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

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Wednesday 1 December 2021

3.00pm

via Microsoft Teams

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Phelan Pirrie

 

Deputy Chairperson

Beth Houlbrooke

 

Members

Brent Bailey

 

 

Steve Garner

 

 

Danielle Hancock

 

 

Tim Holdgate

 

 

Louise Johnston

 

 

Vicki Kenny

 

 

Colin Smith

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Robyn Joynes

Democracy Advisor

 

25 November 2021

 

Contact Telephone: +64 212447174

Email: robyn.joynes@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

Local Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Central Shooters Inc

Auckland Shooting Club

Royal NZ Yacht Squadron

President

Member

Member

Steven Garner

Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club

Sandspit Yacht Club

Warkworth Gamefish Club

President

Member

Member

Louise Johnston

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

Treasurer

Vicki Kenny

International Working Holidays Ltd

Nannies Abroad Ltd

Director/Owner/CEO

Director/Owner/CEO

Danielle Hancock

Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association

Pest Free Kaukapakapa

New Zealand Biosecurity Services Limited

Member

 

Pest Free Coordinator

Operations Manager

Tim Holdgate

Landowners Contractors Protection Association

Agricultural & Pastoral Society - Warkworth

Vice Chairman

 

Committee member

Beth Houlbrooke

Kawau Island Boat Club

Springboard Advisory Board

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

Member

Member

Contractor

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Grow West Ltd

North West Country Incorporated

Officer in Charge

Director

Manager

Colin Smith

 

 


Rodney 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: Warkworth Bowling Club                                5

8.2    Deputation: Mahurangi College Living Classroom           6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                     6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                 6

11        Rodney Local Parks Land Classification Programme               9

12        Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate report update on the Kaukapakapa footpath connections                              51

13        Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022                                                57

14        Council-controlled Organisations quarterly update: Quarter one, 2021-2022                                                                              65

15        Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022                     91

16        Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities Draft Strategy 95

17        Three Waters Economic Regulation Submission                  105

18        Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents                                                                                  113

19        Local board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan                                        123

20        Rodney Local Board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation      129

21        Rodney Ward Councillor update                                              137

22        Governance forward work calendar                                         141

23        Rodney Local Board workshop records                                 145

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

25        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                  149

C1       Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation                                   149


1          Welcome

 

 

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 Rodney Local Board:

a)           confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday 17 November 2021, as a true and correct record.

 

 

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 Rodney 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: Warkworth Bowling Club

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Mike Newland from the Warkworth Bowling Club has requested a deputation to present a proposal to lease council land to develop a new bowling club.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Mike Newland from the Warkworth Bowling Club for his presentation and attendance.

 

 

 

8.2       Deputation: Mahurangi College Living Classroom

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Colin Binsted and Catherine Wynne from Mahurangi College have requested a deputation to provide an update on the Mahurangi College Living Classroom.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Colin Binsted and Catherine Wynne from Mahurangi College for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.

 

 

 

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 three minutes per speaker 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.”


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Rodney Local Parks Land Classification Programme

File No.: CP2021/17326

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To confirm land to be held under the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on the classification of land under the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      As part of the classification programme and development of the local parks management plan under the Reserves Act 1977, additional classification decisions are needed for some local parks in the Rodney Local Board area to address:

·        acquisitions of new park land

·        technical advice that some parks require reclassification to better reflect park values and current and future use

·        drainage reserves now being within scope of the local parks management plan

·        further reserves being identified as unclassified.

3.      Classification of reserves is an essential task in developing a local parks management plan for the Rodney Local Board area that complies with the Reserves Act 1977.

4.      This classification investigation included the review of 211 parcels of land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and 58 parcels of land held under the Local Government Act 2002.

5.      For 58 parcels of park land held under the Local Government Act 2002, the local board has the option to continue to hold land under the Local Government Act 2002 or to declare the land as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and classify it appropriately.

6.      Staff have individually assessed the merits of each option and propose that:

·        31 parcels be retained under the Local Government Act 2002 (Attachment B to the agenda report)

·        17 parcels be declared as a reserve and classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (Attachment C to the agenda report)

·        10 parcels to be declared reserve and classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (public notification is required) (Attachment D to the agenda report).

7.      Of the 211 land parcels held under the Reserves Act 1977 that have been investigated:

·        136 are unclassified and require classification to be included in the local park management plan (Attachment E to the agenda report)

·        75 parcels require reclassification to better reflect current or future use (public consultation is required) (Attachment F to the agenda report).

8.      The proposal to hold land at Green Road Park under the Reserves Act 1977, in order to provide protection from extensive use and development, received the most feedback from staff, and is strongly supported by mana whenua.

9.      Staff have considered the benefits and disadvantages of the Reserves Act 1977 or Local Government Act 2002 in managing and enabling the use, protection and development of each local park, and developed a set of criteria to guide assessment of each land parcel.

10.    Staff recommend that the local board approve classifying land parcels that don’t require public notification and notifying the reclassification of other land parcels as outlined in this report.

11.    Completing the reserve declaration, classification and reclassification processes will enable staff to complete preparation of the draft Rodney local parks management plan for public notification.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      confirm the 31 parcels of land that will continue to be held under the Local Government Act 2002 as described in Attachment B of the agenda report (dated 1 December 2021).

b)      approve the 17 parcels of land to be declared reserve and classified according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment C of the agenda report (dated 1 December 2021).

c)      approve public notification of the proposal to declare and classify 10 parcels of land according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment D of the agenda report (dated 1 December 2021).

d)      approve the classification of 136 parcels of reserve land pursuant to sections 16(1), 16(2A) and 16(11) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment E of the agenda report (dated 1 December 2021).

e)      approve public notification of the proposal to reclassify 75 parcels of reserve land pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment F of the agenda report (dated 1 December 2021).

f)       approve the formation of a hearing panel, and nominate a minimum of three local board members to be appointed to the hearing panel in preparation for any requests by submitters to speak to their objections or submissions on the proposed classifications that have been publicly notified under clause c) above, noting that the role of the hearings panel will be to hear submissions and make recommendations to the local board on classification decisions.

 

Horopaki

Context

Background information

12.    The Rodney Local Board has delegated decision-making responsibility for all local parks in the local board area.

13.    On 21 June 2018, the Rodney Local Board resolved to prepare an omnibus open space management plan (local parks management plan) for all local parks in the Rodney Local Board area (resolution number: RD2018/83).

14.    The local parks management plan will be a statutory reserve management plan prepared in accordance with section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA). It will include all reserve land held under the RA; park land held under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and replace existing reserve management plans for reserve land.

15.    In June 2019, staff completed a comprehensive park land status investigation for all local parks in Rodney. This was an essential preliminary task in developing the draft local parks management plan as it is a statutory requirement under the RA. Section 16 of the RA requires all land held as reserve under the RA be classified appropriately.

16.    This was reported to the local board in two stages as shown in the timeline.

*One parcel was found to be correctly classified and didn’t require action.

 

17.    A second round of park classifications is now required, prompted by:

·        acquisitions of new park land

·        technical advice that some parks require reclassification to better reflect park values and current and future use

·        drainage reserves now within scope of the local parks management plan

·        further reserves were identified as unclassified.

18.    Considerations associated with the decision to retain land under the LGA or declare and classify reserves under the RA include:

·        current and likely future use

·        continuity with adjoining land parcels

·        benefits and constraints of legislation.

19.    Staff have considered the benefits and disadvantages of the RA or LGA in managing and enabling the use, protection and development of each local park, and developed a set of criteria to guide assessment of each land parcel.

20.    These criteria incorporate guidance from the Reserves Act 1977 Guide[1] as follows:

·    consideration of the local park’s values

·    current and likely future use of the local park

·    consultation with subject matter experts

·    workshop feedback from the local board

·    consultation with mana whenua.

21.    Attachment A (to the agenda report) provides an overview of the different options for land held under the LGA and land held under the RA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Classification options depend on the legislation which land is held under

22.    The local board has the option to hold parks under the LGA or the RA.


 

23.    For park land currently held under the LGA the following options have been considered:

•	continue to retain the land under the LGA, or
•	declare land currently held under the LGA to be reserve under section 14 of the RA and classify appropriately.
LGA
OPTIONS
 

 

 

 


24.    For land held under the RA, the following options have been considered:

•	classify according to the land’s primary purpose
•	reclassify to align to the land’s primary purpose
•	revoke the reserve status and hold the land under the LGA
•	continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the RA.
•	
•	
 RA
OPTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

25.    The option to continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the RA has been discounted as it would mean that the local parks management plan would not comply with the RA or meet the statutory obligation under the Act to classify land before notifying a draft plan.

26.    In the context of this investigation, we have not identified any parcels of local park that warrant revocation of reserve status to pursue management of the local park under the LGA.

27.    In considering whether to proceed with the options for each land parcel, staff have considered the following criteria:

·        Why does the council own the land and how was it acquired? For example, the land may have been vested as recreation or esplanade reserve following completion of a subdivision.

·        What is the current and likely future purpose of the land?

·        What potential does the land have for protection, enhancement and development?

·        Is there likely to be a need to retain flexibility for future use of the park?

·        What is the status of adjacent parcels of land within the same park?

28.    Informed by the criteria above, the following sections outline classification proposals for land held under the LGA or the RA.

Proposed actions for land currently held under the LGA

Proposal to retain 31 parcels of land under the LGA

29.    In applying the criteria above, 31 parcels of land have been identified as best suited to remain under the LGA (Attachment B). This is primarily because either the current use does not align with any of the classification options in the RA and/or there is a likely need to retain flexibly in how it is used or managed in the future. Warkworth Showgrounds is an example of where this occurs.

30.    No further action is required by the local board for land that is to remain under the LGA.

Proposal to declare and classify 27 parcels of land held under the LGA

31.    Staff recommend that 17 parcels of land currently held under the LGA, should be declared as reserve and classified under section 14(1) of the RA to align with their primary purpose (Attachment C). These parcels do not require public notification because they are zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

32.    Attachment C includes a proposal to move two of these parcels of land at Green Road Park from the LGA to the RA, in order to protect these parcels from extensive use and development. This recommendation responds to local board feedback and receives support from mana whenua and some council units, although not all units as outlined in paragraphs 51-53.

33.    Public notification is required for the remaining ten parcels under section 14(2) of the RA as they are not zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan, largely due to them being newly acquired park land (see Attachment D). 

34.    Objectors and submitters may request a hearing about these ten notified parcels, in which case, it is proposed that a hearings panel consisting of at least three local board members is formed to hear any objections or submissions and to make recommendations to the local board on classification decisions.

Proposed actions for land currently held under the RA

Classification of 136 parcels of land currently held under the RA

35.    Classification involves determining the reserve’s primary purpose or values, then assigning a classification to the reserve (or part of a reserve), as defined in sections 17 to 23 of the RA. Consideration is also given to potential future values and activities and uses.

36.    Staff have identified 136 parcels of unclassified reserve land that require classification under section 16(1), 16(2A) and 16(11) of the RA (see Attachment E). These proposals do not require public notification under the RA.

Reclassification of 75 parcels of land held under the RA

37.    Reclassification involves assigning a different classification to a reserve (or part of a reserve) to better cater for its primary purpose.

38.    During this investigation, 75 parcels of classified reserves were identified as requiring reclassification (Attachment F) for the following reasons:

·        to better align with the current or anticipated future use of the reserve, or

·        to correct previous classification errors such as clarifying whether land held as scenic has 1a or 1b status under the RA.

39.    Section 24(2)(b) of the RA requires all proposals to reclassify reserves to be publicly notified together with the reasons for the proposed change in classification.

Summary of proposed Rodney local parks land classification programme

40.    A summary of the proposed classification actions in this report is provided below.

Figure 1: Proposed actions for land held under the RA and LGA

Proposed action

Parcel (n)

Relevant sections of RA

For the list of parcels refer to:

Retain under LGA

31

Not applicable

Attachment B

Declare and classify (without public notification)

Declare and classify (with public notification)

17

 

10

s.14(1)

 

s.14(2)

Attachment C

 

Attachment D

Total

58

 

 

        

LGA
OPTIONS
 


        

        

 

 

Proposed action

Parcel (n)

Relevant sections of RA

For the list of parcels refer to:

Classify (without public notification)

136

s.16(1), s.16(2A), s.16(11)

Attachment E

Reclassify (with public notification)

75

s.24(2)(b)

Attachment F

Total

211

 

 

 

 

RA
OPTIONS
 

 

 

 


Figure 2: Proposed classes for 269 parcels requiring decision

41.    Recreation is the most applied classification under the RA due to the important role local parks have in supporting play, active recreation and sport. An example of a proposed recreation classification is the parkland at Milldale which will serve the new residential community moving into the area.

42.    Many of the proposed classifications are local purpose (esplanade) or local purpose (drainage) reserves.

43.    Drainage reserves are primarily held for the purposes of stormwater management but often provide for recreation and other park uses. Jessie Rise Stormwater Pond in Riverhead is an example of a stormwater pond complemented by a boardwalk and pathways.

44.    Esplanade reserves are held for the purpose of contributing to the protection of conservation values, enabling public access and/or enabling recreational use of land and adjacent water bodies. Elizabeth Street Reserve in Warkworth is an example of where this classification is proposed to protect the natural values of the Mahurangi River.     

45.    Scenic 1a or 1b reserve classifications (under section 19 of the RA) are proposed for 36 parcels which are recognised as sites of ecological significance or over time will develop these qualities. This classification is proposed for park land at Sandspit Reserve which biodiversity advice has confirmed as an important shorebird breeding habitat.   

46.    The network of pedestrian accessways throughout Omaha are proposed to be reclassified as local purpose (accessway) to confirm their current and future purpose to provide the community with access to the wider residential area and beach; noting this recommendation is supported by council’s Healthy Waters unit.

47.    The proposed historic classification for a pā site at Kawariki Reserve in Helensville has been archeologically surveyed and is supported by the council’s Heritage unit. Te Horo pā site (reference: Q10/1105) has been flagged as meeting the threshold for scheduling in the Auckland Unitary Plan due to the presence of archaeological remains and their associated significance. Mana whenua feedback on this classification is outlined in the Māori impact section of this report.

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48.    The classification decisions in this report are largely administrative and we anticipate that they will have no direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

49.    However, future management and development of park land, which is determined by its purpose, could have a potential positive or negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The degree and nature of the impact is dependent on the specific management and development of each park. Two examples of potential impacts are:

·        a potential offsetting of emissions by classifying land as scenic reserve. The purpose of a scenic reserve is largely to protect and restore the natural environment; ecological restoration of a site could result in an increase in carbon sequestration.

·        a potential increase in emissions through increased traffic, following the development of a community facility; the development of facilities could be enabled through the classification of local purpose (community building) or recreation reserves.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50.    These land classification proposals have been discussed widely with council units and council-controlled organisations including Parks, Sport, and Recreation, Infrastructure and Environmental Services (including Healthy Waters and biodiversity specialists), Community Facilities, Community and Social Policy, Legal Services, Heritage and Auckland Transport, among others.

51.    Retaining Green Road Park in Dairy Flat under the LGA rather than the RA with a recreation classification was the only proposal that received mixed feedback from council units.

52.    Community Facilities staff (including Leasing and Land Advisory) who provided feedback on the proposed classification for Green Road Park advised that it should remain under the LGA because:

·        the LGA allows for a wider range of uses (consistent with council’s role under that legislation)

·        the RA introduces greater complexity into decision-making.

53.    Staff from other council units expressed support for the proposal to move Green Road Park from the LGA to the RA due to the long-term protection that the RA provides from extensive use and development.

54.    The proposal to move Green Road Park from the LGA to the RA is being recommended based on feedback from local board members (see paragraph 58).

55.    Staff note that the local parks management plan will provide a consistent management direction for all parks and reserves regardless of whether land is managed under the RA or LGA.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56.    At a workshop on 7 April 2021, staff presented principles underpinning this second classification investigation to the local board and provided an overview of a selection of classification proposals for discussion.

57.    The local board was generally supportive of the principles underpinning classification and of the proposals put forward for discussion, except for Green Road Park in Dairy Flat.

58.    Local board members expressed concern that Green Road Park was being held under the LGA not the RA because of the need to protect such a significant park from extensive use and development. The proposal to declare and classify Green Road Park under the RA responds to this local board feedback.

59.    In 2020, the local board adopted a masterplan for Green Road Park (resolution number: RD/2020/141). The masterplan outlines the vision for the park to become “a destination…for a range of active and passive recreation pursuits, for all the community”. The proposal to classify Green Road Park as recreation reserve under the RA is aligned with this community agreement about how the park should be managed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

60.    On 19 October 2021, a hui was held to discuss the proposed Rodney local park land classification programme with mana whenua.

61.    All mana whenua with an interest in Rodney were invited to the hui including Ngā Maunga Whakahii O Kaipara Development Trust, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Uri o Hau, Te Patukirikiri, Ngātiwai, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoā Trust Board, Ngāti Paoā Iwi Trust, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaterā.

62.    Staff presented the principles underpinning the classification investigation and provided an overview of a selection of proposals for discussion; proposals were selected for likely mana whenua interest and because of staff feedback.

63.    Two representatives from Ngāti Manuhiri participated in the hui and were supportive of the principles underpinning classification. They expressed support for all proposals selected for discussion except for one where they reserved feedback.

64.    On 20 October, a follow up email was sent to mana whenua providing the full list of parcels proposed for decision and inviting further feedback on any of the proposals. Feedback was received by email from Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Paoā, as outlined below:

Park name

Proposed classification

Mana whenua feedback

Omaha Beach Reserve & Whangateau Esplanade Reserve

Local purpose (wildlife protection)

Support for proposed classification.

Ngāti Manuhiri believe that the classification will help protect significant ecological values at the sandspit, aligns with shorebird protection efforts by the community, and is appropriate for a coastal environment

Pedestrian accessways throughout Omaha

Local purpose (accessway)

Support for proposed classification.

Ngāti Manuhiri asked for these accessways to be kept as grass or sandy to avoid earthworks and preserve cultural heritage

Sandspit Reserve – Rodney

Scenic 1b

Support for proposed classification.

Ngāti Manuhiri noted opportunities for storytelling to increase public awareness of birdlife in this area

Kawariki Reserve

Historic

Feedback reserved

Ngāti Manuhiri support more protection of historic character. Further consultation with Ngā Maunga Whakahii O Kaipara Development Trust has been sought due to the importance of the site to them

Green Road Park

Recreation

Support for proposed classification.

Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Paoā strongly support holding reserves under the RA because this Act (compared with the LGA) increases participation of mana whenua in decision-making

Spectacle Lake

(Allot 112 PSH OF Arai)

Recreation

 

Feedback reserved

Ngāti Manuhiri expressed concern that the proposed recreation classification will promote increased access. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Paoā stress the importance of mana whenua directly confirming recreation classifications where land is waahi tapu or waahi tuupuna.

  

65.    Staff discussed with the two Ngāti Manuhiri representatives that the parcel near Spectacle Lake is currently inaccessible due to a private landowner informally grazing an unformed legal road. Increased access to Spectacle Lake is unlikely while the road remains undeveloped.

66.    Staff have suggested an alternative proposal to Ngāti Manuhiri that is to classify the Spectacle Lake parcel as scenic 1b to signal its potential for restoration. If scenic 1b is supported by mana whenua, then this parcel could be reclassified at a later date.

67.    Staff have also suggested an alternative option to Ngā Maunga Whakahii O Kaipara Development Trust to classify Kawariki Reserve as scenic 1b instead of historic to provide slightly more operational flexibility; if this reserve was classified as scenic 1b, the archaeological site would continue to be protected through the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The local parks management plan being developed will also protect wider cultural heritage values.

68.    If any further feedback about the classification proposals is received from mana whenua, it will be brought to local board ahead of their business meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69.    This report has no financial implications for the local board. The costs for public notices and gazette notices for the classifications will be covered through existing departmental budgets.

70.    Three classification proposals do trigger the need for land surveys to determine a new legal boundary. This applies to South Head Hall Grounds, Wellsford War Memorial Park and Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve (see Attachment G). These surveying costs can be covered through existing department budgets pending resolution from the local board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

71.    The following table outlines relevant risks and mitigations associated with the proposed actions for land held under the LGA and RA contained in this report.

Risk

Risk level

Mitigation

IF land is held under the LGA

THEN there may be a perception that the land is at risk of sale or disposal

 

 

Low

There are restrictions on disposal of parks under section 138 of the LGA and the requirement to undertake consultation, including prior to granting leases for more than six months.

IF land is classified under the RA

THEN this constrains what the land can be used for

 

 

Low

Each individual parcel proposed to be held under the RA has been assessed based on the criteria in paragraph 27 and the Reserves Act Guide (see footnote 1). Recommendations reflect current and likely future use of each individual parcel and do not add additional restrictions.

IF public objections to proposed classifications are received

THIS will affect the public notification timeline for developing the draft local parks management plan

 

Low

75 parcels require public notification and if any objections are received these can be considered before a decision on notification of the draft management plan.

IF land is classified as scenic 1a or 1b

THEN this places greater responsibility on the council to deliver environmental outcomes which it may not be resourced to deliver

 

Low

Council units responsible for restoration and enhancement of the natural environment are supportive of the scenic classifications proposed and council staff will work together with the community to deliver these outcomes.

IF the dune lakes at Te Arai are to be managed as regional parks in the future

THEN the Governing Body may have a different view on classification of these parks to that of the local board

 

Low

Staff have consulted with senior managers from the Regional Parks team who are supportive of the classification proposals for both Slipper and Spectacle Lakes, should they be managed as regional parks in the future.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72.    If the recommended classification actions are approved, the next steps are to:

·    publish a notice in the local newspaper for the parcels requiring public notification (for at least one calendar month)

·    conduct a hearing if required

·    report back to the local board to outline any submissions and advise further on the classification proposals and seek further approval/confirmation if necessary

·    arrange surveying and gazette notices for approved classifications. Approval of gazette notices has been delegated from the Minister of Conservation to the General Manager Community Facilities

·    reflect updates to the classifications in the draft Rodney Local Parks Management Plan

·    ensure all classifications are correctly recorded on council’s databases.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Parcels to retain under Local Government Act

21

b

Attachment B - Parcels to retain under Local Government Act

23

c

Attachment C - Parcels to declare and classify without public notification

25

d

Attachment D - Parcels to be declared and classified with public notification

27

e

Attachment E - Parcels to classify without public notification

29

f

Attachment F - Parcels to reclassify with public notification

39

g

Attachment G - Land parcels to be surveyed

47

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kiri Le Heron – Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

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

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate report update on the Kaukapakapa footpath connections

File No.: CP2021/17710

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek budget approval from the Rodney Local Board on its preferred Kaukapakapa footpath options as part of the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      This report provides information about the Kaukapakapa footpath connections. This investigation considered a total of four footpaths to improve connections in Kaukapakapa. The investigation included the following key aspects:

·        options considered

·        advantages and disadvantages

·        risks

·        cost estimates.

3.      It is recommended the local board consider an approach of starting footpath connections in the town centre and radiating outwards. This approach would create a hub, or central precinct, as a destination with a view to then provide the links to the hub. Based on this approach it is recommended to prioritise the connections in the following order:

·       Connection 2:       Kaukapakapa Village centre improvements

·       Connection 3b:     Kaukapakapa Village to North Crescent via SH 16

·       Connection 4:       North Crescent to Moses Road via SH 16

·       Connection 3a:     Kaukapakapa Village to SH 16 via North Crescent

·       Connection 1:       Peak Road to Kaukapakapa School / Village.

4.      This report seeks approval from the local board to progress the first two connections (connections 2 and 3b).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)         receive the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate report on Kaukapakapa footpath connections

b)         approve funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate for the recommended footpath connections in Kaukapakapa in priority order of:

i)     Connection 2: Village centre footpath at an estimated cost of $2.9 million

ii)    Connection 3b: Kaukapakapa village to North Crescent via SH16 footpath at an estimated cost of $540,000

c)         note that approving both connection 2 and 3b together may achieve an estimated savings of $190,000, bringing the estimated combined cost from $3.44 million down to an estimated cost of $3.25 million, but noting that the savings is dependent on how work progresses for connection 2.

Horopaki

Context

5.      At the 17 March 2021 business meeting the Rodney Local Board resolved (resolution number RD/2021/205) to approve the use of up to $60,000 for the investigation of possible new footpath sites to be considered across the Rodney Local Board area to allow the optimal allocation of the remaining unallocated footpath funds of the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

6.      The funding was approved to investigate Priority Three footpath sites. The Priority Three footpath list included the Kaipara Coast Highway footpath within the Kumeū subdivision, which includes the footpath connections investigated and discussed in this agenda report and in attachment A to the agenda report.

7.      The assessment (Attachment A) involved investigating four pedestrian footpath connections in Kaukapakapa. This concept-level assessment was completed for all the connections and the report focuses on the options considered, recommended alignment / treatment, advantages and disadvantages, risks and cost estimates involved in establishing the connections.

8.      There are four routes and five options considered in this assessment after a site visit was carried out in early October 2021.

9.      These five options are outlined in the table below:

Connection

Estimated Cost

Connection 1: Peak Road to Kaukapakapa School / Village

$7.2 million

Connection 2: Kaukapakapa Village centre improvements

$2.9 million

Connection 3a: Kaukapakapa Village to SH16 via North Crescent

$1.45 million

Connection 3b: Kaukapakapa Village to North Crescent via SH16

$540,000

Connection 4: North Crescent to Moses Road via SH16

$1.3 million

7.         These footpath connections can be seen on the map below:

Map

Description automatically generated

 

 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8.      The recommended connections are prioritised to benefit the most people for the amount invested.

9.      The assessment report in attachment A, includes the cost estimates, advantages and disadvantages of all the connections.

10.    Connection 1 is the highest cost option with potential for cost increases due to geotechnical conditions. At approximately $7.2M the project would need an economic justification to obtain funding. This may be challenging given the moderate catchment.

11.    Connection 1 is the highest cost option with the potential for cost increases due to geotechnical conditions. At approximately $7.2 million the project would need an economic justification to obtain funding. This may be challenging given the moderate population catchment.

12.    The village centre footpath improvements of connection 2 would be expected to have a wider impact in terms of the number of people that would benefit from the footpath connections. It also becomes a catalyst for further pedestrian links. Safety through the village would also be improved with the crossings provided and the urban environment would encourage lower speeds. There is also increased potential for passing motorists to stop at the village which may have positive economic impacts on local businesses.

13.    Connections 3a and 3b are alternative options that along with connection 4 provide a walking connection to Moses Road and the residential development in that area. Option 3b is expected to cost less to construct with less risks of delays and cost increases. It also has a slightly larger estimated catchment that will benefit from the connection. For these reasons, Connection 3b is recommended as the preferred treatment compared to connection 3a.

14.    Connection 3b could be considered as a standalone treatment or combined with connection 4 to provide a connection between Kaukapakapa Village and Moses Road. The combination of Connection 3b and 4 is estimated to have a greater catchment than connection 1 with the majority of the catchment benefits along connection 3b.

15.    The two connections that are expected to provide the greatest benefit for the investment are connections 2 and 3b. The combination also provides a continuous footpath and could be progressed together or separately in a staged approach. This would also create the potential to later progress connection 4. If both 2 and 3b were progressed, the cost of one connection could be reduced by up to $190,000.

Advantages of the recommended option

16.    Upgrading the village centre and the connecting link benefit the wider community in terms of connectivity and creating a centralised place for people to meet.

17.    The proposed crossings provide improved connectivity and assist with the speed management through the village centre.

Disadvantages

18.       Some private property fence lines have encroached into the road corridor along SH16. The proposed improvements require the full use of the road corridor. These landowners may be unhappy with the reinstatement of the legal boundary.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.    The Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate contributes to the RLTP 2021-2028 outcome of: “A green Auckland – By reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and green-house gas emissions” and also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.    The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this update report. Auckland Transport will also be consulting with Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21.    At the site walkover with the project lead for Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate and subdivision members in early October 2021, connection 2 was viewed as the priority as it is seen as a catalyst to support further pedestrians links to the village centre such as connection 3b.

22.    Connections 2 and 3b are viewed as distinct projects but both would provide mutual benefit if progressed in a staged approach (ideally within short succession).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23.    The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on next stages of the projects.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.    The financial impact on the prioritised option which is connection 2 is approximately $2.9 million.

25.    The financial impact on the further pedestrian linkage to the village centre which is connection 3b is $540,000.

26.    If these two connections are delivered within a short succession period, it was calculated that there will be a potential saving of approximately $190,000, bringing the total investment to a value of $3.25 million.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27.    Undergrounding powerlines may conflict with the existing underground services, which could increase project construction costs. Services investigation prior to construction will help in identifying the location of existing services.

28.    Potential for delays to work through undergrounding of the power with Vector. Liaising with Vector from the early stages of project will reduce the delays.

29.    There is a risk that affected landowners may be not aware of the legal property boundary location. This will be mitigated by notifying landowners before commencing any work.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.    Auckland Transport will commence work on the direction resolved by the Rodney Local Board.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Kaukapakapa footpath connections - concept investigations report (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bharath Kotaru and Andrew McDonald  – Eliga Consultants

Authorisers

Duminda Wijayasinghe – Programme Director (AT)

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/17663

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide the Rodney 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:

·        there were 19,900 volunteer hours invested and 17,993 plants planted during quarter one as part of the ecological volunteers and environmental programme FY22 (work ID 5)

·        professional services have been engaged to undertake a parks services assessment on Glasgow Park (ID 1771)

·        two part-time Rodney west coordinators commenced their roles on 20 September 2021, using the lockdown period for planning and connecting digitally with environmental groups and landowners (ID 596)

·        there are two stages of work underway to deliver open space and streetscape improvements in Kumeu and Huapai, and Parakai, Riverhead and Wellsford (ID 26260).

4.      All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided an update against their work programme delivery, which is included as attachment A to the agenda report. 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 activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

·        the comprehensive renewal of Helensville Community Centre, 49 Commercial Rd (ID 18057) is estimated to start in December 2021 due to delays caused by the addition of the seismic strengthening design

·        a structural engineering specialist has been engaged to provide a comprehensive report on the Warkworth Library to inform future development options and scope the roof renewal components (ID 30772).

5.      Although, the 2021/2022 Annual Budget does factor in some impacts of COVID-19, at the end of the first quarter six weeks of lockdown had been observed. This has already had an impact on council’s service delivery, and with restrictions lasting longer than expected, the financial and operational impacts are being closely monitored and will be communicated to the local board promptly.

6.      The financial performance compared to year-to-date budget 2021/2022 is provided as Attachment B to the agenda report. There are some points for the local board to note. Overall, the net operational financial performance of the local board is tracking eight percent below the revised year to date budget. Revenue is below budget for the year to date due to facility closures to respond to alert level restrictions. 

7.      There has been a slow-down in delivery from the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operational projects due to alert level restrictions. Projects are expected to gain momentum as restrictions are lifted. The local board will be provided with regular updates on projects and allocated budgets. The overspend in the first quarter is largely driven by the consequential opex costs.

8.      Although alert level restrictions have had an impact on physical delivery of capital projects, works have been progressing in the background getting the projects ready for delivery once restrictions are eased. The year to date spend on capital projects was seventy percent of the budget. More than sixty percent of this was in local renewals projects.

9.        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 Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

·        Customer and Community Services

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services.

11.    Graph one 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.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

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

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

14.    Impacts to individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

15.    Graph two 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), activities that have significant issues (red), and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

16.    Graphs three and four below show the activity status – or stage of the activity – for the activities in the work programme. Graph three shows this breakdown by department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

Graph 3: Status of activities within the work programme, by department

 

Graph 4: Status of activities within the work programme

Key activity updates

17.    The following provides an overview of some of the achievements during the first quarter:

·    Ecological volunteers and environmental programme FY22 (ID 5): there were 19,900 volunteer hours invested and 17,993 plants planted during quarter one. Planting was carried out in a variety of areas including Helensville River Reserve, Puhoi Pioneers Park, Muriwai Green, Hoteo Recreation Reserve, Omaha Quarry Reserve, Dome walkway, Matakana Jubilee Park, Coatesville Recreation Reserve, Kaukapakapa Library and Hall Reserve, Kumeu River Reserve, Te Whau Esplanade, Matheson Bay Reserve, Wellsford Centennial Park, Riverhead (AT site), Kowhai Park and Fairwater Reserve

·    Rodney priority parks service assessment (ID 1771): Glasgow Park was identified and confirmed by the local board as the priority for assessment during 2021/2022, and professional services have been engaged to undertake this planning work.

·    Rodney west coordinator (environmental) (ID 596): two part time coordinators commenced their roles on 20 September 2021, using the lockdown period for planning and connecting digitally with groups and landowners

·    Rodney - develop concept plan and deliver open space and streetscape improvements (ID 26260): there are two stages of work: Kumeu and Huapai (stage 1) is now complete. Planning and design work for Parakai, Riverhead and Wellsford (which form stage 2) is progressing and will be completed this financial year.

Activities with significant issues

18.    The following work programme activities have been identified as having a RAG status of red:

·    Comprehensive renewal of 49 Commercial Rd, Helensville (community centre, library, Plunket and CAB) (ID 18057): the construction is estimated to start in December 2021 due to delays caused by the addition of the seismic strengthening design. Programme and delivery forecasts have been adjusted accordingly, and are outlined in Attachment A

·    Warkworth Library - remediate roof components and report on structural development options (ID 30772): a structural engineering specialist has been engaged to provide a comprehensive report on the building to inform future development options and scope the roof renewal components.

Activities on hold

·        The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold: Dida Park Drive, Huapai - develop new neighbourhood park (ID 30136): A site visit has been undertaken and an internal landscape architect allocated. Next step is to develop a concept plan draft for community consultation. The project is on track to progress as per the work programme

·        Harry James Reserve - renew playspace, pathways, carpark and drainage (ID 23663): this project is not funded this year, but the investigation and design phases will commence in early 2022, aligning with internal staff capacity

·        Point Wells Recreation Reserve - renew carpark, driveway and walkway (ID 24230): this project is ready for physical works, and is included as a risk adjusted programme (RAP) in the work programme to enable early delivery, but continues to be planned fir delivery as per the timeframes outlined in the work programme

·        Warkworth - targeted area improvements (ID 31011): this funding will be allocated to identified assets while undertaking stage two of the Warkworth town centre revitalisation project. Community Facilities will work with the local board to discuss options and prioritise delivery

·        Wilson Cement Works - refurbish toilet block (ID 30624): The project is on hold, and will commence in financial year 2023, aligning with funding allocation and stage 2 of the Warkworth revitalisation project.

Changes to the local board work programme

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

17.    The following activity has been merged with other activities for efficient delivery:

·        Rodney - mitigate Kauri Dieback in Local Parks programme - FY21/22 (ID 30312): this project has been merged across financial years and will be delivered and reported on in the new project: ID 29332 – Rodney: Kauri Dieback Local Parks.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

19.    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

20.    When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the local 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

21.    This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance of the work programme during the first quarter, ending 30 September 2021.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.    Rodney's libraries continue to incorporate Te Reo Māori and Te Ao Māori across programmes and events, including a language learning component in children and youth programmes, and staff using greetings when welcoming customers. The Skinny Jump programme has been beneficial to whānau Māori across the region, enabling access to affordable Broadband at home, including rural areas with poor internet access. 

23.    A number of initiatives in the work programme involve consultation and/or collaboration with iwi, including the renewal of the play space and minor assets and Sandspit Reserve, renewal of minor assets at Omeru Scenic reserve, the revitalisation of Warkworth and Helensville town centres, and initiatives supporting strong and resilient communities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.    This report is provided to enable the Rodney 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

Financial Performance

25.    The overall net operating result for the first three months of the year is eight per cent below the budget mainly due to lower operating expenditure.  Revenue is below budget by ten per cent while expenditure is eight percent below budget overall. Asset based services expenditure has continued with some disruptions caused by COVID-19 restrictions. Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating expenditure is above budget by thirty-three per cent primarily due to some regular costs (including consequential opex) being journaled out in the first quarter. Capital expenditure delivery was below the budget by 30 per cent and mainly focused on local asset renewals.

Financial comments

26.    Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) is under budget by $471,000 for the year to date. This is due to lower expenditure as a result of facility closures and lower maintenance, to respond to alert level restrictions. LDI operational projects are currently $124,000 over budget. This primarily due to some regular costs such as consequential opex, facility grants etc. being paid out in full in the first quarter. A variety of projects are yet to draw down on financial allocations as well as some projects are slightly behind schedule. 

27.    Capital spend of $879,000 represents investment in playground development at Huapai, renewal of the Mahurangi community building, play space optimisation at Riverhead War Memorial Park and Omaha Community Centre refurbishment.

28.    The complete Rodney Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B.

Revised Capex Budget

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

30.    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.

31.    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.

32.    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.

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

34.    The Customer and Community Services Capex work programme financial allocations have been updated in accordance with the carry forwards (refer attachment C).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.    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.

36.    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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Rodney Local Board Financial Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services Capex work programme (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anwen Robinson - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Council-controlled Organisations quarterly update: Quarter one, 2021-2022

File No.: CP2021/17652

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      A number of general changes are proposed for the Local Board Joint Council-controlled Organisation Engagement Plans, as part of ongoing work to improve and refine the approach to engagement with council-controlled organisations.

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

4.      General changes are shown in Attachment A to the agenda report. Attachments B and C to the agenda report include work programme updates from Auckland Unlimited and Watercare.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the council-controlled organisations quarterly update for quarter one 2021-2022 for Auckland Unlimited and Watercare

b)      adopt the updated Joint Council-controlled Organisation Engagement Plan 2021-2022 as agreed 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 council-controlled organisations (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.    These quarterly updates are being introduced gradually, therefore 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 advice

Changes 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 council and/or CCO contacts.

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

Auckland Transport

17.    Auckland Transport has not provided updates for this quarter’s report. Auckland Transport will be joining the combined reporting framework for quarter two.

18.    Auckland Transport has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Auckland Unlimited

19.    Auckland Unlimited’s work programme updates for quarter one are provided as Attachment B.

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 Auckland Unlimited 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 C.

28.    Watercare has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.    Updating the Joint CCO Engagement Plan between the Rodney 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 Rodney Local Board 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 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 focused 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 Rodney Local Board 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 planning for how different parts of the community will be involved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.    The adoption of the Rodney Local Board 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 next update the local board will receive for the Rodney Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 will be for quarter two in March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan

69

b

Auckland Unlimited Q1 2021-2022 Report

87

c

Watercare Q1 2021-2022 Report

89

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts – Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator



Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2021/17757

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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 Significance and Engagement 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 Significance and Engagement 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 Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted for public consultation by the 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 Significance and Engagement Policy is projected for February 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

That the Rodney 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 to the agenda report, 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 to the agenda report.

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 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Rodney Local Board feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities Draft Strategy

File No.: CP2021/16954

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek support for the draft Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-2032.  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities was adopted in 2014 as council’s strategy for community and social wellbeing. A review of the plan in 2018 identified it needed to be refreshed to align with the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and better address the changes and challenges in Tāmaki Makaurau. 

3.      These challenges include growing socio-economic disparities, population growth and intensification, the impacts of climate change and more recently COVID-19. These impact on communities’ ability to thrive. 

4.      Through the refresh process we heard from diverse communities across the region on what is needed to help them thrive. These insights have shaped the draft strategy. 

5.      The draft Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities strategy sets out the high-level direction for the next 10 years to respond to these challenges and to what communities told us was important. 

6.      The draft strategy has four main outcome areas which are the building blocks for thriving: 

·      Manaakitanga | Quality of life: 

       All Aucklanders enjoy the essentials of a good life and fulfil their potential  

·      Whanaungatanga | Community Connection: 
Aucklanders are connected and feel as though they belong 

·      Kotahitanga | Collective action:  

       All Aucklanders can participate and they take collective action to meet common goals 

·      Kaitiakitanga | Sustainable futures:  

       Aucklanders are connected to and care for the environment.

 

7.      The high-level outcomes are supported by objectives that cascade to three key shifts in the way we work:  from “one-size fits all” to targeting our responses, from adhoc and siloed to working in integrated ways, and shifting from council as expert to enabling community leadership. 

8.      Four investment principles focus resources to impact on community challenges. This will ensure there is a strong, intentional link between aspiration, investment and action, and that we focus on communities who experience the greatest inequities.

9.      A key constraint is that there is currently no additional budget attached to the draft strategy. This means the pace of change will be reliant on future budget and implementation planning to either seek new investment or to refocus existing resources to the strategy’s objectives.

10.    Another limitation is that many of the barriers to people thriving relate to complex socio-economic factors where the council is not the primary deliverer.  

11.    The draft strategy will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in February 2022 for adoption. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      support the draft Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities Strategy 2022 – 2032 as set out in Attachment A to this agenda report.  

Horopaki

Context

12.    The Auckland Plan Participation and Belonging outcome in particular sets the aspiration that ‘All Aucklanders will be part of and contribute to society, access opportunities, and have the chance to develop to their full potential’ 

13.    Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities was adopted in 2014 as council’s community and social wellbeing plan. It is a core plan to deliver the Auckland Plan 2050 which has a strong focus on fostering an inclusive Auckland where everyone has the chance to thrive. 

14.    In 2018 a review of Ngā Hapori Momoho identified several improvement areas. This included refreshing the strategy to better align it the new Auckland Plan 2050 and to address the changes and growing challenges facing Auckland.  

Diverse community voices have shaped the draft strategy approach

 

15.    The refreshed draft Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities strategy (Attachment A) has been informed by feedback from the diverse communities of Tāmaki Makaurau, key sector stakeholders, partners, and mana whenua. These voices are central to both the content of the strategy and how it will be used.  

16.    During 2019 and 2020 staff looked at feedback from over 50 previous public engagements, and then undertook face to-face interviews, focus groups and online hui. We heard from over 400 community groups and leaders from across the region on what it means to thrive and what council can do to support that.  

17.    Staff presented the findings from this community engagement to local boards in April 2021 and can be viewed by the public by following this link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/thriving-communities 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Auckland is facing local and international challenges impacting thriving communities  

18.    At the 2018 Census there were nearly 1.6 million usual residents in Auckland, an increase of 11 per cent since the 2013 Census, and this is projected to grow to 2.4 million by 2050[2].

19.    Tāmaki Makaurau is very diverse – it is home to the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world, and 40 per cent of the population were born overseas.  

20.    Whilst many of those living in Auckland can make the most of all this region has to offer, there are still many who have limited capability to access social and economic resources and opportunities compared to the general population.  

21.    Many Aucklanders do not have access to the things they need to thrive. This restricts their ability to fully participate in society and in activities that have meaning and value to them. 

22.    Tāmaki Makaurau’s strong economic growth has not been shared equally, with Māori and Pasifika communities making considerably less each week than the rest of the Auckland population.  

23.    Over a third (38.5 per cent) of Pasifika people and 46 per cent of young people in Auckland are living in overcrowded and unsuitable homes[3].

24.    Only 50 per cent of Aucklanders feel a sense of belonging in their neighbourhoods, and 49 per cent have felt isolated and lonely[4]. 

25.    Tāmaki Makaurau is facing some key challenges over the next 10-20 years that provide the strategic drivers for the refreshed strategy. We need to respond to these if we want to maintain social cohesion and ensure all our people and communities are thriving.   

Challenge 1 

Challenge 2 

Challenge 3 

Growing wealth and income inequality will mean too many whānau cannot thrive. 

The pace and scale of growth and social change could undermine Aucklander’s sense of belonging and connection.

Our changing climate will make outcomes worse for those communities already struggling. 

 

26.    More recently other significant changes both locally and globally are contributing to why we need a strategy that takes an intentional approach to supporting thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities:  

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Changing the way council works can help address community challenges 

27.    In recognition of the 2018 review findings and from our community and stakeholder engagement, we know there needed to be some key shifts in the underlying thinking and approach of the council. We also need to be explicit in our priorities. Key shifts proposed include the following:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

From

To

Ad hoc and siloed

Working in integrated ways

 

We will work across the Auckland Council group, with government and across communities and sectors to support Aucklanders to thrive. We will share data, evidence and learning. 

 

We will prioritise interventions which support coordination and collective impact to deliver on the multiple outcomes which impact Aucklander’s wellbeing (social, environmental, cultural and economic).

One size fits all

Targeting our responses

 

We will change our current services, activities and ways of working to better meet the needs of whānau and communities, particularly those experiencing the greatest disparity in outcomes.  

We will tailor services and activities to meet local needs and opportunities. 

Council as expert

Enabling community leadership

We will support communities (whānau, hapū, iwi, people) to lead their own responses. We will enable them to define, deliver, and monitor the things that enable them to thrive.

What we want to achieve – an overview of the draft strategy 

28.    To guide how we respond to these identified challenges and to support the key shifts we need to make, the draft strategy sets out four outcomes and six objectives. The outcomes set out where communities want to be in the future. Objectives identify where to focus to get there.  

Outcomes: Four building blocks for thriving 

29.    The draft strategy has four main outcome areas which if achieved would contribute to thriving communities. 

·        Manaakitanga |Quality of life 
All Aucklanders enjoy the essentials of a good life and fulfil their potential  

 

·        Whanaungatanga | Community connection 
Auckland are connected and feel as though they belong 

 

·        Kotahitanga | Collective action 
All Aucklanders can participate and they take collective action to meet common goals 

 

·        Kaitiakitanga | Sustainable futures 
Aucklanders are connected to and care for the environment. 

 

 

Objectives: Where should we focus our action 

30.    To help give direction on how we might achieve the intended outcomes, we have identified six objective areas which will provide guidance on what actions could be taken by the organisation to contribute to the outcomes. 

Application, logo, company name

Description automatically generated

31.    While we have grouped action areas under each objective many of these will contribute to multiple objectives. Many are focused on addressing complex societal challenges which council does not have all the levers, resource or influence to directly address.

32.    These objectives do however provide direction on how we can use the levers available to us (such as our procurement power) to affect and influence change, within our control.  

Investment principles will help us to invest in what will make the greatest difference 

33.    The draft strategy proposes we invest in our resource to make the biggest impact, and this will be guided by four key principles:

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with low confidence

34.    Auckland Council also has a range of roles and levers that we can use to effect change in conjunction with partners to help communities thrive.  

35.    Our presence in and understanding of the community is one of our most powerful tools. This can be utilised in several areas: urban form, procurement, community facilities, our workforce, transport, community development and grants.  

Strengths of the draft strategy  

36.    As an outcome focused strategy, it provides focus and direction, but is not prescriptive on processes or actions. It provides scope for creative and innovative responses to achieving the outcomes and objectives.  

37.    The high-level outcomes and objective in the strategy cascade to key shifts, investment principles and to three-year implementation plans. This will ensure there is a strong and intentional link between aspiration, investment and action.   

38.    The draft strategy also presents both council and partners with an opportunity to do things differently, apply new approaches and have the flexibility to respond to local needs in ways that are appropriate and effective.  

39.    This is important as it not only addresses current challenges but allows flexibility to respond to emerging challenges in the future as our intended end outcomes will not change.  

40.    It also presents us with an opportunity to partner with our communities to incorporate existing and emerging approaches from global research as well as those generated in Aotearoa, so that we are using all tools available to collectively to achieve the outcomes.  

Constraints and limitations of the draft strategy 

41.    Nga Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities is a 10-year strategy focused on long-term outcomes. It will take some time to see progress and the impact of actions, especially given the complexity of the challenges. 

42.    A key limitation is that many of the barriers to people thriving relate to complex socio-economic factors that council does not hold the primary levers for. 

43.    Council is, however, well-placed to use all of its resources and levers more effectively and work alongside central government and communities to support change. 

44.    A key constraint is that there is no additional budget to support delivery of the strategy, so the pace of change will be subject to how effectively existing resources and budget can be realigned and directed to the strategy’s new objectives.  

45.    New investment will need to be considered as part of future annual and long-term budget processes. 

46.    There is opportunity, however, for reprioritisation of existing resource and investment to be considered as part of implementation planning. The outcome of this will be reported to the governing body as part of the first three-year implementation plan (FY2022-2025). 

47.    The draft strategy relies heavily on the significant cooperation and commitment across the council, elected members and community partners for it to be effective.  This in turn relies on visible and active leadership, and ongoing monitoring of progress and impact.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48.    During engagement, we heard from communities that the environment was a significant contributor to their wellbeing. Climate change and environmental degradation are a threat to the way our communities aspire to live in Tāmaki Makaurau. 

49.    The Kaitiakitanga outcome was created to reflect the voices of mana whenua and community, through prioritising environmental wellbeing and encouraging community action and sustainability. Actions developed in the Thriving Communities three-year implementation plans will need to consider the connection between the wellbeing of our communities and the wellbeing of the environment. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50.    This is a strategy for the whole council group and will also be used to challenge and guide council teams and council-controlled organisations in their implementation roles.  

51.    Staff and teams from across the council and council-controlled organisations have been involved in the refresh process, including attending a series of workshops to help identify existing and future actions to support what communities told us was important.  

52.    Going forward staff will work closely with the council group on implementation planning and the development of the first three-year implementation plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53.    Local boards have a strong interest, and play a key role, in creating thriving communities in their areas. All local boards have local board plan outcomes that support thriving communities, and many are already working towards several Thriving Communities objectives.

54.    Community engagement included communities from across all local board areas.  

55.    The findings from the engagement phase were shared with elected members and engagement participants in early 2021. They were also published on the Thriving Communities Have Your Say page. 

56.    Staff attended local board workshops in October 2021 to share the high-level draft strategy. Local boards were broadly supportive of the approach and provided helpful feedback that has helped shape the revised draft.  Common themes in local board feedback include: 

·      concern for isolated communities

·      a strong desire to build the strategy into work plans. Boards could see the benefit of the approach and were eager to turn this into a practical response through their local plans

·      concerns about funding the strategy, and opportunities to leverage existing or additional resource to support their communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57.    The 2018 Census found that over 23 per cent of Aotearoa’s Māori population live in Tāmaki Makaurau, making up 11.5 per cent of Auckland’s population – the highest Māori population in any city in Aotearoa[5].

58.    The average age of Auckland’s Māori population is 24.9 years, compared to Auckland’s average of 34.7 years. As this young population grows and reaches working age, Māori will be a critical part of supporting our economy and ageing population. 

59.    Although Māori make up a large proportion of Tamaki Makaurau’s population, they have not equitably shared in our economic growth. In 2018 the median income for all Aucklanders was $34,000, but for Māori it was $27,000[6]. 

60.    By focusing on achieving equitable outcomes for Māori, this strategy will make a positive impact on the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of tangata, whanau and hapori.  

Engagement to understand the needs of Māori communities 

61.    To ensure the strategy is relevant and effective for Māori, staff undertook individual engagement interviews with 17 mana whenua iwi and two mataawaka organisations.  

62.    Key inputs into the strategy from the engagement process include:

·      an environmental objective to reflect the importance of whenua to wellbeing and thriving

·      focus on achieving equity

·      recognition that whakawhanaungatanga and connection is central to thriving communities.

Delivering Māori outcomes 

63.    The council’s direction for delivering Māori outcomes is set out in Kia Ora Tamaki Makaurau, which reflects the aspirations of Auckland ‘s Māori communities.  

64.    The draft strategy supports the Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021 by addressing the four pou of social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing for Māori in Tamaki Makaurau. 

65.    Mana whenua and mataawaka will have an opportunity to provide further feedback on the draft plan in November 2021. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

66.    There is currently no additional budget attached to the draft Ngā Hapori Momoho /Thriving Communities strategy. This means in the short term it will need to be delivered within existing budgets and resources of council and council-controlled organisations. Where any additional investment is required, this will need to be considered through the long-term plan or annual plan processes.  

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

If <event>: 

Then <impact>: 

Possible mitigations: 

If it is not clear that the draft strategy should drive reprioritisation of existing resources.   

It may create expectations that there will be additional budget to support the implementation of the draft strategy. 

All public-facing communications and guidance about the draft strategy will make it clear it is intended to focus & re-prioritise existing resources.  

Future budget and implementation planning will identify how actions will be funded from existing budgets or through seeking new investment.  

If the draft strategy is viewed as too ‘high level’ and does not provide clear enough direction. 

The draft strategy may fail to have any meaningful impact on the way the organisation delivers services and therefore would have no meaningful impact on the desired outcomes.  

Develop a strong implementation plan and ensure there is visible and active senior leadership to drive implementation.  

The objectives will provide appropriate level of direction without being too prescriptive.  

Incorporating a measurement framework in the implementation plan to help understand impact. 

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67.    Community engagement on the draft strategy will be undertaken in November 2021.

68.    This feedback and local board resolutions will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in February 2022, when the committee considers the strategy for adoption.  

69.    The draft strategy will be supported by a three-year implementation plan with tailored actions, and a monitoring and evaluation framework to track progress and impact. These two items are being developed for consideration in April 2022. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities Draft Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Mackenzie Blucher - Graduate Policy Advisor

Dave Jaggs - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Three Waters Economic Regulation Submission

File No.: CP2021/16845

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To outline the Government’s Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper, circulated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and to seek feedback from local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      On 27 October 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a discussion paper, “Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand”.

3.      The discussion document describes how the economic regulator is envisioned to operate and what its statutory obligations would be. The discussion document also provides a brief explanation of why economic regulation is required in the face of three waters reform. Finally, it asks for feedback on several topics.

4.      The views of local boards on the proposal are requested by 6 December 2021 to enable those views to influence the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

5.      Final submissions from Auckland Council to Government on this topic are due at 5pm on 20 December 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission on the Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper

b)      make the following points in the administrative areas of:

i)        the need for economic regulation

ii)       the type of regulation and who would pay the costs

iii)      what parts of three waters the regulation would apply to

iv)      should the regulation apply to all providers

v)       how and when should regulation be implemented

vi)      what should be the statutory objectives of the regulation regime

vii)     what should compliance and enforcement look like

viii)    who the economic regulator should be

ix)      whether we need additional consumer protections and how those are regulated

c)      make the following points in the policy areas of:

i)        how the regulator should liaise with local government to ensure the growth aspirations of Auckland are met

ii)       how the regulator should liaise with local government to ensure the social, cultural, and environmental aspirations of Auckland are met.

Horopaki

Context

6.      On 27 October 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) released a discussion paper, “Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand”.

7.      The issues of economic regulation and consumer protection for three waters services in New Zealand is related, but separate, to the broader issue of the Water Services Bill. They require separate submissions as they are two different processes run by two different bodies and on different timeframes. There is a separate process to provide feedback about the reform in general. This process is to provide feedback on only the proposed economic regulation.

8.      According to central government, economic regulation will have a crucial role to play in driving the level of efficiency that will be required to keep water services affordable in the long run.

9.      Economic regulation ensures that the best outcomes for consumers will occur when there are monopoly markets, and the suppliers have a large amount of market power.

10.    In this case, it is proposed that the economic regulator will also act as the consumer protection regulator and be funded through levies.

11.    It is proposed that the Commerce Commission act in both capacities to regulate the newly-formed three waters industry in New Zealand after the Water Services Bill is enacted.

12.    The discussion document describes how the economic regulator is envisioned to operate and what its statutory obligations would be. The discussion document also provides a brief explanation of why economic regulation is required in the face of three waters reform. Finally, it asks for feedback on several topics.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.    What follows is a short summary of the discussion document and the areas where feedback is sought through the submissions process.

What is economic regulation and why do we need it?

14.    Economic regulation protects consumers from the problems that can occur in markets with little or no competition and/or a large amount of market power. The regulation is intended to make businesses in the market behave similarly to how they would in a competitive market.

15.    Utilities tend to be what is known as a “natural monopoly”. These markets are more cheaply served by one firm rather than many because of massive fixed costs.

16.    Without regulation, markets with natural monopolies tend to have higher prices and/or lower outputs and/or lower output quality.

17.    While consumer involvement in the governance of natural monopolies is helpful, it is not sufficient to ensure the best outcomes for consumers. Consumer involvement must work in concert with regulation.

18.    Ultimately, the purpose of economic regulation is to advance the long-term interests of consumers. This ensures that suppliers deliver high-quality services that reflect consumer demand and incentivises improved efficiency. It also ensures any gains by the suppliers are passed through to the consumers.

What type of regulation is being proposed and who would pay the costs?

19.    There are several types of regulation – price-quality, information disclosure, and quality-only. In this case, it is proposed that the regulator be a price-quality regulator.

20.    Price-quality regulators essentially set upper limits on the price that can be charged by the supplier while setting lower limits on the quality of service that must be delivered.

21.    Typically, price-quality regulators operate on regulatory cycles of four to six years. It is proposed that the economic regulator operate on a five-year cycle, with the possibility of the first regulatory cycle being shorter.

22.    Economic regulation has costs. These costs come from two places. On one hand, the economic regulator costs money to operate and administer. On the other hand, the suppliers incur compliance costs to meet the requirements of the regulator.

23.    It is proposed that the administrative costs of the regulator be recovered through levies. This is a straightforward, transparent, and standard way of recovering these costs. Ultimately these costs are borne by the consumers.

24.    The cost to the supplier of complying with regulation is also ultimately borne by the consumers. Since both categories of regulatory costs are borne by the consumers, it is necessary to design the regulations to ensure they are net beneficial to consumers.

25.    Given the amalgamation proposed by the Water Services Bill will increase the market power of the water providers, it is likely that regulation is necessary. Further, the research for the Water Services Bill finds that even the current absence of profit motives, and the obligations to promote the social, cultural, environmental, and financial wellbeing of communities has been insufficient to ensure delivery of effective and efficient three waters service. Put another way, there is probably a case for economic regulation, even in the absence of the proposed three waters amalgamation.

26.    The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s recommendation is that three waters be price-quality regulated.

27.    However, there is also a question as to whether the regulation should be applied generically across all suppliers or tailored to individual suppliers. Given the inflexibility of generic regulation and Government’s strong commitment to water service quality, it is recommended that the price-quality regulation be flexible to allow for different incentives to the different suppliers.

What parts of three waters should regulation apply to?

28.    The delivery of stormwater services is fundamentally different to drinking water and wastewater.

29.    While drinking water and wastewater services are delivered directly to the beneficiaries (that is, the person drinking the water or flushing the toilet), stormwater services have a public good element as well. When the stormwater in one area is managed, it could make other areas less likely to flood, for instance. This means that it is difficult to identify and charge the consumers of stormwater services.

30.    Additionally, while drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is easily identified, stormwater infrastructure is more difficult. Stormwater systems are often integrated into roading networks, use natural topographical features, and are owned by various land holders and infrastructure providers.

31.    Internationally, when stormwater systems are operated alongside drinking water and wastewater, they tend to be economically regulated.

32.    The preliminary view put forward by MBIE is that stormwater should be economically regulated, but it will be less straightforward to demonstrate that it is net beneficial.

Should the regulation apply to all providers?

33.    Three waters reform is proposed to result in four main entities serving approximately 85% of the population. The remainder would be served by small community or private schemes, or through self-supply. A recent study for Taumata Arowai suggested that there could be between 75,000 and 130,000 unregistered drinking water suppliers.

34.    None of these small-scale suppliers serves more than 5,000 customers. There are only three non-defense force suppliers that serve between 500 and 5,000 customers. 

35.    For even smaller (less than 500 customers) providers, it is likely that the owners of three waters supplier and the consumers of the services are largely the same people. Therefore, it is less critical to have a regulatory framework to ensure consumer wellbeing.

36.    Since the goal of the reform is to further consumer wellbeing, these other suppliers should only be regulated if the cost of regulation is outweighed by the benefits.

37.    Given the small scale and relatively high compliance costs, MBIE has recommended that regulatory framework only apply to the new water service entities created by the Water Services Bill.

How and when should regulation be implemented?

38.    To be effective, price-quality regulation requires high quality information on the assets, costs and quality of service provided by regulated suppliers. However, the Three Waters Reform Programme has found that the scope and quality of the available information is not currently at the level that would be required to implement an effective economic regulation regime.

39.    Because of this information gap, it is unlikely that the regulatory regime would be operational by the time the new three waters entities are set to begin operation on 1 July 2024.

40.    However, starting the new entities operations without a regulatory framework in place poses its own risk.

41.    Therefore, the Government’s recommendation is that there should be a graduated approach to implementing a conventional cost-based price-quality path, with the first regulatory pricing period beginning 1 July 2027. In the interim the industry would improve its data and the regulator would work with the industry on information disclosure.

42.    This interim period from 1 July 2024 through to 30 June 2027 would leave the supplies unregulated in terms of price-quality. There are two potential solutions to this gap. The first is that the regulator impose a price-quality path based on incomplete information but using its best judgment. The second option is that an interim price-quality path be implemented by government. There are significant pros and cons to each option and MBIE is seeking feedback on this issue.

What should be the statutory objectives of the regulation regime?

43.    Recently in New Zealand, regulatory regimes are set to achieve four goals.

a)     There must be incentives to innovate and invest.

b)     There should be incentives to improve efficiency.

c)      That the efficiency gains must be shared with consumers.

d)     Lastly, suppliers are limited in their ability to turn profits. This point is irrelevant to the three waters reform scenario.

44.    However, there is scope for the economic regulator to have responsibility for a broader range of objectives (including issues such as climate change and Te mana o te Wai).

45.    There is also a question as to how Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations factor into the design of any economic regulatory regime for the three waters sector.

46.    The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment seeks feedback on what the precise role of the economic regulator should be and whether it should be expanded in the ways described above.

What should compliance and enforcement look like?

47.    Compliance and enforcement are essential for regulation to be effective.

48.    An economic regulator’s compliance and enforcement toolkit typically includes education initiatives, warning letters, infringement offences, pecuniary penalties, enforceable undertakings, and other civil remedies such as out-of-court settlements.

49.    The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking feedback on whether there needs to be any other tools in the toolkit.

Who should the economic regulator be?

50.    To be effective, regulators need to be at arms-length from government, transparent, accountable, credible, freely share information, and act in a coordinated way with policy agencies.

51.    There are three potential options for the economic regulator: Taumata Arowai, the Commerce Commission, or a new regulatory authority created specifically for economic regulation of three waters.

52.    The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s multi-criteria analysis suggests that the Commerce Commission is best suited to be the economic regulator. 

Do we need additional consumer protections and how are those regulated?

53.    Due to the nature of the three waters sector, there may be other consumer protections required. There likely needs to be rules around the acceptable likelihood and duration of supply outages, the acceptable level of leakage from reticulated supply networks, the level of resilience to natural and man-made hazards, and the amount of innovation and efficiencies delivered to consumers.

54.    These protections will be required because three waters is a natural monopoly and consumers cannot go elsewhere when unhappy with their service.

55.    Importantly, the current democratic, consultation, and governance mechanisms that are provided for in the Local Government Act 2002 will not apply to the proposed new Water Services Entities. In addition, the Ombudsman’s current role in dealing with complaints about local government agencies will cease.

56.    These points suggest that regulation needs to consider these angles of consumer protection above and beyond the standard roles of an economic regulator.

57.    There is also a need for additional protections for vulnerable consumers. It is recommended that that there should be a positive obligation on the regulator to consider interests of vulnerable consumers, and that minimum service level requirements are flexible enough able to accommodate a wide range of approaches to addressing consumer harm and vulnerability.

58.    The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking feedback on how the consumer protection regime could be designed in a way that contributes to equitable outcomes and mitigates unintended impacts on Māori. This includes impacts on different iwi/hapū, Māori landowners, urban Māori consumers, and rural Māori consumers. Additionally, views are sought on how the consumer protection regulator could be expected to consider Treaty obligations, and the cultural competency of the economic regulator to recognise the significance of water as a taonga for Māori.

59.    As with economic regulation, a multi-criteria analysis suggests that the Commerce Commission should be the consumer protection regulator.

How should consumer disputes be resolved?

60.    There are several ways that consumer disputes can be resolved.

61.    The preliminary preferred option put forward by MBIE is for mandatory provision of consumer dispute resolution services, but feedback is sought as to whether this should be achieved through a new scheme or by expanding the mandate of an existing scheme.

62.    Traditionally, vulnerable populations face difficulties in accessing dispute resolution schemes. Therefore, it is important that both suppliers and the dispute resolution provider ensure that underserved and vulnerable communities can participate in processes that affect them including dispute resolution processes.

Local Board Feedback

63.    While MBIE has posed 46 questions to submitters in the discussion document, only a few are acutely relevant. The following 11 questions are the most critical for the council family to provide feedback:

a)      What are your views on whether the stormwater networks that are currently operated by local authorities should be economically regulated, alongside drinking water and wastewater?

b)      Do you consider that the economic regulation regime should be implemented gradually from 2024 to 2027, or do you consider that a transitional price-quality path is also required?

c)       If you consider a transitional price-quality path is required, do you consider that this should be developed and implemented by an independent economic regulator, or by Government and implemented through a Government Policy Statement?

d)      What are your views on how Treaty of Waitangi principles, as well as the rights and interests of iwi/Māori, should be factored into the design of an economic regulatory regime for the three waters sector?

e)      Who do you consider should have primary responsibility for determining the structure of three waters prices: a. The Water Services Entity, following engagement with their governance group, communities, and consumers; b. The economic regulator; or c. The Government or Ministers?

f)       Who do you think is the most suitable body to be the economic regulator for the three waters sector? Please provide reasons for your view.

g)      What are your views on whether minimum service level requirements should be able to vary across different types of consumers?

h)      What are your views on whether the regulatory regime should include a positive obligation to protect vulnerable consumers, and that minimum service level requirements are flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of approaches to protecting vulnerable consumers?

i)        What are your views on how Treaty of Waitangi principles, as well as the rights and interests of iwi/Māori, should be factored into the design of a consumer protection regime for the three waters sector?

j)        Do you agree with the preliminary view that the Commerce Commission is the most suitable body to be the consumer protection regulator for the three waters sector?

k)       Do you consider that there should be special considerations for traditionally under-served or vulnerable communities? If so, how do you think these should be given effect?

64.    A recommendation requesting the views of local boards on the proposal is included in this report.

65.    Local board views are requested by 6 December 2021 to enable those views to influence the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66.    The discussion paper acknowledges that addressing climate change challenges and ensuring water service resilience is one of the drivers of the overall Three Waters Reform. However, the economic regulation regime is not being considered for these reasons directly.

67.    The proposed economic regulation framework does not have direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions or climate. However, it may be in the purview of the regulator to ensure consumer expectations are met with regards to environmental and climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

68.    Relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations have been identified and contributions will be sought from them in developing the council group’s response to the Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper.

69.    While overall three waters reform will have a direct impact on council and council-controlled organisations, economic regulation put in place after that reform will not have any impact on council or remaining council-controlled organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

70.    Local board views are sought as part of the development of the council’s submission and will be reported back to Governing Body. Local board resolutions will be included as part of council’s submission. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

71.    The overall three waters reform is, in part, to recognise and provide for iwi/Māori rights and interests with a specific focus on service delivery. It is proposed that iwi/Māori will have a greater role in the new Three Waters system, including pathways for enhanced participation by whānau and hapū as these services relate to their Treaty rights and interests.

72.    On a price-quality basis, economic regulation of the three waters industry does not directly impact on Māori any differently than other three waters services consumers. However, the overall three waters reform and specific topics within the economic regulation of three waters are likely to be of significant interest. In particular, how treaty obligations are considered, the recognition of water as taonga for Māori, and the overrepresentation of Māori in the group of consumers vulnerable to price shocks.

73.    Māori outcomes leads within the council family are being consulted on these topics.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74.    The submission can be developed within existing budget provision and as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

75.    There is little risk in making a submission on the economic regulation of three waters. Conversely, there is high risk if we do not make a submission. As the work programme progresses, staff can provide further information about the potential impacts on council’s activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

76.    The office of the Chief Economist is drafting a submission on behalf of Auckland Council.

77.    Staff are preparing a report for the Governing Body seeking a delegation of Governing Body members to approve the council’s submission.

78.    The views of local boards on the proposal are requested by the 6 December 2021 to enable those views to inform the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

79.    The deadline for the final submission to Government is 20 December 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shane Martin - Senior Economist

Authorisers

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2021/18327

 

  

 

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 2022 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 to the agenda report.

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 Rodney 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

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

119

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Local board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan

File No.: CP2021/17349

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To inform the Rodney Local Board that a decision was made and approved under delegation to the chairperson to provide feedback to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      At its meeting of 20 May 2020, the Rodney Local Board resolved (resolution number RD/2020/44) to delegate authority to the chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

3.      The Ministry for the Environment has released for public consultation a discussion document seeking to inform the development of the first National Emissions Reduction Plan.

4.      It describes existing actions the Government has committed to and sets out new proposed actions it may include in the National Emissions Reduction Plan to further reduce emissions and meet climate targets.

5.      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.

6.      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. As such, the council will not, in the main, be developing new positions through its submission, but will base it on relevant strategies and these existing agreed positions.

7.      Local board input into council’s submission on the National Emissions Reduction Plan was sought, closing on 17 November for feedback to be considered in council’s submission or 19 November 2021 for feedback to be appended.

8.      The local board’s National Emissions Reduction Plan feedback is formal, being signed off under delegation, but is being reported to the 1 December 2021 business meeting of the Rodney Local Board to ensure transparent decision-making.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the Rodney Local Board’s feedback (Attachment A to the agenda report) approved under delegation to the chairperson to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board feedback - National Emissions Reduction Plan

125

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Justin Kary – Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Rodney Local Board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation

File No.: CP2021/17351

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To inform the Rodney Local Board that a decision was made and approved under delegation to the chairperson to provide feedback to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      At its meeting of 20 May 2020, the Rodney Local Board resolved (resolution number RD/2020/44) to delegate authority to the chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

3.      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.

4.      It 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.

5.      The consultation document sought 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.

6.      A draft submission was prepared by staff for discussion and endorsement by the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Local board input into that submission was sought, with a deadline of 10 November at 5pm for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission or 22 November 2021 at 5pm for feedback to be appended.

7.      The local board’s Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation feedback is formal, being signed off under delegation, but is being reported to the 1 December 2021 business meeting of the Rodney Local Board to ensure transparent decision-making.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the Rodney Local Board’s feedback (Attachment A to the agenda report) approved under delegation to the chairperson to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board waste strategy feedback

131

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Justin Kary – Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Rodney Ward Councillor update

File No.: CP2021/14250

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      The Rodney Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillor, Greg Sayers, to update them on the activities of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive Cr Sayers’ update on the activities of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ward Councillor report November-December 2021

139

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2021/14252

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To present the Rodney Local Board with a governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.      This report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that will come before the Rodney Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

2.      The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.      The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board governance forward work calendar

143

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

Rodney Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2021/14251

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Attached are the Rodney Local Board workshop records for 17 November 2021.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for 17 November 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board workshop record 17 November 2021

147

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Rodney Local Board

01 December 2021

 

 

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

That the Rodney 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 New Zealand and Department of Conservation (n.d), Reserves Act Guide, retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/legislation/reserves-act-guide.pdf

[2] Stats NZ (2020). 2018 Census data – Auckland region. Retrieved from https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/2018-census-place-summaries/auckland-region

[3] Stats NZ (2020). 2018 Census household crowding. Retrieved from https://www.stats.govt.nz/

[4] Allpress, J. and Reid, A. (2021). Quality of Life survey 2020: results for Auckland. Auckland Council technical report, TR2021/16

[5] Stats NZ (2020). 2018 Census. Retrieved from https://www.stats.govt.nz/

[6] ibid