I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Papakura Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 1 December 2021

4.30pm

This meeting will proceed via Microsoft Teams. Either a recording or written summary will be uploaded on the Auckland Council website.

 

Papakura Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brent Catchpole

 

Deputy Chairperson

Jan Robinson

 

Members

Felicity Auva'a

 

 

George Hawkins

 

 

Keven Mealamu

 

 

Sue Smurthwaite

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Jebel Ali

Democracy Advisor

 

25 November 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 599 164

Email: Jebel.ali@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Deputation -  Bruce Pulman Park Trust                                                             5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Governing Body Member's Update                                                                              7

12        Chairperson's Update                                                                                                   9

13        Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022, Grant Allocation                          11

14        Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Papakura Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022                                                                                                                      99

15        Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update:  Quarter One, 2021-22     163

16        Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022                                                   189

17        Local board views on Private Plan Change 67 (PC67) by Hugh Green Limited, Hingaia 1 Precinct, Park Estate Road, Papakura                                                   205

18        Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on Auckland Council’s submission to the National Emissions Reduction Plan                                        217

19        Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation                        221

20        Delivery of summer events within the COVID-19 Protection Framework           241

21        Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents        247

22        Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2019-2022 Political Term          257

23        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

24        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               279

C1       Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation                                                                  279


1          Welcome

 

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 24 November 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 Papakura Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Deputation -  Bruce Pulman Park Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Steven Bartholomew and Gary Troup from the Bruce Pulman Park Trust will speak to the local board about the activities and successes of the Trust.

2.       The Bruce Pulman Park Trust seeks to engage communities in sports and recreation and encourage a healthy and active lifestyle.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      thank Steven Bartholomew and Gary Troup from the Bruce Pulman Park Trust for their presentation and attendance. 

 

 

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.”


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Governing Body Member's Update

File No.: CP2021/17048

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for the Manurewa and Papakura ward councillors to update the local board on Governing Body issues at the last Papakura Local Board business meeting of the calendar year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Standing Orders 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 provides for Governing Body members to update their local board counterparts on regional matters of interest to the board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      receive Councillor Angela Dalton and Councillor Daniel Newman’s updates.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jebel Ali - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Chairperson's Update

File No.: CP2021/17049

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for the Papakura Local Board Chairperson to update the local board on any issues as this is the last business meeting for the calendar year.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal report from the Papakura Local Board Chairperson.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jebel Ali - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022, Grant Allocation

File No.: CP2021/17421

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for the Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report presents applications received for the Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022 (refer Attachment B).

3.       The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Grants Programme 2021/2022 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board.

4.       The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $200,871.00 for the 2021/2022 financial year.

5.       A total of $51,386.35 was allocated in Papakura Local and Multi-Board Grants Round One 2020/2021, leaving $149,484.65 for the remaining grant rounds.

6.       Seventeen applications were received for consideration in Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022, with a total amount requested of $31,600.10.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in the Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022 listed in Table One.

Table one:

Application ID

Organisation

Main focus

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

Eligibility

QR2214-101

Great Potentials Foundation

Community

Towards the purchase and installation fee for one laptop for the Papakura Early Learning Centre

$2,237.10

Eligible

QR2214-102

Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust

Community

Towards a contribution to the Papakura share of $3,870 of the annual budgeted costs of $102,072 for telecommunication services for voice and data and clinical supervision of the counsellors for the Helpline in support of the young people of Papakura

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-103

Papakura Business Association

Community

Contribution towards the costs of the wayfinding signage

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-104

Papakura Business Association

Events

Contribution towards the cost of installing and de-installing the Matariki flags in the centre of the Papakura Town Centre.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-105

Sustainable Papakura

Community

Towards printing of certificates, printing of posters to display and display of photos for the Sustainably Made Art Competition and Exhibition 2022

$1,999.00

Eligible

QR2214-106

Papakura Community Trust

Community

Towards the purchase of two table tennis tables, indoor sports goal, and giant outdoor games.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-107

Sunshine Culture International Trust

Arts and culture

Towards the delivery of Chinese story time, including teachers time, transportation, and materials.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-108

Aitutaki Enua Society Inc

Community

Towards consultant fees for the feasibility study report update

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-109

Counties Manukau Gymnastics

Sport and recreation

Towards purchasing 400 medals for upcoming gymnast competitions at Takanini from January 2022 to December 2022

$1,564.00

Eligible

QR2214-110

Blue Light Ventures Incorporated

Community

Towards printing and production costs for Street Smart Handbooks distributed to 480 year 13 students at Papakura High School and Rosehill College from December 2021 to March 2022

$1,680.00

Eligible

QR2214-111

Communicare CMA (Ak) Inc

Community

Towards the weekly venue hire for the Papakura Centre for one year from 31 December 2021 to 30 December 2022 and the part-time coordinator's wages.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-112

Road Safety Education Limited

Community

Towards the cost of venue hire and facilitators for "Road Safety and Youth Development for Young Papakura Drivers"

$1,900.00

Eligible

QR2214-113

South Auckland Choral Society Incorporated

Arts and culture

Towards musical director, accompanist and professional soloists at Crossroads Methodist Church from 2 February 2022 to 30 May 2022

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-114

Drury United Football Club

Sport and recreation

Towards the delivery costs of the Small Whites term 2 programme, including 3 coach’s fees from 4 May 2022 to 29 June 2022.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-117

Counties Manukau Masters Swimming Club

Sport and recreation

Towards swimming lane hire at Massey Park Swimming Pool from 3 February 2022 to 27 April 2022

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR2214-118

Auckland southern District Chinese Association Incorporated

Arts and culture

Towards coaching fees for Chinese drawing and Calligraphy Class and performing shoes for dancing group and class at the Elizabeth Campbell Hall from 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022.

$1,093.00

Eligible

QR2214-119

Drury United Football Club

Sport and recreation

Towards a cherry picker hire, line marker, paint and measuring wheel at Drury Sports Complex from 1 February 2022 to 31 December 2022

$1,127.00

Eligible

Total

 

 

 

$31,600.10

 

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

8.       Auckland Council’s Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme:

The local board grants programme sets out:

·    local board priorities

·    lower priorities for funding

·    exclusions

·    grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

·    any additional accountability requirements.

 

9.       The Papakura Local Board adopted the grants programme for 2021/2022 (refer Attachment A) and will operate two small grants and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

10.     The community grants programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, staff have also assessed each application according to which alert level the proposed activity is able to proceed. Events and activities have been assessed according to this criterion.

12.     The aim of the local board grants programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.     The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups with projects that support community climate change action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include:

·    local food production and food waste reduction

·    decreasing use of single-occupancy transport options

·    home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation

·    local tree planting and streamside revegetation

·    education about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14.     Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

15.     The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16.     Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants.  The Papakura Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications in accordance with its priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

17.     Staff will provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they can increase their chances of success in the future.

18.     A summary of each application received through Papakura Small Grants Round Two, 2021/2022(refer Attachment B).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19.     The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grants processes.

20.     Five applicants indicated that they aim to respond to Maori outcomes

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21.     This report presents applications received for the Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022 (refer Attachment B).

22.     The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Grants Programme 2021/2022 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board.

23.     The Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $200,871 for the 2021/2022 financial year.

24.     A total of $51,386.35 was allocated in Papakura Local and Multi-Board Grants Round One 2020/2021, leaving $149,484.65 for the remaining grant rounds.

25.     Seventeen applications were received for consideration in Papakura Small Grants Round One 2021/2022, with a total amount requested of $31,600.10.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26.     The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     Following the Papakura Local Board allocating funding for the small grants round one, council staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papakura Local Boards Grant Programme

19

b

2021-2022 Papakura Small Grant Round One Application Summary

25

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lima Seve - Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Rhonwen Heath - Head of Rates Valuations & Data Mgmt

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

A group of people playing with bubbles

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Shape, circle

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

A picture containing background pattern

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, Word

Description automatically generated

Text, application, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Text, table

Description automatically generated

Text, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Papakura Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/17615

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Papakura Local Board with an integrated performance report for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2021/2022 work programme.

3.       The key activity updates from this period are:

·        Increased attendance at Massey Park Aquatic Centre, Papakura Leisure Centre and community venues prior to the COVID-19 Alert Level 4 and 3 lockdowns.

·        Performances by bands that the board supports through funding.

·        Delivery of various programmes at libraries, and their pivot to providing increased digital services during the Alert Level 4 and 3 lockdowns.

·        Waste minimisation workshops delivered by Sustainable Papakura to engage residents on sustainable living skills.

·        Advice from staff regarding the likelihood of increased cost in delivering events under the Government’s new COVID-19 Protection Framework.

4.       All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided an update against their work programme delivery. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged). The following activity is reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

·        Ngahere (Urban Forest) Knowing FY21

5.       The financial performance report compared to budget 2021/2022 is attached. There are some points for the local board to note:

Net operating performance overall for Papakura local board area is eleven percent below budget for the quarter ended September 2021. Operating expenditure is eight percent below budget and operating revenue is $59,000, half its normal budget. Capital expenditure is seventy percent behind budget for the quarter.

6.       The Customer and Community Services capex budget has been revised to incorporate delayed delivery or earlier commencement of individual projects or other changes that are of material value.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for quarter one ending 30 September 2021.

b)      approve the amendments to its adopted Community Facilities work programme 2021–2024 as per Attachment B, specifically:

i)        cancellation of Central Park Reserve (ID 28556) - replace wet pour utilising $50,000 of local renewal budget within financial year 2021/2022

ii)       reallocation of $50,000 ABS: Capex – Local Renewal budget, within financial year 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 respectively, from Central Park Reserve - replace wet pour (ID 28556) to Central Park Reserve - renew lighting Stage 1 (ID 20439) project.

iii)      inclusion of a few projects in the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) to enable investigation and design and/or physical works to commence in the financial year 2021/2022.

iv)      Margan Bush to Children's Forest - develop new footpaths (ID 26175), deferral and removal from risk adjusted programme (RAP).

c)      note that the Customer and Community Services Capex work programme has been updated to reflect financial deferrals (Attachment C).

Horopaki

Context

7.       The Papakura Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme for the following operating departments:

·        Customer and Community Services

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services

·        External Partnerships

·        Plans and Places

·        Auckland Unlimited.

8.       The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph. [standard paragraph]

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated


 

COVID-19 restrictions

9.       Auckland has faced COVID-19 restrictions (Level 3 and 4) from 17 August 2021 - 6 weeks of quarter one (just under half the period this report covers).

10.     Asset based services were significantly impacted as all regional and community facilities were closed.

11.     Impacts to individual activities are reported in the work programme update (attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

12.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), and activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated 

13.     The graph below shows the activity status of activities which shows the stage of the activity in each departments the work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Key activity updates

14.     The following are key activity updates from quarter one:

·        Papakura Museum delivered six programmes, one which had Māori outcomes, to a combined total of 2,177 participants and attendees. Highlights included the Kelvin Road school visit for the exhibition ‘The Legend of Pukekiwiriki Pa’ where the students were able to handle the Toki (tools) and participate in a scavenger hunt. Social media was used during Alert Levels 4 and 3 to share histories and engage with users, reaching 8,000 users, 51,000 post clicks, 13,000 comments and 26,000 shares.

·        The Papakura Brass Band delivered 15 programmes to a combined total of 245 participants and attendees. Highlights included the band’s Saturday performance at the Papakura Library and a joint concert at Papakura Crossroads Church in collaboration with the Hamilton City Gospel Choir. Regular band catchups continued throughout Alert Level 4 and 3 lockdowns via Zoom.

·        The Papakura Pipe Band delivered three programmes, three of which had Māori outcomes, with 11 sessions to a combined total of 260 participants and attendees. Highlights included the annual Ceilidh Scottish Dance Evening Fundraiser at Karaka Hall hosted by the band. Virtual band practices were held during Alert Level 4 and 3.

·        Participant numbers at community venues for July 2021 increased by 56 percent and booking hours increased by 49 percent compared to July 2022. 98 per cent of hirers indicated that they were satisfied with the venue and 100 percent indicated they would recommend the venues they have visited. During Alert Level 4 and 4 restrictions, venues were made available to support essential services, including vaccination centres, food banks, and the NZ Blood Service.

·        Highlights from programmes delivered at Papakura Library and Te Paataka Koorero o Takaanini included:

o   Library membership drives at several schools, which resulted in 139 new registrations for tamariki in the wider Papakura area.

o   A collaboration with the Manurewa Library to design a school holiday programme that could be delivered digitally. This involved a series of literacy challenges and activities for school age children focused on geography and was entitled ‘Around the World in 14 Days’.

o   Two activities aimed at tweens were co-delivered with Sustainable Papakura during July school holidays – ‘create your own body scrub’ and ‘jewellery making’.

o   Regular computer classes for older adults were held.

o   Healthy cooking classes were offered using the new kitchen facilities at Te Paataka Koorero o Takaanini,

o   'Coffee with a cop' sessions were commenced. These sessions allow customers to access their community constable for information and assistance.

o   A set of three presentations relevant to seniors, including one organised by Age Concern where a local lawyer presented information on Enduring Power of Attorney and wills, were delivered. These presentations will be repeated in December.

o   Celebrations for Pacific language weeks, supported by the Pasifika Librarian at Te Paataka Koorero o Takaanini, were held.

o   A sustainable art competition, ‘Reuse, Recycle, Repurpose’ with the theme of ‘My Environment, My Identity’ was held over the July school holidays in partnership with Sustainable Papakura.

o   Usage of library collections via e-platforms increased significantly during the Alert Level 4 and 3 lockdowns. Library staff have also been involved in making calls to 300 customers over 80 years of age during lockdown, checking on their well-being and offering them assistance.

·        Visits to Massey Park Aquatic Centre and Papakura Leisure Centre were on the rise prior to the Alert Level 4 lockdown. Visits to Massey Park grew by 34 per cent, and those to the leisure centre by 61 per cent, in July and August compared to the same period last year.

·        The NZRL Secondary School League Competition, which was to be held in the week of 30 August 2021, was cancelled due to uncertainty around COVID-19 alert levels. Following consultation with the board, the carry-forward budget allocated for this event will be redirected to the delivery of the National District Nines Tournament at Bruce Pulman Park in March/April 2022.

·        Sustainable Papakura delivered 25 waste minimisation workshops, which engaged 114 participants on sustainable living skills such as sewing, waste minimisation, recycling right and making eco-friendly products. Workshops were paused due to COVID-19 restrictions from 17 August 2021 and will resume once alert level restrictions allow.

Activities with significant issues

15.     The following work programme activity has been identified by operating departments as having significant issues:

·        Ngahere (Urban Forest) Knowing FY21: This project has been carried forward from the board’s 2020/2021 work programme. It was not able to be completed during that financial year due to COVID-19 delays. The carry-forward budget of $5,000 will be used to complete the report and produce the final document for adoption by the board.

Activities on hold

16.     The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

·        Bottle Top Bay Esplanade - renew boat ramp: This activity is on hold as the previous works to the boat ramp are working well and there is no need for further works in the near term. The Coastal team are investigating options for a project with wider scope for Bottle Top Bay that would include work on the boat ramp.

·        Bottle Top Bay Esplanade - renew car park: This activity is on hold and is scheduled for delivery in FY2022/2023 and FY2023/2024. The Coastal team are investigating options for a project with wider scope for Bottle Top Bay that would include work on the car park.

·        Children’s Forest - install new signage: steps: This activity is on hold until further funding becomes available.

·        Margan Bush to Children's Forest - develop new footpaths: This activity is on hold until further funding becomes available.

Changes to the local board work programme

17.     Since approval of work programmes there has been several changes to the Community Facilities work programme because of increasing costs, refined quotes for works and/or refinements of the programmes in general.

18.     In most cases, these changes are considered minor as they do not impact on approved projects or the overall work programme.

19.     The following minor amendments are recommended for approval. Full details of minor amendments can be found in Attachment B.

Local Renewals

Central Park Lighting (ID 20439) - Budget Increase and inclusion in 2021/22 Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP)

20.     Central Park Lighting (#20439) - this project requires an additional $50,000. This is due to higher than anticipated costs for physical works, which was revealed after the full investigation was completed and inclusion in the financial year 2021/2022 Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) to enable early delivery of the lighting upgrade.

Central Park Reserve - replace wet pour (ID 28556) - Proposed cancellation and reallocation of funds

21.     Central Park Reserve (ID 28556) - replace wet pour - It is recommended the project is cancelled as it is no longer required. The wet pour surfacing was completed in June 2021 under Central Park Reserve - renew play item (ID 26086).

22.     Therefore, available funding of $50,000 has been realised in financial year 2021/22 and 2022/23 respectively to be reallocated to Central Park Lighting (ID 20439) to ensure sufficient budget is available to deliver the project.

Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP)

23.     To ensure the full delivery of the 2020/2021 Community Facilities budget, a number of projects have been identified to be added as Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) projects. These projects have been identified as RAP projects as they all have the potential to be delivered early. The total allocated budget of these projects will not change.

24.     The delivery of these projects may be progressed in advance of the programmed year, in order to ensure 100 per cent financial delivery for the 2021/2022 financial year. The focus is on driving the delivery of the 2021/2022 financial year programme. Where projects are however delayed due to unforeseen circumstances, others are required to progress in advance of the intended year, whilst matters are addressed. Full details can be found in Attachment B.

Margan Bush to Children's Forest - develop new footpaths (ID 26175) – proposed deferral and removal from risk adjusted programme (RAP)

25.     It is recommended deferring Margan Bush to Children's Forest project to 2023/24 financial year, for to the following reasons:

·        Land suggested for housing development. Interdependent works with Kāinga Ora (who will be developing the new housing units). Physical Works would need to align with Kāinga Ora’s development timeframe.

·        The land is designated as a road and required approvals from Auckland Transport

·        Resource consent issues – flora, herpetology (such as frogs, toads, and reptiles; including lizards, tortoises etc.).

26.     The proposed project minor variations detailed above were provided for the local board’s consideration at a workshop on 17 November 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27.     Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

28.     Work programmes were approved in June 2021 and delivery is underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate change impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements. Any changes to the timing of approved projects are unlikely to result in changes to emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the boards. As this is an information only report there are no further impacts identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     This report informs the Papakura Local Board of the performance for ending 30 September 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     A review of the Improving Māori Input Into Local Board Decision Making project was presented. Recommendations for a single level structure were supported, and the project has been renamed Ara Kōtui.

32.     Arotakenga / Evaluation of the Aarahi Reo pilot, supporting local board to engage meaningfully with Māori communities, was completed. Scoping of phase two is underway and further scoping will continue into quarter two.

33.     Staff liaised with Papakura Marae Māori Wardens (PMMW) and finalised funding acknowledging the Manaakitanga and Kaitiakitanga of their mahi in the Papakura community. PMMW support development of vibrant communities while maintaining social, cultural and spiritual connection through te ao Māori approach, including education and fitting of tamariki car seats and local warranted activity.

34.     Staff worked with Ngā Mātārae to promote Manaaki funding to relevant Māori organisations during COVID-19 Alert Level 4 supporting with local COVID response.

35.     Library staff delivered a Matariki-themed storytime to local preschools Bright Horizons - Drury, Best Start Tironui, ACG Early Learning Centre, Pasefika Preschool and Karaka Learning Centre.

36.     Te Paataka Koorero o Takaanini hosted a workshop with professor and cultural researcher Song Lam about the similarities between Chinese and Māori culture with a view of bringing members of the community together.

37.     Māori Language Month (Mahuru Māori) was promoted and celebrated virtually at Te Paataka Koorero o Takaanini. A series of Live Māori language and culture quizzes aimed at families were held online with more than 100 people participating. Games and activities promoting the use of te reo Māori were shared digitally to encourage participation in the nationwide Māori Language Moment event.

38.     ‘Toro Piko Māori Stories,’ an interactive puppet show, was held at Te Paataka Kooreo o Takaanini and was attended by local families. It provided children with an opportunity to participate in the retelling of myths, legends and Auckland stories.

39.     A second mana whenua hui to discuss the Papakura Heritage Interpretation Strategy was held.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40.     This report is provided to enable the Papakura Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2021/2022 work programmes. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

41.     Operating expenditure of $3.15 million is $244,000 below budget.  Asset Based Services operating expenditure (ABS Opex) is $5,000 below budget and Locally Driven Initiatives operating expenditure (LDI Opex) is $249,000 ahead of budget. Many programmes and community initiatives, with restrictions on attendance at events, have been disrupted under COVID-19 constraints.

42.     Operating revenue of $62,000 is $59,000 below budget in venues for hire, library services and Hawkins Theatre.  This is mostly mitigated by expenditure being under budget for these facilities.

43.     Capital Expenditure of $175,000 has achieved 30 per cent of budget for the quarter.

44.     The financial report for the three months ended September 2021 for Papakura local board area is in Attachment C.

Revised Capex Budget

45.     Capex budgets are revised to reflect changes in timing of delivery for individual projects.

46.     Projects that were still in progress at 30 June 2021 have had their remaining required budget carried forward to the current or future financial years to fund the remaining works.

47.     If a multi-year capital project was completed earlier than anticipated, the budget is reduced or brought forward to 30 June 2021 to reflect early completion.

48.     Consideration is also given to the status of current capital projects and where required budgets are rephased in whole or part to outer years to reflect current timelines for delivery.

49.     The net budgetary impact of these changes is reflected in the revised budget for the board.

50.     The Customer and Community Services Capex work programme financial allocations have been updated in accordance with the carry forwards (refer Attachment D).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

52.     Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53.     The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two, December 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Work programme update

109

b

Proposed minor amendment to 2021 - 2024 Community Facilities work programme

139

c

Financial performance report

141

d

Customer and Community Services Capex work programme

147

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Boswell - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

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

 



Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

Timeline

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A picture containing Word

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Application

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Calendar

Description automatically generated

Calendar

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated



Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

Timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update:  Quarter One, 2021-22

File No.: CP2021/17339

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Papakura Local Board with an update on Council-controlled Organisation work programme items in its area, along with proposed changes to the Papakura Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A number of general changes are proposed for the Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plans, as part of ongoing work to improve and refine the approach to engagement with Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs).

3.       The four substantive CCOs – Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare – may also propose specific changes.

4.       General changes are shown in Attachment A. Attachments B-D include work programme updates from Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, and Watercare.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      receive the Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) update for quarter one 2021/2022

b)      adopt the updated Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021/2022 between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations: Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare.

Horopaki

Context

5.       Each local board has agreed an engagement approach with the four CCOs for the 2021/2022 local work programme. 

6.       While the local board approves the Joint CCO Engagement Plan each year, it remains a live document and CCOs are encouraged to keep the document up to date.

7.       Changes are also proposed by Local Board Services, where improvements can be made to all 21 engagement plans.

8.       This report may include the following types of changes:

·    Additional work programme items, and proposed engagement level

·    Proposed changes to the engagement approach with the local board

·    Proposed changes to the extent of community engagement

9.       In addition, as part of implementing the Joint CCO Engagement Plan, the four CCOs provide a quarterly update on projects listed in the engagement plan.

10.     We are introducing these new reports gradually, so for Quarter One your report may not include updates from all four CCOs.

11.     For Quarter Two reporting, we expect to have updates from all four CCOs for all local board areas.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and adviceChanges proposed by Local Board Services

12.     The original discussions with local boards used the five levels of engagement outlined by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2): inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower. Feedback from local boards indicated that using all five levels was unwieldy, and in particular that there was confusion and disagreement about when ‘empower’ might be used.

13.     We are proposing that we reduce the engagement levels down to a simplified three step model of inform, consult and collaborate. This helps to better distinguish between projects and to clarify the kinds of engagement that are expected at each step.

14.     We have also moved the CCO work programme tables from being embedded within the engagement plan, to being a series of four attachments. This makes it easier to use the work programmes as the basis for quarterly reporting.

15.     Minor changes may have also been made to names of Local Board Services and/or CCO contacts.

16.     These changes are all shown as tracked changes in Attachment A – Papakura Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021/2022.

Auckland Transport

17.     Auckland Transport’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided as Attachment B.

18.     Placeholders for Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects have been updated with project information as shown in Attachment A.

Auckland Unlimited

19.     Auckland Unlimited’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided as Attachment C.

Changes to the Auckland Unlimited work programme

20.     Auckland Unlimited had previously responded to local board requests to include more information on major events by adding a line item for each event.

21.     As part of ongoing work to improve and refine this process, we are proposing to replace all the individual major event lines with the three following lines:

·    Delivered Events (Diwali, Lantern Festival, Pasifika, Tāmaki Herenga Waka)

·    Sponsored Events (i.e., Elemental)

·    Supported Events (i.e., FIFA World Cup, World Choir Games)

22.     This change reduces the number of amendments and additions required to the engagement plan each quarter as events are completed and provides a more consistent update pattern going forward. 

23.     These proposed changes are reflected in Attachment A.

24.     No other changes to the engagement plan work programme have been proposed.

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

25.     Eke Panuku has not provided updates for this quarter’s report. Eke Panuku will be joining the combined reporting framework for Quarter Two.

26.     Eke Panuku has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Watercare

27.     Watercare’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided as Attachment D.

28.     Watercare has proposed removing “drought and Waikato upgrade” from the engagement plan work programme as this work is now complete (see Attachment A).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.     Updating the Joint CCO Engagement Plan between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to will.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

33.     Local board engagement plans enable local boards to signal to CCOs those projects that are of greatest interest to the local board, and to ensure that engagement between the local board and the four CCOs is focussed on those priority areas.

34.     Joint CCO engagement plans also give local boards the opportunity to communicate to CCOs which projects they expect to be of most interest to their communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.     Updating and adopting the Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021/2022 may have a positive impact on local engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

38.     Any financial implications or opportunities will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     The local board will receive the next quarterly update for Quarter Two in March 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Papakura Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022

167

b

Attachment B - Auckland Transport Q1 21-22 Report

183

c

Attachment C - Auckland Unlimited Q1 21-22

185

d

Attachment D - Watercare Q1 21-22 Report

187

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Lucy Stallworthy – Local Board Engagement Advisor, Local Board Services

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authoriser

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

 

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence



Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, email

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, Word

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated



Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2021/17708

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 (the draft policy).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Significance and Engagement Policy, adopted in 2014, is undergoing a policy refresh to make it more contemporary and user-friendly.

3.       The goal of the policy refresh is to provide for a simplified decision-making process through a high-level guiding document that allows for case-by-case assessments.

4.       Minor updates are needed in both the significance and engagement components of the policy.

5.       Updates around the significance component of the draft policy include:

·    the assessment of significance in terms of a continuum

·    taking a cumulative approach to a package of proposals or decisions

·    adjusting the list of strategic assets to include only assets critical for the delivery of services and clarifying that most strategic assets are identified as groups or networks of assets to reflect the way in which they deliver services

·    adding guidance for assessing the significance of decisions for assets that do not meet the criteria for being strategic.

6.       Updates around the engagement component of the draft policy include:

·    simplifying existing text to make the policy more user-friendly

·    ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

·    capturing the need to safeguard staff, elected members and the community during consultation and engagement

·    giving more visibility to the connection between the policy and the forthcoming and separate refresh of the Engagement Guidelines, which will support staff to operationalise the policy.

7.       The draft policy was adopted for public consultation by Governing Body at its 23 September 2021 meeting, resolution number GB/2021/111.

8.       Public consultation ran from 27 September to 18 October 2021.

9.       Adoption of the final policy is projected for February 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy as part of the overall consideration for final adoption in February 2022.

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Significance and Engagement Policy (the 2014 policy) was created and adopted in 2014 to fulfill the legislative requirements outlined in section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

11.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key document for decision-making and the consultation process. It is comprised of two interrelated sections on significance and engagement.

12.     The significance section sets out how and when communities can expect the council to engage before making decisions, describes the council’s approach to determining the significance of proposals and decisions, and lists the council’s strategic assets.

13.     The engagement section provides high-level principles on how to engage inclusively with the diverse communities of Tāmaki Makaurau. These high-level principles ensure that engagement is fit-for-purpose according to the level of significance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     Staff have undertaken a policy refresh as the 2014 policy has not undergone changes since its initial adoption.

15.     An internal assessment of the 2014 policy found that that it was largely easy to use, but minor improvements would allow for more efficient decision-making and more fit-for-purpose engagement processes.

16.     General high-level updates and clarifications are being proposed for the draft policy to create a more contemporary policy.

17.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to be a prescriptive policy document, and any accepted changes to the draft policy will not change the purpose for which it is used.

18.     The proposed changes to the Significance and Engagement Policy 2021 were reported to the Governing Body at its meeting on 23 September – see Attachment A Significance and Engagement Policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation, also found online with associated documents.

Consultation

19.     Formal public consultation was held from 27 September to 18 October 2021. The consultation document is part of Attachment A, or online here.

20.     Given COVID-19 lockdown restrictions across the region, consultation was conducted entirely virtually and consisted of:

·    consultation materials and online feedback forms made available on the council’s engagement website (AK Have Your Say)

·    virtual workshops with community partners with demographic advisory panels

·    working with community partners to reach diverse groups.

21.     All feedback has been captured and will be reported through to the Governing Body meeting in February 2022 to inform decision-making on the final policy.

22.     A summary of the regional feedback received from submitters is set out in Attachment B and local board specific feedback in Attachment C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     Accepting the proposed changes to the draft policy allows for a fit-for-purpose and contemporary significance and engagement policy that will encourage a richer engagement process during future consultations around climate change issues.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     Any strategic asset under the draft policy that is held or managed by a substantive Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) will be identified in the CCO Accountability Policy. CCO’s must comply with that policy when making decisions on strategic assets under their control.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     Local boards play a key role in engaging with their local communities. The change to enable more fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement for some asset-based decisions may provide local boards with greater flexibility to customise some engagement processes to better meet the needs of their community.

26.     Local board chairs were invited to a workshop held on 4 August 2021 that also included the Parks, Arts, Community and Events, and Finance and Performance committees for a high-level overview on proposed amendments to the draft policy.

27.     Formalised local board views from this workshop and report will be incorporated into the February 2022 Governing Body report for the policy adoption.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The refresh of the Significance and Engagement Policy will strengthen the council’s capacity and capability to engage with and meet the needs of the Māori community. This will be achieved through the delivery of bespoke training initiatives and resources which align to best practice engagement that responds to the needs and is supported by Māori. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau provides a foundation to build council’s engagement approach and supports initiatives already underway such as Te Matapuna 2 as a pilot for spatial-based engagement. Work on relationship agreements is progressing, and there is good support for capacity contracts. Further work is required to streamline engagement forums to ensure they are fit for purpose and respond to priorities from Māori.

29.     Ongoing collaboration on the development of the Māori engagement practice and approach will inform the Engagement Guidelines and will ensure council’s size and engagement reach is leveraged effectively. This collaboration will ensure that the operational execution of the Engagement Guidelines is well-informed and aligned with best practice in te ao Māori.

30.     This focus on practice, capacity and capability will guide operational performance so that the aspirations for Māori engagement in Tāmaki Makaurau are progressed, aligned and achievable. Further work on Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance measures will be aligned with the engagement approach as it continues to be developed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31.     The proposed changes to the significance section of the policy assists in the assessment of significance and may reduce the financial costs of engagement approaches that are not fit-for-purpose.

32.     Reclassifying some assets as non-strategic will also remove the burden of audit costs if the council seeks to make any future decisions around changing ownership or control of those assets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33.     The recommendation requesting local board views does not present any risk. The risks associated with refreshing the draft policy are set out in the report to the 23 September Governing Body meeting in Attachment A.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     Feedback from the consultation along with local board views will be reported to the 24 February 2022 Governing Body meeting as part of the materials for the finalised draft policy approval.

35.     The final Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 is proposed to be implemented following approval at the same Governing Body meeting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Significance and Engagement Policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Summary of regional feedback

193

c

Local Board specific feedback

201

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Oliver Roberts – Acting General Manager, Local Board Services

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

 

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Application, table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Chart

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Local board views on Private Plan Change 67 (PC67) by Hugh Green Limited, Hingaia 1 Precinct, Park Estate Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2021/17348

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek the Papakura Local Board views on Private Plan Change 67 (PC67) by Hugh Green Limited.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3.       Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including private plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.[1]

4.       Hugh Green Limited seeks to rezone land and make changes to the Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions at Park Estate Road, Hingaia. 

5.       The rezoning relates to changing the zone of land from Residential Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) zone to Residential Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone and the relocation of a Business Neighbourhood Centre zone.

6.       A total of 45 submissions were received on the plan change.

7.       Key themes that have been raised in submissions received include effects on the local character and views, shading, privacy, building density and height, local transport network, local infrastructure and environmental effects.

8.       This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on PC 67. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      provide local board views on private plan change 67 lodged by Hugh Green Limited

b)      appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 67.

c)      delegate authority to the chairperson of the Papakura Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the private plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

9.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.[2]

10.     A private plan change request will be included in the AUP if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests when an entity other than council proposes a change to the AUP.   

11.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the reporting planner includes those views in the section 42A hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the private plan change, along with submissions.

12.     If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

13.     This report provides an overview of the private plan change and a summary of submissions’ key themes. 

14.     The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey, should the local board convey its views on private plan change 67. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

15.     The plan change request relates to all properties that are subject to the Hingaia 1 Precinct.  This land is located immediately to the west of the southern motorway.  It is generally located to the south of the existing Karaka Lakes area and the New Zealand Bloodstock centre at Karaka.  The southern and western boundaries of the land are defined by the tidal parts of the Drury Creek.  The land is largely a vacant greenfield area with various pockets of newly developed residential land and land under development for urban purposes.

16.     The land is accessed via Park Estate Road which includes a bridge over the motorway giving access directly to Great South Road.  Some of the newly developed land is also accessed by new roading to the Karaka Lakes area in the north.  The land to the south on the other side of the Drury Creek is also undergoing development for urban uses.

17.     Figure 1 below is an aerial photograph that illustrates the area of land subject to the requested plan change outlined in red.  Park Estate Road bisects the plan change area.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Aerial photograph of the plan change area and Hingaia Precinct 1

18.     With the exception of an 8000m2 area of Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone half way along Park Estate Road, all of the precinct is subject to an urban residential zone, the majority of which is Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone (MHS) with a smaller area of Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone (MHU) located around the neighbourhood centre land.

19.     Land to the north of Park Estate Road contains of two churches, some new residential development and lifestyle blocks.  The land to the south of Park Estate Road is in the ownership of the applicant except for a Council owned reserve (158A Park Estate Road) and land being developed as a school.  The land contains a variety of streams and wetlands which generally drain to the Drury Creek.  A Watercare wastewater pump station is located at 158 Park Estate Road.

20.     Figure 2 below sets out the current zoning of the land.

 

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Current Auckland Unitary Plan zoning

Private plan change content

21.       The notified plan change makes a number of changes to the precinct provisions, the zone provisions and the zone pattern.  These have been described by the applicant as follows;

Residential Zoning and Activities.

a.   Rezoning those parts of the properties at 144, 152, 158, 180 and 252 Park Estate Road currently zoned MHS to MHU.

b.   Changing the Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions that promote higher densities by enabling increased development opportunities, including removal of the precinct-specific definition of ‘integrated residential development’.

c.   Inserting Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions that would enable limited use of the MHU alternative height in relation to boundary standard within the applicant’s land holding as a permitted activity.

d.   Removal of the precinct development control for fencing (with the zone standard still being applicable).

Commercial Zoning and Activities 

e.   Rezoning parts of the properties at 180, 200 and 202 Park Estate Road in order to relocate the Neighbourhood Centre zone to be wholly within 180 Park Estate Road (with the remainder of the sites being zoned MHU).

f.    Removing precinct provisions that limit the area of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and limit the gross floor area of commercial uses within this zone.

g.   Inserting precinct provisions that provide for show homes within the applicant’s land holding as a permitted activity.

Coastal and Reserve Interface Provisions 

h.   Removing the precinct provisions that require larger site sizes to be provided along the coast.

i.    Removing the precinct development control for landscaping for coastal retaining walls and instead inserting precinct provisions that restricts buildings, fences and retaining walls within a site’s interface with the coast and reserves.

j.    Providing within the precinct provisions an exemption to height in relation to boundary controls for boundaries with reserves or sites subject to protective covenants for streams and wetlands.

Other Provisions 

k.   Removal of rules for limited notification to NZTA, Transpower and Counties Power in certain circumstances.

l.    Inserting precinct provisions that provide for structures not defined as buildings.

m.  Inserting precinct provisions that do not require compliance with the precinct provisions for proposed balance allotments.

Consistency with the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP:OP)

n.   Replacing all references to the AUP (notified version) in the precinct provisions with references to the equivalent provisions in the AUP:OP.

o.   Reformatting and reorganising the precinct provisions to be consistent with the layout applied in AUP:OP including the consolidation of activity tables.

p.   Ensuring that all precinct objectives specify the outcome sought and all precinct policies specify the approach to be taken (and relevant weighting) to achieve precinct objectives.

q.   Removal of precinct provisions that duplicate AUP:OP overlay provisions or designation responsibilities.

r.    Removal of precinct provisions that require affordable dwellings to be provided for a specifically identified.

s.   Removal of the precinct development controls for dwellings fronting the street, maximum building length and garages, as these were equivalent to or less strict than zone development controls in the PAUP NV and decisions on the PAUP were to delete the zone controls.

t.    Replacing subdivision provisions restricting vehicle access over cycle facilities with land use provisions consistent with those in section E27 of the AUP:OP.

u.   Removing the precinct subdivision control for roading standards and instead relying on the AUP:OP subdivision standards.

v.   Removing elements from the precinct plan that are not references in the precinct provisions.

Consistency with Hugh Green Limited’s Resource Consent Master Planning Exercise

w.  Replacing the precinct stormwater management provisions with an alternative requirement for stormwater management to be consistent with an approved discharge consent.

x.   Amending the precinct plan to relocate indicative parks to positions most recently agreed with Council.

y.   Amending the precinct plan to relocate the bus route to the position most recently agreed to with Auckland Transport.

z.   Amending the precinct plan to relocate the collector roads to the positions granted by resource consent BUN60343386.

aa. Amending the precinct plan to relocate the indicative local roads to align with the key road location shown on Hugh Green Limited’s master plan.

bb. Amending the precinct plan to ensure that the positions of streams and wetlands do not contradict the ecological features confirmed at High Green Limited’s sites during the processing of resource consents BUN60325204 and BUN60339982.

21.       Figures 3 and 4 below set out the requested Precinct Map and the requested zone changes.

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generatedDiagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Requested Precinct Plan

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Requested Zone Changes

22.       The reasons given by the applicant for the plan change request include the following:

(a)        There have been a number of resource consents granted.

(b)        There are some difficulties with the Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions partly due to the fact that the provisions reference the PAPU NV rather than the AUP:OP.

(c)        A number of deviations from the Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions have been agreed by council.  These relate to how stormwater should be managed, the roading layout, bus routes, road cross-sections and the location of parks.

(d)        The designation of part of the land for a school by the Minister of Education;

(e)        The developable area has been reduced through park acquisition, the school designation, the road widening of SH1, and wetland restoration.

 

23.       The plan change request makes a number of changes to the Hingaia Precinct 1 objectives.  The overall purpose of the request is proposed by the applicant as being;

Providing for increases in residential building intensity on sites south of Park Estate Road (in recognition of the substantial area of undevelopable wetlands that are being retained), while amending the Hingaia 1 Precinct text to match the current formatting of the Auckland Unitary Plan and reduce inconsistencies with the Auckland-wide and underlying zone provisions.

Themes from submissions received

24.     A total of 45 submissions were received on the plan change (approximately 123 submission points raised overall). Key matters raised are outlined in the Table 1 below:

 

 

 

 

Table 1 submissions received on Plan Change 67

 

Submissions

Number of submissions

Key matters raised

In support

7

-     Approve the plan change without amendments

In Support, with amendments

6

-     Specific amendments to the plan change provisions

In opposition

29

Oppose the plan change due to:

-     Increase in traffic/transport effects

-     Lack of public transport

-     Concerns about road safety

-     Poor urban quality

-     Lack of infrastructure

-     Density is too high

-     Because of the removal of affordable housing provisions

-     Lack of employment opportunities 

-     Negative impacts on wildlife

In opposition (unless these concerns are addressed)

2

-     Increase traffic/transport effects

-     Decrease in property values

Neither supports or opposes the plan change

1

-     Veolia Water Services - Existing water infrastructure is modelled to ensure sufficient capacity. Should there be insufficient capacity, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to, at its cost, design and construct required network infrastructure upgrades.

 

25.     Detailed information on individual submissions and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters is available from the following link on council’s website: The Auckland Council has also lodged a submission opposing PPC 67. PCC67_documents

26.     It should be noted that there is a significant submission from the applicant seeking to replace the residential zone provisions with provisions similar to those contained in the Resource Management ) Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.  This bill, which is currently before parliament, provides for greater intensity of development throughout residential zones.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

27.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

·    to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

·    to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

28.     The first of council’s climate goals is relevant because it relates to climate adaptation. That goal aligns with the legal principle for Recourse Management Act (RMA) decision-makers to have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA).   

29.     However, the RMA currently precludes the second goal: consideration of climate mitigation. Consequently, any local board views on climate mitigation will be disregarded by the plan change decision-makers.

30.     RMA amendments coming into force next year will enable climate mitigation to be considered.  These effects cannot be considered now, unless the private plan change proposes rules about particular greenhouse gas discharges. No rules of that kind are proposed.

Implications for local board views

31.     The table below provides further guidance as to the matters that are in and out of scope with respect to climate change and RMA decision-making.  

In scope for RMA decision-making

Out of scope for RMA decision-making

Climate adaption issues such as:

How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment? How and where should physical resources be constructed?

For example:

·    will sea-level rise cause inundation of land where development is proposed? 

·    is the land in an area susceptible to coastal instability or erosion?

·    will Auckland be less- or better-prepared for flooding, stress on infrastructure, coastal and storm inundation?

·    is ecosystem resilience improved through ecological restoration or reduced by the loss of indigenous habitats?

Climate mitigation issues such as:

·        release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

·        increase in tail-pipe emissions from private car use, use of coal fired or natural gas burners

·        the plan change reinforces the commercial centre by removing some m2 constraints and defines a bus route.

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.     Staff from Healthy Waters, Environmental Services and Engineering [in Regulatory Services] will review relevant submissions and provide expert advice that supports the preparation of the hearing report. 

33.     Auckland Transport made a submission generally opposing PC67. Watercare Services indicated they would become involved in development on these sites at the resource consent stage.

34.     Veolia Water Services (ANZ) Pty Ltd provides the water services in the area. Watercare Services Ltd owns the water and wastewater infrastructure which is operated by Veolia. Veolia has made a submission on PC67 of which neither supports nor opposes the Proposal.

35.     Veolia seeks a decision that ensures that the water and wastewater capacity and servicing requirements of the Proposal will be adequately met, such that the water and wastewater related effects are appropriately managed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.     The private plan change request is within the Papakura Local Board area.

37.     This plan change relates to the Papakura Local Board area only.

38.     Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

·      interests and preferences of people in local board area

·      well-being of communities within the local board area

·      local board documents, such as local board plan, local board agreement

·      responsibilities and operation of the local board.

39.     This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker (Independent Commissioners) for PC67 will consider local board views, if provided, alongside the section 42A report, technical reporting, submitters and a site visit when deciding on the private plan change.  

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40.     If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC67, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori people, wellbeing of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

41.     All relevant iwi authorities were notified in accordance with the RMA and had the opportunity to make submissions on PC67 on issues that are important to them.

42.     No iwi responded seeking a Cultural Values Assessment or comments on the content of the plan change during the submission period. No iwi requested the appointment of a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū.   

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.     The costs associated with processing the private plan change request are recovered from the applicant. The effects of development associated with the private plan change request on infrastructure (and any associated funding/financing issues) is a matter that will need to be addressed in the section 42A hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44.     There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC67 if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

·      the mechanism for the Papakura Local Board to express its views and preferences

·      the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing on behalf of the local board.

45.     If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

46.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).[3]  This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47.     The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing of submissions for that purpose. 

48.     The reporting planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on Auckland Council’s submission to the National Emissions Reduction Plan

File No.: CP2021/17679

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the urgent decision providing the Papakura Local Board formal feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission to the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry for the Environment (MFE) has released for public consultation a discussion document seeking to inform the development of the first National Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP).

3.       This describes existing actions the Government has committed to and sets out new proposed actions it may include in the ERP to further reduce emissions and meet climate targets.

4.       The document proposes a range of new strategies and policies for consideration which span every sector of the economy and include changes to our funding and finance system, the way we organise our urban areas, and a shift to a circular economy.

5.       The Government is required to publish the ERP by the end of May 2022.

6.       The discussion document containing these proposals is set out here:

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Emissions-reduction-plan-discussion-document.pdf

7.       Auckland Council already has existing strategic direction in emissions reduction through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and has agreed positions that have recently been provided through previous submissions on climate change and transport emissions.

8.       As such, the council submission does not, in the main, develop new, but is based on relevant strategies and these existing agreed positions.

9.       Local board input into that submission was required by 17 November for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission or 19 November 2021 for feedback to be appended.

10.     The next local board business meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 24 November 2021.  Therefore, the opportunity for the local board to formalise its feedback by resolution fell outside of the scheduled business meeting times, and an urgent decision was required.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      note the urgent decision providing the Papakura Local Board formal feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission to the National Emissions Reduction Plan as follows:

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      provide the following feedback to the Governing Body on the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan submission:

i)       The board notes that Auckland Council already has existing strategic direction in emissions reduction through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and that our board has previously supported the goals of this plan to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050.

ii)       The 2020 Papakura Local Board Plan incorporates advocacy and initiatives related to climate change related matters:

·        Advocacy for encouraging the use and decarbonisation of public transport to reduce vehicle emissions.

·        Advocacy for the provision of safe shared pedestrian / cycleways as alternative transport options to reduce vehicle emissions.

·        Advocacy for funding for coastal erosion. Coastal erosion is an issue in the Papakura Local Board area, particularly along the Karaka/Harbourside shoreline. 

·        An initiative to implement the Urban Ngahere Project to address the loss of tree canopy due to intensification and growth in the area.  The tree canopy in Papakura is sitting at 13 percent. 

·        Water quality initiatives to restore the Papakura Stream and enhance the receiving environment in the Manukau Harbour.

·        Initiatives to reduce waste to land fill, including advocacy for a resource recovery centre in the south.  Papakura was also one of the first areas for the kitchen waste collection to be implemented.

·        Advocacy for a strengthened product stewardship legislation to reduce the amount of plastic and polystyrene being used to packaging (see New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004).

iii)    The board also advocates for:

·        more green spaces in future developments

·        the retention of green belts, reserves, esplanade reserves and regional parks

·        the retention of quality soils.

Implementation and delivery of the emissions budgets

iv)     The board agrees that a partnership approach between central and local government will be needed to successfully deliver on emissions reduction targets and that upskilling, education, information, and awareness raising campaigns to promote behaviour change will be an important part of this.

v)      The board supports taking a partnership approach with Māori, including the suggestion that a Māori Advisory Group is created to ensure that a Te Ao Māori worldview is embedded in development of the emissions reduction plan.

Funding and finance

vi)     The board would like to see government funding to incentivise climate change projects as local government funding is very limited, particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic.

vii)     The board agrees that significant funding from central Government will need to be made available to local authorities, businesses and individuals to support in the implementation and delivery of emissions budgets.


 

Planning

viii)    The board supports using urban design and planning tools to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled and car dependence in urban areas, and encourage the uptake of walking, cycling and public transport.

Behaviour change

ix)     The board supports the view that the best way to drive behaviour change is through face-to-face community engagement and empowering local champions.

Moving to a circular economy

x)      The board supports measures to increase the circularity of the economy, reduce avoidable food waste and extend product stewardship schemes to a wider range of products. We would like to see a central and local government partnership on resource recovery initiatives that support local employment and entrepreneurship.

Transport

xi)     The board believes a significant shift in transport will need to be delivered at pace and scale to achieve needed reductions in transport emissions. For Papakura this will require significant upgrading of the local public transport network, including:

·        extending the cycle and active transport mode network within the Papakura area, in particular, providing safe off-road connections to the State Highway 1 cycleway

·        investing in more separated cycleways to encourage increased uptake of cycling, including separating the cycleway on Great South Road

·        providing more bus shelters as there is a deficit of these in south Auckland

·        addressing the affordability of fares to increase usage of public transport in low-income communities

·        providing complimentary services to support the utilisation of public transport.

xii)     The board supports policy interventions to reduce congestion and encourage greater use of public transport and active transport modes. The board supports exploring tools such as congestion charging to achieve this, provided that the needs and interests of the most vulnerable members of the community and those who would be disproportionately impacted by such charging are safeguarded, and that the revenue is used to improve access to public transport.

xiii)    The board supports the proposal to provide targeted support for low-income groups and transport disadvantaged, such as subsidies for low-emissions vehicles. We also support the suggestion of a vehicle scrappage scheme to help low-income groups swap from older vehicles to cleaner models.

Building and construction

xiv)   The board supports measures to address the operational efficiency and thermal performance of buildings. These will allow us to ensure that our buildings are able to maintain a healthy temperature without contributing to climate change.

Waste

xv)    The board is supportive of creating a circular, self-sustaining economy that will reduce waste emissions and cut biogenic methane emissions.

xvi)   The board has provided separate feedback on the Government’s proposals for a new waste strategy and associated waste legislation, and that feedback should be read in conjunction with this feedback

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Boswell - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation

File No.: CP2021/17826

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Noting the urgent decision providing the Papakura Local Board’s feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 15 October 2021, the Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document on proposals for a new national waste strategy together with other issues and options relating to new waste legislation.

3.       The consultation document can be found here: Te kawe i te haepapa para: Taking responsibility for our waste: Proposals for a new waste strategy – issues and options for new waste legislation.

4.       A snapshot of the consultation document has also been made available online.

5.       This describes existing actions the Government has committed to and sets out new proposed actions it may include in the new national waste strategy to transform the way New Zealand manages its waste.

6.       The consultation document seeks feedback on the following three areas:

·    Part 1: seeking support for changes to how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its waste and support for moving towards a circular economy

·    Part 2: seeking feedback on a proposed new waste strategy

·    Part 3: seeking feedback on the development of more comprehensive legislation on waste: issues and options.

7.       The council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in relevant council strategy, such as Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau 2018 / Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 and other recent council submissions on government policy relating to waste management and minimisation.

8.       Waste Solutions staff will lead the development of the council’s submission which is due to the Ministry for the Environment by 26 November 2021.

9.       Auckland Council has been given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Government’s proposed new national waste strategy and associated waste legislation. Formal feedback from local boards received before or on 5pm on 10 November 2021 will allow time for appropriate consideration and influence on Council’s overall feedback or 5pm on 22 November 2021 for feedback to be appended. Therefore, the opportunity for the local board to formalise its feedback by resolution falls outside of the scheduled business meeting times.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      note the urgent decision providing the Papakura Local Board’s feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation as follows:

That the Papakura Local Board:

 

a)         provide the following feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission, noting that feedback is required by 5pm on 22 November 2021 to be appended:

 

Part 1: Changes to how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its waste and support for moving towards a circular economy

1)        The Papakura Local Board Plan 2020 speaks to the board’s commitment to reduce waste with the objective “Papakura has successful programmes to help people reduce, reuse and recycle” and advocacy initiatives:

·    Advocate at regional level for the establishment of a network of recycling centres in partnership with other agencies

·    Advocate for the promotion of environmental programmes that give residents, businesses and schools the opportunity to learn and carry out waste minimisation and more sustainable practices

·    Continue to advocate for national law change on waste minimisation, particularly relating to product stewardship (including packaging waste).

2)        The board supports the circular economy concept.

3)        The board supports the proposed changes to how Aotearoa manages its waste.

Part 2: Proposed new waste strategy

4)        The board supports the proposed vision.

5)        The board supports the following six core waste strategy principles:

i)        Design out waste, pollution and emissions, and unnecessary use of materials

ii)       Keep products and materials in use at their highest value

iii)      Regenerate natural systems, so the environment is healthy for future generations

iv)      Take responsibility for the past, present and future condition of our natural environment

v)      Think in systems, where everything is interconnected

vi)      Deliver equitable and inclusive outcomes

 

6)        The board believes that targeted investment will be required in learning and development programmes which encourage innovation to ensure this becomes an employment field of preference which is well-paid with qualified workforce that meets future eco and green-industry employment requirements.

7)        The board supports the proposed approach of the three broad stages between now and 2050 but questions whether the timeframe is ambitious enough. 

 

8)        Each stage should also look for opportunities to create momentum to change societal mindsets in order to garner support for waste minimisation over convenience.  For example, the single use plastic bags legislation forced the use of alternatives which created momentum at the time to question the necessity for so much plastic packaging on food products, particularly on things like fruit and vegetables. 

 

9)        Communication campaigns will be required to ensure all facets of society are on board and actively participating.

 

10)      The board supports the following strategic targets for stage 1 – 2030 targets:

 

Area

Responsibility

Strategic target (by 2030

Waste

Whole country

Reduce waste generation by 5-10 per cent per person

 

Public sector

Reduce waste generation by 30 – 50 per cent

 

Business

Reduce waste disposal by 30 - 50 per cent

 

Households

Reduce waste disposal by 60 – 70 per cent

Emissions

Whole country

Reduce biogenic waste methane emissions by at least 30 per cent

Litter

Whole country

Reduce litter by 60 per cent

 

Part 3: Development of more comprehensive legislation on waste: issues and options

 

Embedding a long-term, strategic approach to reducing waste

11)    Do you think the new legislation should require the government to have a waste strategy and periodically update it? (pages 45 – 46)

 

The board believes there should be a requirement for all tiers of government to take a long-term and co-ordinated view on waste.

 

The legislation should require the government to have a waste strategy and be required to update it.

 

12)     How often should a strategy be reviewed? (pages 46 - 47)

 

The board believes the strategy should be reviewed every 3 – 6 years and be aligned to the local government long-term plan cycle.

 

13)    How strongly should the strategy (and supporting action and investment plans) influence local authority plans and actions? (pages 47 – 48)

 

The board believes the strategy should give clear direction from central government. 

 

Any additional requirements placed on local authorities to administer the new legislative changes should come with the commensurate central government funding.

 

14)    What public reporting on waste by central and local government would you like to see? (page 47)

 

The board agrees central government should be required to report:

·    at an overall level on progress, including against the specific targets it has set for the country

·    generally on waste data

·    on the use of levy revenue.

 

The board agrees that local authorities should support this by reporting on progress against the same measures and on their use of levy funds, as well as reporting from relevant parts of the waste management industry.

 

15)    Do you agree with the suggested functions for central government agencies? (page 48)

 

The board agrees with the suggested functions for central government agencies.

16)    What central agencies would you like to see carry out these functions? (page 48)

 

The board believes that the best fit to carry out the functions is with the Ministry for the Environment.  The risk with splitting the functions across agencies could lead to a disjointed less focused approach.

 

17)    How should independent, expert advice on waste be provided to the government? (pages 48 -49)

 

The board can see the benefit of having a Waste Advisory Board that could:

i)          provide independent expertise and advice in developing future waste strategy

ii)         action and investment plans

iii)         product bans

iv)        assessing significant investment and

v)         funding proposals to the minister or ministry or to separate bodies for different functions.

 

18)    How could the legislation provide for Māori participation in the new advice and decision-making systems for waste?

(page 49)

The board agrees it is imperative to provide for Māori participation in the new advice and decision-making systems for waste.

 

The board is mindful of the capacity issues for Māori to engage at all levels of government, however, the opportunity should be created. 

 

The board believes it is a discussion with Māori as to how this best works for them.

 

 

19)    What are your views on local government roles in the waste system, in particular the balance between local and regional? Who should be responsible for planning, service delivery, regulatory activities like licensing, and enforcement of the different obligations created? (pages 49 – 50)

 

The board does not have a view on this question as Auckland Council is a unitary authority, therefore the separation of regional and local is a moot point.

 

 

Putting responsibility at the heart of the new system

20)    Do you see benefit in adapting the United Kingdom’s duty-of-care model for Aotearoa New Zealand’s waste legislation, supported by appropriate offences and penalties? (pages 51 – 52)

 

The board agrees that the duty-of-care approach will encourage a change in attitudes and mindsets. 

21)    Do you support strengthening obligations around litter by creating an individual ‘duty of care’ to dispose of waste appropriately?

 

The board supports strengthening obligations around litter by creating an individual ‘duty-of-care’ to dispose of waste appropriately.

22)    What else could we do so that litter is taken more seriously as a form of pollution?

 

The board believes people who feel connected to their environment and community are less likely to litter.  For those who are not so connected a more punitive approach might encourage societal change, such as instant fines.  However, the board does acknowledge enforcement could be an issue.

 

23)    Do you support a nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector? (pages 53 – 54)

 

The board supports a nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector.

24)    Should the new legislation include a power to require a tracing system to be developed for some or all types of waste? (pages 54 – 55)

 

The board supports the new legislation including a power to require a tracing system to be developed for waste management.

 

Overall, make it easy for people to engage and dispose of waste in all its forms appropriately.

 

25)    What aspects of the proposals for regulating the waste sector could be extended to apply to hazardous waste? (page 55)

 

The board believes there should be a requirement for local collection points for hazardous waste with associated communication plans so the general public know what is hazardous waste, where to take it and when.  This includes the disposal of e-waste.  Convenience and education will be key to higher levels of compliance.

 

Improving legislative support for product stewardship schemes

26)    Should the new legislation keep an option for accreditation of voluntary product stewardship schemes?

(pages 57 – 58)

 

The board supports the new legislation keeping an option for accreditation of voluntary product stewardship schemes.

27)    How could the accreditation process for new product stewardship schemes be strengthened? (page 58)

 

The board supports the proposed improvements to the accreditation process for product stewardship schemes.

28)    How else could we improve the regulatory framework for product stewardship? (pages 59 – 60)

 

The board believes the product stewardship scheme monitoring, reporting and enforcement regulations should be strengthened to provide formal tools for schemes that are not performing well. 

 

Enhancing regulatory tools to encourage change

29)    What improvements could be made to the existing regulatory powers under section 23 of the Waste Management Act 2008? (page 61 - 62)

 

The board agrees that relying on voluntary action is unlikely to see transformation to a circular economy or meet emission reduction targets.

30)    What new regulatory powers for products and materials would be useful to help Aotearoa move towards a circular economy? (page 62 - 63)

 

 

31)    Would you like to see a right to return packaging to the relevant business? (page 64 - 65)

 

The board believes a right to return packaging to the relevant business approach would be a powerful tool to encourage businesses to take on board product stewardship and potentially drive innovation in a circular economy.

 

32)    Would you like to see more legal requirements to support products lasting longer and being able to be repaired? (pages 66 – 67)

 

The board supports more legal requirements to support products lasting longer and being able to be repaired.  Investment will be required to ensure there is a workforce with the required skillsets to make this a reality.  Economics will also drive this concept.  It will need to cost less to get something repaired than it does to buy a new one.

 

33)    Is there a need to strengthen or make better use of import and export controls to support waste minimisation and circular economy goals? For example, should we look at ways to prohibit exports of materials like low-value plastics? (pages 67 – 68)

 

The board believes the import and export controls should be strengthened to support waste minimisation and the circular economy goals.  Aotearoa should not be exporting low value plastics.

Ensuring the waste levy is used to best effect

34)    What types of activities should potentially be subject to a levy? Should the levy be able to be imposed on final disposal activities other than landfills (such as waste to energy facilities)? (pages 69 - 70)

 

The board believes the levy should be applied with the principle to encourage activities that support a circular economy.  Those activities not supporting the circular economy should be charged a higher levy.

35)    What factors should be considered when setting levy rates? (pages 69 – 70)

 

The board believes there should be a requirement for consideration of the overall effectiveness of the waste minimisation measures and the contribution to a circular economy when setting levy rates.

 

36)    How could the rules on collection and payment of the waste levy be improved? (page 70)

 

The board agrees that the new legislation should also take into account management of stockpiling materials, reuse of materials on site at disposal facilities, waivers and exemptions.

 

37)    What should waste levy revenue be able to be spent on? (pages 71 – 72)

The board agrees with the broader scope proposed for what the waste levy can be used for.

 

38)    How should waste levy revenue be allocated to best reflect the roles and responsibilities of the different layers of government in relation to waste, and to maximise effectiveness? (pages 72 – 73)

 

The board supports an adjustment to the population-based formula for the waste levy that takes into account:

 

·    visitor populations

·    the area, size and distance to high-population centres, to reflect the higher waste-related costs incurred by some territorial authorities

or

·    a fixed base amount, combined with a ‘top up’ proportional amount using one of the options above. For example, 5 per cent of each territorial authority’s total share of revenue could be allocated equally, with the remaining 95 per cent allocated on a population basis.

39)    How should waste levy revenue be allocated between territorial authorities? (pages 72 - 73)

 

 

Improving compliance, monitoring and enforcement

40)    Which elements of compliance, monitoring and enforcement should be the responsibility of which parts of government (central government, regional councils, territorial authorities) under new waste legislation? (pages 75 – 76)

 

 

41)    The need for enforcement work will increase under the new legislation. How should it be funded? (pages 76 – 77)

 

The board agrees that wherever the functions sit, they need to be adequately resourced.  The scope for use of the waste levy fund should be expanded to encourage a circular economy.

 

42)    What expanded investigation powers, offences and penalties do you think should be included in new waste legislation?

 

The board supports hefty instant fines for:

i)          illegal dumping and littering

 

ii)         rubbish blown or washed away from a building site because of inadequate prevention. e.g polystyrene, cardboard, plastic.

 

The board believes council staff should have the power to issue instant fines.

 

43)    What regulatory or other changes do you think would help better manage inappropriate disposal of materials (that is, littering and fly-tipping)?

 

The board believes that there is a need to provide a range of options for disposing of waste that recognises the diversity of needs between households. These could include:  access to local recycling centres; periodically placing skips or bins in neighbourhoods to allow for disposal of inorganic waste without the need to make a booking or place limitations on the amount of waste that can be collected (similar to the ‘Neat Streets” programme); or other services.

 

The board is a strong advocate for local resource recovery centres and recycling facilities.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board’s feedback on the Government’s proposed new waste strategy and proposed changes to waste legislation

231

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lee Manaia - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

A black and white document

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Delivery of summer events within the COVID-19 Protection Framework

File No.: CP2021/17991

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek direction on planning for the delivery of summer events within the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.       The Event Production Team is planning for a great summer in Auckland, full of free community events. These are likely to be delivered within the new COVID-19 Protection Framework.

2.       The proposed COVID-19 Protection Framework intends to ease restrictions of access for fully vaccinated people, including attending events.

2.       To implement the framework at events, there will be planning and cost implications for which the Event Production team seeks local board direction.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      reallocate $6,000 from work programme line item 418 ‘Community grants Papakura’ to work programme line item 417 ‘Movies in Parks – Papakura’ and approve the use of up to $6,000 for additional costs in delivering the board’s Movies in Parks event.

Horopaki

Context

3.       The Event Production Team is planning for a great summer in Auckland, full of free community events. These are likely to be delivered within the new COVID-19 Protection Framework.

4.       The general purpose of free local board events is to celebrate people and communities by bringing people together and helping create pride of place. Traditionally, summer in Auckland is a busy and exciting time with hundreds of local events each summer month.

5.       Since August 2021, COVID-19 Alert Level restrictions have resulted in the cancellation of local board events in Auckland, the most recent of these being the Christmas events. The Event Production Team investigated alternative Christmas activations but unfortunately this has proven to be too difficult and high risk given the uncertainty of the step-down timings in alert levels.

6.       Movies in Parks is a regionally promoted series and the ‘go live’ planning programme, which includes publication of the website, social media, event listings and publicity, is 10 December 2021.  The Music in Parks series, which includes some local board events will also go live on this date.

3.       Direction is needed from the board to enable event staff to prioritise where to invest time, which is important for events that require high levels of community participation, as well as enable us to carry out supplier negotiations on bulk hireage across all events.

 

 

COVID-19 Protection Framework and Events

4.       Government advice is that Auckland will be moved to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework at 11:59pm on Thursday 2 December 2021.

5.       The COVID-19 Protection Framework shifts focus to easing restrictions for fully vaccinated people using a Vaccination Certificate (also referred to as Vaccination Pass).  The information available currently indicates the following for events:

Level

If Vaccination Passes are used.

Events to have systems for managing vaccination pass validation, record-keeping, increased hygiene and face coverings.

If Vaccination Passes are not used.

Events to follow advice on record-keeping, increased hygiene and face coverings.

Green

Events can proceed with no limits

Restricted to a maximum of 100 people at the event.  They must be seated and maintain 1 metre physical distancing.

Orange

Events can proceed with no limits

No events

Red

Events can proceed with a maximum of 100 people and only if they can maintain 1 metre physical distancing.

No events

 

12.     With the use of the Vaccination Pass at any level, event organisers will need to establish a way to validate these prior to allowing people access to the event.

13.     For outdoor events this will mean creating a secure boundary of the site with managed entry / exit points, as well as implementing systems for validation.  It is not yet clear what these systems will be.

14.     At all times, Auckland Council will follow the guidance provided by the Ministry of Health.

15.     Auckland Council is creating specific vaccination guidelines/policies for Elected Members, Staff & Volunteers, Procurements & Suppliers and Customers.  The Event Team will be required to follow council guidelines/policies once implemented.

16.     Staff acknowledge the short timeframe for providing direction. This timeline is to ensure we do not launch the promotion of events which local boards may wish to cancel if unable to fund the additional requirements.

17.     The scope of this report is for Event Production work programme items. The implications for civic events will be addressed with boards on a case-by-case basis when the Civic Events Team works with boards on event briefs and scheduling.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.     Event Production staff are looking into the operational requirements and costs for implementing vaccination checks and additional health measures, such as

a)      securing the event site (security, fencing, barriers).

b)      creating multiple, controlled entrance/exit points.

c)      increased security personnel and possibly wristbands or other identifiers.

d)      introduction of technology for certificate/pass validation.

e)      provision of face-coverings.

f)       provision of more hand-washing facilities or hand-sanitiser.

19.     These measures will incur costs which were not considered in the original event budget when it was approved in the 2021/2022 work programme.

20.     It is estimated that costs could be up to $6000 extra for some events.

21.     Each event will have a tailored approach and costs will vary depending on the expected audience size and park/location used.  It will take time for staff to work through every event on the summer schedule, therefore we are requesting that boards consider allocating up to $6000 per event to cover these additional measures.

22.     Papakura Local Board has confirmed in its 2021/2022 work programme the delivery of one event to take place during the summer season (January to March). This is:

·        Movies in Parks, Saturday 26 February, Central Park, approved budget $14,000.

23.     Options for delivery of summer events

Option

Pros

Cons

Recommendation

Option 1:

 

Event budget increased to cover the new safety management costs

 

Compliance with government advice on delivering the event safely.

 

The event can be successfully delivered as intended with no reduction in event offering.

 

Community sees local board taking safety seriously but not at the cost of reducing community participation and enjoyment.

 

By supporting these events, the board will provide their communities with some sense of a return to normality, and an opportunity to safely gather.

Potential reputational risk if attendance is low due to COVID uncertainty or other factors and people are against the increased spend on events when funding could be placed elsewhere.

 

Events could be a target for protests against the vaccination mandates, or those without a Vaccination Pass may try to access the site and be declined causing upset.

Movies in Parks at Central Park proceeds as planned, with additional safety requirements and associated costs of up to $6,000.

Option 2:

 

Event budget remains the same with new safety costs funded by reducing other elements within the event.

 

Compliance with government advice on delivering event safely.

 

No additional funding required.

 

To afford safety measures programming is reduced which could cause disappointment for those who engage and participate in the event. 

 

Reduction in offering will minimise delivery on local board outcomes.

 

Events could be a target for protests against the vaccination mandates, or those without a Vaccination Pass may try to access the site and be declined causing upset.

Not recommended for movies. 

Movies in Parks budgets are not large enough to accommodate the anticipated extra costs even with the removal of all pre-entertainment.

Option 3:

 

Event is cancelled prior to the promotion of summer season commencing

With early cancellation no costs will be incurred, the budget can be reallocated or put forward as savings.

 

This option avoids confusion with community (event simply left off promotions rather than cancelled later).

Not delivering agreed work programme.

 

Potential risk of losing momentum when events miss a year. Attendance and profile need to be rebuilt in subsequent years.

 

Disappointment by local community that the event is not proceeding (another thing cancelled due to COVID).

 

Potential reputational risk for cancelling when other local boards may choose to proceed.

Not recommended.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     The proposed decision to implement vaccination checks and additional health measures does not have direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions or climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     At all times, Auckland Council will follow the guidance provided by the Ministry of Health.

26.     Auckland Council is creating specific vaccination guidelines/policies for Elected Members, Staff & Volunteers, Procurements & Suppliers and Customers.  The Event team will be required to follow council guidelines/policies once implemented.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     Local board views are being sought to enable event staff to prioritise where to invest time, which is important for events that require high levels of community participation, as well as enable us to carry-out supplier negotiations on bulk hireage across all events.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The Customer and Community Services work programme includes activities that will have an impact on a service, facility, or location of significance to Māori. In these situations, appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation is undertaken, including to meet our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Treaty of Waitangi.

29.     Progress updates on delivery of Māori outcomes is provided to the local board through quarterly performance reports.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30.     There is a recommendation to reallocate Locally Driven Initiative Operating Expenditure (LDI Opex) budgets of $6,000 from work programme line item 418 ‘Community grants Papakura’ to top up work programme line item 417 ‘Movies in Parks – Papakura’. The reallocation recommendation has no financial impact on the overall LDI Opex budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.     The Event Production Team does not have capacity to carry out surveys of local board areas to determine how local communities feel about the COVID-19 Protection Framework and if this will increase or decrease the likelihood of them attending events.  We cannot guarantee attendance.

32.     We look to the local boards for guidance on how communities may respond to physical barriers stopping Aucklanders who do not have a valid Vaccination Pass attending local events and any potential political or reputational risks associated with this.

33.     Some of the areas of uncertainty to be aware of are outlined below.  When there is more clarity on these, Event staff may need to come back to the board for further direction:

·    How long Auckland will remain at each level of the new COVID-19 Protection Framework.

·    Within the framework it mentions “Specified outdoor community events” as places people “can go” with no definition on what this means, and if this applies to free community-orientated, local board events.

·    The specifics around what the vaccination passes are, and what will be required in validating these including medically exempt and people who were vaccinated overseas.

·    What the details are within the council vaccination polices/guidelines currently being developed and how these will be applied to events.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     Local board to provide direction to Event Production staff ideally by Monday 29 November 2021 or as soon as practical as to its preferred options.

35.     Staff will continue to follow Ministry of Health requirements and cancel or plan the events as directed by the local board. Staff will keep the local board informed if Ministry of Health requirements, or council vaccination polices change and impact further on the events.

36.     Publicity for Movies in Parks and Music in Parks (including local board events) will go live on 10 December 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Daniela – Manager, Event Production

Authorisers

David Burt – Manager, Events

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

 

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2021/18326

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order; or

·        random order.

3.       Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4.       Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5.       The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6.       Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should continue to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

 

Horopaki

Context

Options available

7.       Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1)  The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2)  Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3)  If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4)  If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5)  In this regulation, -

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where -

(a)  the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b)  all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the other of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8.       In 2013 the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order. From 2016 there has been no additional cost to use random order, due to changes in printing technology. 

9.       For the 2019 elections the following table outlines decisions of those regional and metropolitan councils whose data was available:

Council

Order

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Bay Of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Environment Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Otago Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Waikato Regional Council

Random

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Invercargill City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Upper Hutt City Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for 2022

Pseudo-random order and true random order

10.     Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is true random order, which means the order on every voting document is different.

11.     A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter.

Alphabetical order

12.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar, easier to use and to understand. When a large number of candidates compete for a position it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

13.     It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

14.     The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

15.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

·    The impact of ballot position on the number of votes received by candidates (i.e. the impact on the vote share) for local boards and wards

·    The impact of ballot position on whether an individual was elected or not (i.e. the impact on election outcomes).

16.     This analysis of Auckland Council elections data show that while there might be a small impact of being listed first on the percentage share of votes received in local board elections, there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last four elections. Given the relatively small sample size and variability in the data, these analyses may be less able to detect the real effects. Therefore, conclusions should be drawn with caution. That said, it is reasonable to conclude that results from the last four elections were not significantly affected by the use of alphabetical ordering on voting documents.

17.     Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of previous election results show does not exist. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on the wider group.

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

Local impacts and local board views https://aklcouncil.sharepoint.com/sites/how-we-work/SitePages/local-impacts-local-board-views-reports.aspx

20.     Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when it is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori and that such profile statements are contained in the candidate profile booklet in alphabetic order. Having voting documents in alphabetic order makes it easier for any voter to match the candidate in the profile booklet.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     There is no additional cost to the printing of voting documents if names are ordered using the random method.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     If names are ordered alphabetically there is the risk of perceived bias.  If names are randomised there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ballot order effects and Auckland Council elections_November 2021

253

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, Word

Description automatically generated


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2019-2022 Political Term

File No.: CP2021/17051

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for members to record achievements of the Papakura Local Board for the 2019 – 2022 political term.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       An opportunity to add and note achievements of the Papakura Local Board for the 2019 – 2022 political term.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      note the Papakura Local Board Achievements Register for the 2019-2022 political term.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papakura Local Board Achievements Register for the 2019-2022 political term

259

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jebel Ali - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

 


Papakura Local Board

01 December 2021

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Papakura Local Board

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains information covered in confidential Finance and Performance workshops and information relating to the draft Mayoral proposal which has not been finalised or released publicly. This report can be restated on 9 December once the final Mayoral Proposal and the material relating to the Annual Budget is available following the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 8 December 2021.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 15(2)(c).

[2] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss15-16.

[3] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D.