production. Staff acknowledged that this was recognised by Waste Solutions and that multiple approaches are needed, including advocacy to central government on phasing out hard-to-recycle plastics and the introduction of product stewardship schemes.

34. Staff are also working with specialist community facilitators Rākau Tautoko and Waste Solutions community partners to hold targeted focus groups with Māori and Pacific communities during August and September 2021 to seek their views on different refuse collection payment mechanisms. These views will inform the recommendation to Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. In terms of cost-effectiveness, when comparing rates funded with PAYT models, the Morrison Low study concluded that the rates-funded option provides greater cost-effectiveness for the council than both the current hybrid model and the PAYT option due to economies of scale.

36. This was based on:

· Cost: results of financial modelling commissioned by the council using existing parameters and the weekly PAYT service show that the cost of delivering a rates-funded service is similar but costs the community significantly less overall when all service costs, including private collection costs, are included.

· Cost sustainability: an estimated variation in cost per pickup based on the number of customers serviced by Auckland Council which shows that the cost of operating the council service increases sharply when the council is servicing less than 30 per cent of the community. At 30 per cent, it is approximately double the cost per pickup compared to 80 per cent.

37. Further analysis of costs is being carried out by council staff as part of this discovery phase.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. High level risks are outlined in Table 1 below. More detailed risks and mitigations will be examined as part of the development of options for the Environment and Climate Change Committee throughout September 2021.

Table 1: Kerbside refuse charging policy review high level risks and mitigations

Risk	Mitigation
The perception of unfairness in offering the same service/charge to all households: households that produce large amounts of waste are favoured under the rates-funded model, whereas households that produce less waste are favoured under the PAYT model.	Staff are investigating the cost of offering three different bin sizes (80L/120L/240L) under the rates-funded model to accommodate different households’ needs.
There is no agreement on which charging model works best for the whole of Auckland.	Consideration of a hybrid model will be presented as part of the options analysis to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.
The preferred option costs council more to deliver than the current hybrid option.	Detailed costs will be provided for all three options. These will be presented at workshops with elected members and local board chairs as part of the Annual Budget 2022/23 process. This will include analysis of the cost to the community and an estimate of the cost of failing to meet Auckland’s climate change goals.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Staff are currently engaging with elected members, local boards, industry and community groups, prior to developing options and recommendations to take to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for a decision on 14 October 2021.

40. Local board feedback received by 28 September will help inform the recommendation and will be included within the report.

41. In addition to the above, the following studies are currently underway or have recently concluded:

· radio-frequency identification (RFID) trial to show whether this service will be able to be operated at scale with a sufficiently low error rate to be considered feasible in Auckland

· detailed analysis of costs of all options

· investigation of the social impacts of the three options.

42. The results of these studies will conclude the desk-based discovery phase and will inform the final evaluation of options by Morrison Low. This final report will help to inform the recommendation that will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

43. If the Environment and Climate Change Committee decide to deviate from the current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Policy by approving either the rates-funded or hybrid model option, the current proposal is to engage more widely on options through a special consultative procedure as part of the Annual Plan 2022/2023 process.

44. Local boards will be consulted on the preferred option, which will include a more detailed analysis of the timings of any changes to service during that process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current refuse services and impact of options by local board area	331
b ⇩	Memo Kerbside Refuse Charging Review	333
c ⇩	Template for local board feedback – refuse charging	341

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire - Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Local board feedback on Auckland Transport's Parking Strategy review

File No.: CP2021/13523

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on the review of Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy ahead of public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport (AT) is currently reviewing its Parking Strategy (2015). The AT Parking Strategy sets out the objectives, principles and policies relating to AT’s management and supply of parking across Auckland.

3. Since 2015, there have been numerous changes in the local government setting. These require realignment of policy.

4. This report gives an overview of the approach being taken to the Parking Strategy review, including how staff are engaging with local boards.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the review of Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy by 30 September 2021, ahead of public consultation on the review.

Horopaki

Context

5. The AT Parking Strategy was developed subsequent to local government amalgamation, bringing together one regional strategy and set of policies for all AT managed parking.^{^[6]}

6. The current strategy was released in 2015 and is provided as Attachment A. The policies cover:

· management of on-street and off-street parking

· regulation methods (including pricing)

· parking permits and coupons

· comprehensive parking management plans

· parking for different types of transport

· event management

· technology for parking management

· park and ride provision and pricing

· compliance and enforcement.

7. The Parking Strategy has worked well over the last seven years. It has led to the following various changes and successes:

· business/centre parking areas implemented

· residential parking schemes rolled out and expanded due to their success and popularity

· demand-responsive, priced parking implemented successfully helping to manage parking demand and keep parking spaces turning over and available for customers

· a consistent approach applied across the region to parking issues and a transparent approach.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The AT Parking Strategy needs to be reviewed

8. Since the AT Parking Strategy was developed in 2015, there have been a number of changes to policy and planning, as well as changes in the Auckland setting. Examples include:

· Adoption of the Auckland Unitary Plan – development signalled in the Unitary Plan will enable growth that may be difficult to service with public transport, meaning that some new suburbs will rely on car use for access.

· Market demand is pushing for more housing provision and density – development is already showing evidence of less car-parking provision and more issues with car-parking compliance.

· Changes to travel behaviour, such as emergence of micro mobility (scooters etc) and the growth of the delivery economy.

· Auckland’s public transport network has matured over time, providing opportunities for further passenger uptake and efficiency related to park and ride management.

· Auckland’s Climate Plan (and coming government strategy) will require changes to the land transport system, including parking.

· Of particular relevance is the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) – this guides direction on urban development through district planning. The NPS-UD requires council to remove parking minimum requirements from the Unitary Plan. This means that developments will not be required to provide onsite parking which will contribute to society and transport becoming less car-centric over time. However, it will lead to increasing pressure on public parking resources, particularly kerbside parking.

Developing a next-generation parking strategy

9. The overall approach that AT is taking to the review is to:

· realign the Parking Strategy objectives and outcomes with the central and local government policy and planning context

· discover and understand key issues for parking through focused discussions with elected representatives, subject matter experts, industry representatives, partners and stakeholders

· fill any gaps with new policies (including those focus areas below)

· re-engage with Aucklanders on parking

· develop a strategy that is practical to implement.

10. The review will also focus on three key areas where there is a known need for improvements and updates to policies and guidelines. These include:

· park and ride – planning for growth and provision and managing demand

· kerb-zone optimisation – developing a framework to manage the space between the kerbside lane and adjacent land uses

· comprehensive parking management plans – these are parking management plans for more localised areas - AT are reviewing the framework and guidelines to develop these.

What AT is asking of local boards

11. Parking roles and responsibilities provide an important context for understanding how parking is managed and how to have best effect in appealing or advocating for change.

12. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, AT is responsible for all parking within the road reserve. By delegation, AT manages a number of off-street carparking sites on behalf of council. In addition, AT manages park and ride sites. Auckland Council owns all underlying land assets.

13. AT has reviewed local board plans which provides some insight into how parking issues impact each local board area. Common themes are the desire for more park and ride facilities and bike parking, as well as managing parking as part of new developments.

14. The recent Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) consultation also received feedback from local boards on the topic of enhancing park and ride facilities.

15. AT welcomes further local board discussion and input into the Parking Strategy review and is keen to hear from local boards what outcomes should be sought and what specific issues the strategy should address.

16. Local board feedback will enable AT to shape the draft refresh of the Parking Strategy prior to public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri:Auckland’s Climate Action will require changes to the land transport system, including parking.

18. Government strategy and direction will also require changes, particularly the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), which requires planning decisions to contribute to the development of urban environments that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. AT have engaged with key stakeholders and across the Auckland Council family, including with council’s Advisory Panels.

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

Local impacts and local board views

· June 2021 – introductory memo to local boards to introduce the Parking Strategy review and approach

· June 2021 – presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum to introduce the Parking Strategy review and discuss plans for local board engagement

· August 2021 – workshops with those local boards who elected to have a workshop before public consultation questions, raise ‘pain-points’ and gauge any initial feedback (PowerPoint presentation provided as Attachment B)

· September 2021 – opportunity to provide formal feedback ahead of public consultation.

· February 2022 – all local boards will receive a summary of data and comments received during public consultation

· February 2022 – workshops with those local boards who elected to have their workshop after public consultation, raise ‘pain-points’ and gauge any initial feedback

· March 2022 – a further opportunity to provide formal feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. AT are engaging with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish how best to incorporate views from mana whenua and mataawaka into the review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. There are no financial implications associated with the local board providing feedback on the review of Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. The direction taken by the updated Parking Strategy will include what levers should be pulled, how far they should be pulled, and how fast.

25. Lower levels of intervention undertaken more slowly will allow more incremental change and plenty of time for Aucklanders to adapt but will take longer to achieve the shifts that Auckland needs.

26. More intervention implemented more quickly will require significant changes in behaviour but will be a quicker route to the eventual outcome of a city that is less dependent on cars.

27. Each of these approaches will have their own risks and necessary mitigations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Feedback from local boards ahead of public consultation is required by 30 September 2021.

29. Public consultation will take place in October/November 2021.

30. Following consultation, all local boards will receive a summary of data and comments received during public consultation.

31. Those local boards who elected to have their workshop after public consultation have these booked in for February 2022.

32. Following these workshops, all local boards will have a further opportunity to provide formal feedback.

33. The final updated Parking Strategy is expected to go to the Planning Committee for adoption in May 2022, after which local boards will be provided with a final copy of the strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport Parking Strategy (2015)	349
b ⇩	Parking Strategy presentation to local board workshops	389

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Addition to the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2021/13117

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve two meeting dates to be added to the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the Annual Budget 2022/2023 timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the 2019-2022 meeting schedule on Thursday, 21 November 2021 (resolution number UH/2019/152).

3. At that time, the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 were unknown.

4. The local board is being asked to approve two meeting dates as an addition to the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule so that the modified Annual Budget 2022/2023 timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the addition of two meeting dates to the 2019-2022 Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the Annual Budget 2022/2023 timeframes as follows:

· Thursday, 12 May 2022, 6.30pm

· Thursday, 23 June 2022, 6.30pm.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

7. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its 2019-2022 business meeting schedule at its business meeting on 21 November 2019 (resolution number UH/2019/152).

8. The timeframes for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement, which is part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023, were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early December 2021, and early May and mid-June 2022 to feed into the Annual Budget 2022/2023 process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The local board has two choices:

· option 1: add the meetings as additions to the meeting schedule

· option 2: add the meetings as extraordinary meetings.

11. For option 1, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the Annual Budget 2022/2023 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting, there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled.

12. For option 2, only the specific Annual Budget 2022/2023 topic may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the Annual Budget 2022/2023 process could be considered at this meeting.

13. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option 1 – approving these meetings as additions to the meeting schedule, as it allows more flexibility for the local board to consider a range of issues. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. If the local board decides not to add this business meeting to their schedule, this will cause a delay to the Annual Budget 2022/2023 process which would result in the input of this local board not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration and inclusion in the budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Renee Burgers - Lead Advisor Plans and Programmes

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 September 2021

Approval for new road names at 174 and 178 Brigham Creek Road and 118A Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2021/13019

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the following two new road names and one extension:

· one new public road and one new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 174 and 178 Brigham Creek Road, and 118A Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville

· a new section of public road in Hobsonville which is an extension of the existing road named Settlers Avenue.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming 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 local board approval.

3. On behalf of the developer and applicant, Joyland International Limited, agent Will Hall of Axis Consultants Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the guidelines and the Australian 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 technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines.

5. Formal approval from the local board is also required to enable the continuation of the name ‘Settlers Avenue’ from the existing road into the newly extended section of the same road. An extension within the neighbouring development has also been approved under resolution number UH/2021/104 at the local board’s August 2021 business meeting.

6. In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for Road Naming (AS/NZS 4819-2011), each continuous section of navigable road should have only one road name and therefore the existing name has been proposed for the road extension.

7. The proposed names for the new roads at 174 and 178 Brigham Creek Road, and 118A Hobsonville Road are:

Reference	Preferred name
Road 1	Andover Lane
Road 2	Curtiss Circle
These alternative names can be used for both roads listed above	Rice Lane or Rice Circle (‘Lane’ if chosen for road 1, ‘Circle’ if chosen for road 2)
	Waiteputa Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following names for the new public road and new private road in the new subdivision being undertaken at 174 and 178 Brigham Creek Road, and 118A Hobsonville Road:

i) Andover Lane (road 1)

ii) Curtiss Circle (road 2).

b) approve the name ‘Settlers Avenue’ for an extension of the existing road with the same name in Hobsonville.

Horopaki

Context

8. Resource consent reference BUN30583265 (subdivision reference number SUB60039060) was issued in December 2017 for the construction of 43 new residential freehold units, one private reserve, two super lots, two new public roads and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

9. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachment A.

10. In accordance with the standards, any public road or any private way, COALs and rights-of-way that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

11. In this instance, the new COAL requires a road name because it serves more than five lots. The roads that require naming are highlighted in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

13. 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

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

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

14. With the proposed names outlined in the following table, the applicant demonstrates a strong historical linkage to the area:

Road number	Proposed name	Meaning
Road 1	Andover Lane (applicant’s preference)	The Hawker Siddeley HS780 Andover is a twin-engined turboprop military transport aircraft produced for the Royal Air Force (RAF). They were used by the RAF for medical evacuation between the first and second world wars. These planes launched from Whenuapai Airbase.
Road 2	Curtiss Circle (applicant’s preference)	Shortened name for Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk NZ3000 plane which was the backbone of the Royal NZ Airforce (RNZAF) fighter squadrons from 1942 to the middle of 1944. The fleet included 297 Kittyhawks and were launched from Whenuapai Airbase.
These alternative names can be used both roads listed above	Rice Lane / Circle (‘Lane’ if chosen for road 1 - ‘Circle’ if chosen for road 2)	Named after Rice Owen Clark, one of the first European settlers in the area. He established a brickworks at Hobsonville making drain pipes, bricks and tiles for the increasing number of settlers. Clark’s Potteries eventually became known as Crown Lynn Potteries Ltd.
These alternative names can be used both roads listed above	Waiteputa Lane	‘Waiteputa’ is the te reo Māori name of Brigham Creek and Waiteputa is also a stream that flows into the Rodney stream which then flows into Brigham Creek.

15. 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 now for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

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

17. ‘Lane’ and ‘Circle’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads.

18. Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in paragraphs 22-26 of this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. On 27 July 2021, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāti Manuhiri (Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust)

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Tamaterā (Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust

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

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

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust)

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

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

24. By the close of the consultation period, no responses, comments, or feedback were received.

25. None of the mana whenua groups contacted have identified an interest or responded to the request for feedback to date. The applicant has signaled a desire to proceed to a decision on the basis of the names supplied.

26. 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 commentary from mana whenua. Given that no feedback has been received, it is considered that the road naming process can continue.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the council.

28. 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

29. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site and location plans - 174 and 178 Brigham Creek Road and 118A Hobsonville Road	415

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrea Muhme - Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

[1] ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage ’hits’ comprised of 54 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey), 134 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document, visited a FAQ page or multiple project pages, or completed the survey) and 337 ‘aware’ participants (people who visited at least one page).

[2] Statistics New Zealand, 22.9% (163,161) estimated in 2017

[3] Ministry of Social Development. Briefing to the Incoming Ministers, October 2014, p.31.

[4] A systems analysis conducted by Auckland Council’s Innovation Unit.

[5] ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage ’hits’ comprised of 43 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey), 88 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document, visited a FAQ page or multiple project pages, or completed the survey) and 265 ‘aware’ participants (people who visited at least one page).

[6] Management of Council parking is not covered by the 2015 Parking Strategy, unless Council has specifically delegated management to AT.

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Members	Anna Atkinson
	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	Brian Neeson, JP

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager