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

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 9 December 2021

9.30am

Via Skype for Business

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Deputy Chairperson

Margaret Miles, QSM, JP

 

Members

Anna Atkinson

 

 

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

 

Nicholas Mayne

 

 

Brian Neeson, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Max Wilde

Democracy Advisor

3 December 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 4142684

Email: Max.Wilde@AucklandCouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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

9          Public Forum                                                                                                     6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                 6

11        Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 18 November 2021                                                       7

12        Expression of Interest outcome for community management of Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura  27

13        Sanders Reserve native plant removal assessment and recommendations                                                                        49

14        Variations to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 Work Programme                                                                                   65

15        Auckland Transport - proposed speed limit changes (Tranche 2A)                                                                                                  71

16        Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents                                                                                  107

17        Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022                    117

18        Council-controlled Organisations quarterly update for quarter one 2021-2022                                                                             167

19        Māori Outcomes Annual Report - Te Pūrongo a te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021                205

20        Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022                   209

21        Upper Harbour Local Board input into Auckland Council's submission on Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Bill  265

22        Governance forward work calendar                                         271

23        Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 November 2021                                        275

24        Local board members' reports - December 2021                   281

25        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)           confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 November 2021, including the confidential section, 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 


 

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held Thursday, 18 November 2021

File No.: CP2021/17748

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      The open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board ordinary meeting held on Thursday, 18 November 2021, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the local board only.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Thursday, 18 November 2021, are attached at item 11 of the agenda for the information of the local board only and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 18 November 2021

9

b

Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes attachments - 18 November 2021

17

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Expression of Interest outcome for community management of Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura 

File No.: CP2021/18731

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To consider a recommendation on the preferred organisation to manage and activate the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      In May 2021 the Upper Harbour Local Board requested staff to commence an Expression of Interest process for community management of Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

3.      In August 2021 a project team was formed to manage the Expression of Interest with support from an external contractor. Documentation was developed and the Expression of Interest was advertised for applications on 4 October and closed on 27 October 2021.

4.      Three applications were received from:

·   Harbour Sport Trust

·   Coatesville Settlers Hall Incorporated

·   The Asian Network Incorporated.

5.      The project team assessed and scored each of them and presented them to the Local Board at a workshop on 28 October. The Local Board requested a presentation from the two top scoring applicants, Harbour Sport Trust and Coatesville Settlers Hall Incorporated, but the day before the presentation Coatesville Settlers Hall Incorporated withdrew their application to manage the facility.

6.      After consideration of the applications and hearing the presentation the project team recommends to the Upper Harbour Local Board that the top scoring applicant Harbour Sport Trust be engaged to manage the activation and programming of the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura, while Auckland Council Venue Hire team continue to manage the access to the facility. 

7.      The recommendation of having a mixed model for the first year means that the aspirations of the board for community-led activation and programming can happen, while council takes the risk of the uncertainties of managing facility access in a COVID-19 environment.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve Harbour Sport Trust to manage the activation and programming of the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura, through a service agreement that includes key performance indicators that meet the criteria as set out in the Expression of Interest (Attachment A of the agenda report).


 

 

b)      agree that Auckland Council manage access through Venue Hire for the first 12 months of the service agreement with Harbour Sport Trust transitioning to full community management of the facility once the impact of COVID-19 has lessened, to ensure that Harbour Sport Trust is funded for success.

c)      allocate $47,192 per annum of Asset-based Services (ABS) operational budget to fund Harbour Sport Trust to manage the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura for the period of the service agreement.

d)      allocate $18,332 per annum of Asset-based Services (ABS) operational budget to Harbour Sport Trust via a service agreement for activation and programming of the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura for the period of the service agreement.

e)      allocate the contingency amount of $18,000 per annum of Asset-based Services (ABS) operational budget under project ID 470 ‘Activation of Community Places Upper Harbour’, Upper Harbour Local Board work programme 2021/2022, to Harbour Sport Trust via a service agreement for activation and programming of the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura for the period of the service agreement.

f)       allocate $50,000 of carried forward locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational budget under project ID 462 ‘Connected & Resilient Communities: Albany’, Upper Harbour Local Board work programme 2021/2022, to Harbour Sport Trust via a service agreement to undertake wider community development in Albany from the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

Horopaki

Context

8.      In 2014 the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan set out a priority to establish a Community Hub adjacent to the Albany Community House on Albany Domain. Construction was completed, and the hub opened in 2017 under the management of Auckland Council.

9.      In 2018, the operational management of the Albany Community House and the Hub were combined to create one operational venue.

10.    In 2018, the local board resolved to have an expression of interest (EOI) undertaken to find a community group to take on the management of the Hub. The EOI failed to find a suitable organisation and as a result council continued managing the facility. 

11.    In 2020 the Local Board also resolved that the budget allocated for Albany Placemaking would be made available to support community development out of the Albany Community Hub, Resolution number UH/2020/87:

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the Community Services work programme 2020/21 and associated budgets (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), subject to the following amendments:

i) direct staff to review the scope and activities of ‘Albany placemaking and neighbourhood engagement’ (ID1035), to include a specific focus on:

·    supporting an expression of interest process for a community organisation to run the Albany Community Hub

·    supporting wider community-led development in Albany through community-led management of the Albany Community Hub

12.    In May 2021, the local board resolved to seek further expressions of interest to find a community group to manage the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

 

 

 

13.    The resolution was to “understand the level of interest and feasibility of operating the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura based on the community management of activation, programming, and venue access, subject to the following variations:

a)  the focus areas to not limit management opportunities to local groups but to look Auckland-wide for groups that deliver outcomes for the Upper Harbour community.

b) Note that the insights from the first stage of the expression of interest process will help inform the next steps for further investment. (UH/2021/90)

14.    In August 2021 a project team was formed to manage the Expression of Interest.  Documentation was developed and the Expression of Interest was advertised for applications on 4 October and closed on 27 October 2021. Attachment A is a copy of the Expression of Interest document.

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.    As requested by the local board, a project team of Auckland Council staff with support of an external consultant, developed the EOI documentation and invited community groups to make applications to manage the facility. Three applications were received, these were from:

·   Harbour Sport Trust

·   Coatesville Settlers Hall Incorporated

·   The Asian Network Incorporated.

16.    The applications were assessed by the project team against the following criteria:

·   Strategic alignment

·   Financial capability

·   Collaboration

·   Organisational capability and capacity

·   Service model (opening hours, hireage costs)

·   Benefit for Māori.

17.    The project team assessed and scored each application on a standard set of Auckland Council criteria. As the scoring was close for the three organisations, the project team put all of them forward at a workshop for consideration by the board, together with a fourth option to retain council management of the hub.

18.    The board requested more information from the project team and asked that a presentation by the top two organisations, Harbour Sport Trust (highest scoring applicant) and Coatesville Settlers Hall Incorporated (second highest scoring applicant) be arranged at their business meeting on 18 November.  The day before the presentation the Coatesville Settlers Hall withdrew their application to manage the facility.

19.    After the workshop the project team developed three options for management of the Hub to put to the board.  The recommended option (option 2) is a mixed model of shared council and community operation of the Hub. The options are outlined in the table below:


 

 

 

Analysis of options

Options

Option 1 Council management

Access remains with Auckland Council with the addition of two council staff members to activate the hub. (The recovery budget shows there is enough funding for two part time staff members)

Operations, revenue, and liabilities stay with council

Option 2 mixed model

(recommended)

Access remains with Auckland Council Venue Hire team and Harbour Sport Trust is engaged to manage activation and programming for the hub and undertake wider community development in Albany using the hub as a base, with some budget attached. 

Then when some stability returns, a plan is developed to transition to full community management

Operations, revenue and liabilities stay with council for the first year

Presence, activation, and programming by Harbour Sport Trust staff at the hub delivers on the Local Board focus areas

Option 3 community management

Full community management of access, activation, and programming by Harbour Sport Trust, with Harbour Sport Trust retaining the income from venue hire, together with some funding available for responsive and diverse activities in Albany Hub

Presence, access, activation, and programming by Harbour Sport Trust staff at the hub delivers on the Local Board focus area

Process

Venue hire is already being managed by Auckland Council - this will continue under this option

Recruiting of two council staff to manage activation.

Staff would enter into discussion/negotiation with Harbour Sport Trust to develop a service approach with KPI’s that meet the local board focus areas and commensurate with the funding available

Harbour Sport Trust will be supported through the transition to full management including access for the following year, should they wish to take this on.

Staff would enter into discussion/negotiation with Harbour Sport Trust to develop a service approach with KPI’s that meet the local board focus areas and commensurate with the funding available

Harbour Sport Trust will need to set up systems and processes to manage bookings, including swipe card access, together with developing a programme for activation of the hub.

 

 Risks and benefits

Operations, revenue and liabilities stay with council

Very low risk for delivery as council has systems and processes in place to manage bookings.

The inclusion of two part time staff to activate the hub will help to move it from a destination facility to a more locally responsive one

Council management of a venue for hire does not support the local board’s vision for the hub.

Venue hire revenue and liabilities of the building stay with council

Low risk for delivery as council has systems and processes in place to manage bookings.

Harbour Sport Trust has a vision that includes activation and programming to shift the hub from a destination facility to being responsive to the local community.

Having a mixed model for the first year means that the aspirations of the board for activation can happen, while council takes the risk of the uncertainties of managing a facility in a COVID-19 environment.

Meets the local board vision for full community management of the Albany Hub

21.    Harbour Sport Trust has a vision of an inclusive and connected community space that meets the local board focus areas and the diverse Albany community. 

Community management of venue hire poses a higher risk to delivery especially during the disruption of COVID-19. 

22.    Information received recently is that the budget for 2021/2022 income was projected to be $102,616, but the actuals to date, due to closures from COVID-19, is $12,799.51.

A reduction in income from venue hire plus the responsibility of staffing, repairs and maintenance etc., could be unsustainable for a community group setting up to manage the hub at this time.

 

Financial implications

Access remains with the Venue Hire team.

Two council staff would activate the hub due to the Auckland Council lone worker policy.

 

 

 

 

There is $16,387 available for a position of Place Host Albany Hub and $49,161 for an                            Upper Harbour - Programme Co-ordinator, these budget lines could be split 50/50 to ensure that two staff are on site. 

$50,000 that was carried forward (project ID 462 Connected & Resilient Communities: Albany, 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to undertake wider community development out of the Albany Hub

$18,000 (project ID 470 Activations of Community Places 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to Harbour Sport Trust to support the delivery of wider community development out of the Albany hub.

 

There is $18,332 for programming that remained during the Emergency Budget

To fund for success the team recommends that an amount of $85,000 is needed to support this option

Access revenue remains with council

 

 

 

 

The Recovery Budget shows that the ABS operational budget taken for savings in the Emergency Budget in 2020/2021, has been reinstated, meaning an additional $47,192 per annum will be available to the local board in 2021/2022 onwards. This is on top of the $18,332 for programming that remained during the Emergency Budget for programming only                                                                                                                                                                      

$50,000 that was carried forward (project ID 462 Connected & Resilient Communities: Albany 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to Harbour Sport Trust to undertake wider community development out of the Albany Hub

$18,000 (project ID 470 Activations of Community Places 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to Harbour Sport Trust to support the delivery of wider community development out of the Albany Hub

There was a projected revenue stream of $102,616 that would have been transferred to a community entity to manage the Albany Hub, but the amount is unlikely to reach this in 2021/2022 as the venue has been closed due to COVID-19, estimates for the full year range from $25,000 to $30,000.

 

 

There is a finance policy that states the current ABS operational budget of $68,192 will be taken to the offset lost revenue stream if the access income is retained by Harbour Sport Trust, which would leave insufficient funding to manage the facility by Harbour Sport.

$50,000 that was carried forward (project ID 462 Connected & Resilient Communities: Albany 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to Harbour Sport Trust to undertake wider community development out of the Albany Hub

$18,000 (project ID 470 Activations of Community Places 2021/2022 work programme) is available to be allocated to Harbour Sport Trust to support the delivery of wider community development out of the Albany Hub

 

23.    Staff recommends the local board approve option 2, with venue hire being retained by Auckland Council and Harbour Sport Trust as the preferred applicant to manage the activation and programming and wider community development of the facility. This is because:

·   They scored the highest by the assessment panel

·   Harbour Sport is a well-established organisation with strong organisational and financial capability to manage a community facility

·   Harbour Sport has strong local connections that will assist them to deliver good outcomes for the community

·   Harbour Sport has a vision of an inclusive and connected community space that meets the need of the diverse Albany community.  They propose a range of community activations for the facility, which meets the focus areas of the local board.

24.    The project team believes a mixed model for the first year will ensure that Harbour Sport is funded for success, rather than relying on the reduced income from venue hire in this year of disruption due to covid 19, which poses a higher risk to delivery.

25.    This option recommendation is contingent upon all parties agreement and understanding of financial needs to ensure the outcomes requested by the local board can be successfully delivered.

 

26.    The expectation is for Harbour Sport to manage the Albany Hub subject to the service levels and local board focus areas outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Service levels

Local board focus areas

Activation

Enable and co-ordinate a wide range of activities that cater to the diversity of your local community.

Activation includes access along with considered curation and coordination of facility activation. Ensuring there are a wide range of activities meeting the wider community needs and interests.

This service requires some staffed hours to provide personal customer interaction and service.

Service level – Intervention Programming

Identify, develop, and deliver intentional targeted programme(s) that respond to strategic needs in your local community.

Intervention programming requires the delivery of targeted programme(s) that are not provided through access or activation that respond to an identified need or gap and have significant strategic alignment.

 

The community facilities become, or is seen as, the heart of the community, managed by a local community organisation.

The community facilities are inclusive spaces that are used by the diverse and changing community and is not identified as belonging to a select group.

A community facility where community development, events and other community empowering activities can happen in and around the community facilities even if delivered through partnerships and other external relationships.

 

27.    The next steps will be for staff to enter discussion/negotiation with Harbour Sport Trust to develop a service approach and agreement including financial agreement on the proposal to activate and programme Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.    Local community services and venues create a stronger sense of place and foster localism and place-based approaches. This has a positive impact on our resilience to climate change and there will be no increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.    The Connected Communities department is responsible for the venue hire and ongoing maintenance and repairs of this facility, until such time as Auckland Council negotiates with Harbour Sport Trust to take on this role together with the income from access to cover the costs.

 


 

 

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.    The transferring of the Albany Hub from council management to community management has been led by the local board and is in line with the 2020 local board plan Outcome 1 Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities and the Objective Our residents participate and feel a sense of belonging to their community.

31.    Outcome 1 Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities states:

·   Our focus on supporting a resilient and adaptive community will be to increase awareness of risks and issues, build capacity, and encourage social connectedness. We will do this by empowering local people and groups to design and deliver activities or events that build community, celebrate diversity and foster unity. We will provide groups with practical support, funding and partnership opportunities, and the opportunity to learn new skills.

32.    Some of the key initiatives under the local board plan outcomes are:

·   Fund programmes that strengthen community connections through neighbourhood activities or events that are delivered by local people, building a sense of belonging in their local community

·   Support initiatives that build local resilience in the community by funding programmes, activities or events that help build local capacity and encourage social connectedness.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33.    While the Albany Hub doesn’t specifically target Māori populations, the venue enables locally responsive activities, promoting participation, inclusion, and connection for all Aucklanders, including Māori.

34.    The negotiated service agreement includes KPIs, these would have a requirement that the successful applicant engage with Māori, and where appropriate support the delivery of programmes that local iwi may wish to run in the facility.

 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Option 1

35.    If the local board wish to progress option 1, then the financial implications are that two staff members would be employed to activate the hub.

36.    In the recovery budget there is $16,387 available for a position of Place Host Albany Hub and $49,161 for an Upper Harbour - Programme co-ordinator which could be used to fund this option together with funding of $50,000 available for Albany community development carried forward from last year, and $17,802 in the project line of Connected Communities work programme available to support the Albany Hub to deliver wider community development.

37.    There is $18,332 for programming that remained during the Emergency Budget also available.

 


 

 

 

Option 2

38.    If the local board wish to progress Option 2, council retains the income from venue hire which was projected to be $102,616 in the current financial year 2021/2022. The actual income is much less due to closures caused by Covid-19.

39.    There is a budgeted amount of $47,192 for staffing and $18,332 for programming. A further $50,000 carried forward from 2020/2021 financial year for Albany Placemakingis available, together with $18,000 under project ID 470 ‘Activation of Community Places Upper Harbour’, Upper Harbour Local Board work programme 2021/2022 to support the Albany Hub to deliver wider community development.

Option 3

40.    Should the local board wish to progress Option 3, full community management, then Harbour Sport Trust would receive the income from venue hire, which is unlikely to match the projected amount of $102,616 as it is impacted by COVID-19. 

41.    To offset the loss of revenue by council of venue hire income, the budget for staffing and programming totalling $68,191 would stay with council, but the $50,000 available for Albany community development could be accessed together with the $18,000 for wider community development.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42.    There is a risk that the successful applicant may, during negotiations of the service agreement, decide they no longer wish to manage the Albany Hub. In this case the project team will seek direction from the local board on the future management of the Hub.

43.    Taking on the management of access by a community organisation of a facility during a pandemic when lockdowns can occur means that there would be insufficient income to enable a community group to successfully manage the facility. To mitigate this, the recommendation is that Auckland Council manages the access for the first year, transitioning to full management when the full impact of COVID-19 is reduced.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

When

Action

December 2021

-    Engage in discussion / negotiation with Harbour Sport to take on the management of activation, programming, and wider community development of the Albany Hub.

-    Feedback to unsuccessful applicants

January 2022

-    Support the transition of Harbour Sport Trust to manage the activation, programming and wider community develop of the Albany - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura.

February 2022

 

-    Update the local board on progress

 


 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Expression of Interest - Albany Community Hub

37

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jamie Adkins – Place and Partner Specialist

Authorisers

Darryl Soljan - Manager Customer Experience - North & West Libraries

Morgan Borthwick - Manager Advisory

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Connected Communities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Sanders Reserve native plant removal assessment and recommendations

File No.: CP2021/17925

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To consider the options and confirm the approach for the tall species of native plants on the upper and mid sections of the slope below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      In mid-2021, the Upper Harbour Local Board indicated that there was concern from local community members regarding native plants that had been planted below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.

3.      The native plants below the kiosk had been planted under the annual ecological volunteers programme since 2018 with Locally-driven initiatives (LDI) funding provided by the Upper Harbour Local Board.

4.      The native plantings are consistent with the objectives and principles of the Sanders Reserve, Paremoremo, Reserve Management Plan, November 2006 and follow ecological best practice.

5.      The Upper Harbour Local Board requested cost estimates for removing the plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve. This report details cost estimates, risks and mitigations for a total of eight options of plant removal or relocation for the local board to consider.

6.      Three of the options cover the cost estimates, risks and mitigations of removing or   relocating all native plants below the kiosk, while five of the options cover the cost estimates, risks and mitigations of removing or relocating certain proportions of the native plants.

7.      Council officers recommend the relocation of only the tall native plant species from the upper and mid sections of the slope (option 1).

8.      This option has the lowest financial and reputational risk and contributes directly to three outcomes in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020.

9.      Relocation of tall species that were erroneously planted near the upper and mid slope will mitigate the concern of local residents about the native plants obscuring the view from the kiosk.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      consider the options and confirm the approach for the tall species of native plants on the upper and mid sections of the slope below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.


 

 

Horopaki

Context

10.    The local board indicated that local community members expressed concern that the native plants below the kiosk would block the view from the kiosk in coming years, that the open space of the reserve was being planted with native plants, and that the path below the kiosk would be obscured by the native plants which would prove a safety risk as walkers on the path could not be seen from the kiosk.

11.    The native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve (indicated by the yellow polygon highlighted in Figure 1) had been planted under the annual ecological volunteers’ programme with Locally-driven Initiatives (LDI) funding provided by the Upper Harbour Local Board.           This ecological volunteer programme is managed by the Community Park Ranger for the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The majority of the plants below the kiosk were planted in the 2019 and 2021 planting seasons, and there are approximately 13,700 native plants planted in this area.

12.    Ecological best practice was followed in these plantings, and species selection complies with Auckland Council’s Environmental Services ecological restoration guidance. The slope below the kiosk is steep and hence planting of the slope minimises erosion and mowing maintenance required.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Planting area below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve indicated with yellow polygon

13.    Sanders Reserve plantings were reported on at a high level during standard quarterly reports to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

14.    Following consultation with the Upper Harbour Local Board and a presentation of the financial and community investment into these native plantings, the Upper Harbour Local Board requested cost estimates for removing the plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.

 

 

 

15.    This report details cost estimates, risks and mitigations for a total of eight options of plant removal (and an addition of plant relocation options) for the Upper Harbour Local Board to consider:

a)      three of the options cover the cost estimates, risks and mitigations of removing or relocating all native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve;

b)      five of the options cover the cost estimates, risks and mitigations of removing or relocating certain proportions of the native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.

16.    The eight options for the native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve are as follows:

i)        Relocate only the tall native plant species (from the upper and mid slope)

ii)       Remove only the tall native plant species (from the upper and mid slope)

iii)      Relocate the top 1/3rd of the native plant species

iv)      Remove the top 1/3rd of the native plant species (by hand)

v)       Remove the top 1/3rd of the native plant species (by mowing)

vi)      Relocate all native plant species

vii)     Remove all native plant species (by hand)

viii)    Remove all native plant species (by mowing)

17.    Full details of these options are outlined in the ‘Analysis and Advice’ section with cost estimates outlined in the ‘Financial advice’ section.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Options

18.    The table below sets out the options that were assessed by staff;

Options

Description

Option 1

Relocate only the tall species from the upper and mid slope below the kiosk.

Option 2

Remove only the tall species from the upper and mid slope below the kiosk.

Option 3

Relocate the top 1/3rd of plants below the kiosk.

Option 4

Remove the top 1/3rd of plants below the kiosk (by hand)

Option 5

Remove a 1/3rd of plants below the kiosk via mowing

Option 6

Relocate all plants below the kiosk

Option 7

Remove all plants below the kiosk (by hand)

Option 8

Remove all plants below the kiosk via mowing

 

Achieving a balance between an open, grassed area and ecological restoration areas

19.    The Sanders Reserve, Paremoremo, Reserve Management Plan, November 2006 and Development Plan 2007 set out the outcomes sought for Sanders Reserve.

20.    The reserve management plan identifies in general terms how council want the reserve to be managed, protected, and developed. A key outcome sought is:

“Development of the reserve in a generally open, grassed manner with designated ecological restoration areas”.

21.    The above outcome is guided by objective 7 in relation to “Views and Vegetation Management”:

To maintain and re-establish selected views, manage and enhance vegetation and to protect ecologically significant areas”.

22.    The reserve management plan includes the following relevant sub-objectives:

1. Ensuring that ecologically sensitive areas are appropriately identified and protected.

2. Identifying places where views should be enhanced and protected.

3. Enhancing and protecting views by removing weeds and other vegetation where this is allowed by city wide policy and the District Plan.

4. Controlling weeds and protecting the existing nature of the farm land.

5. Enhancing coastal and other vegetation areas, as identified in the development plan, to extend the area and diversity of native species.

23.    The above objectives reflect a balance in outcomes.

24.    Two operational plans were prepared in 2012 and 2018 to provide guidance on future planting at Sanders Reserve, and to ensure that any future planting is aligned with the objectives of the management plan and development plan. These are the Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan 2012 and the LA01 Sanders Reserve Masterplan 2018.

25.    The above two operational plans aim to further the objectives of the reserve management plan and development plan by identifying:

·    Actions to protect the ecologically sensitive areas.

·    Actions to control weeds and protect the existing nature of the farm land.

·    Actions to enhance coastal and other vegetation areas and to extend the area and diversity of native species.

26.    The planting below the kiosk was done in accordance with the above two operational plans, which give effect to the reserve management plan.

27.    Sanders Reserve is predominantly an open grassed area. The plantings over the last five years, including those below the kiosk, have thus not compromised this objective.

28.    It is also considered that the recent plantings are contributing to the ecological diversity and enhancement of the reserve, which is also a key objective.

29.    The vegetated margins at Sanders Reserve are designated as a Significant Ecological Area. Plantings within Sanders Reserve therefore enhance the ecology of the area by creating wildlife corridors and refuges for native species.


 

30.    A recreational mountain bike track is planned for Sanders Reserve, part of which will potentially run along the lower slope below the kiosk. The plantings on the lower slope below the kiosk may therefore provide track protection (from sun and rain) which will result in reduced maintenance (common practice for mountain bike track construction), shade for riders and a bush experience. While the detailed plans for the bike track are not yet finalised, leaving plants in place below the kiosk will prevent repeat planting when the bike track is constructed. Native plantings are also likely to be a requirement of the bike track consent.

Community Involvement

31.    Partnership with the community is one of the objectives in the Sanders Reserve, Paremoremo, Reserve Management Plan, November 2006 as reflected in objective 5 below;

“To foster involvement of the recreational cycling groups and local communities in the management of the reserve”.

32.    The local community, local volunteer groups and school children had a significant involvement over the last five years in the environmental protection and enhancement, including planting, at Sanders Reserve.

33.    A key volunteer group at Sanders Reserve is Sustainable Paremoremo. Sustainable Paremoremo has been involved at Sanders Reserve for several years helping with native plantings, assisting with planning and conducting aftercare of the plantings.

34.    In addition to Sustainable Paremoremo, school students such as from Kristin School have planted many plants at Sanders Reserve. Conservation Volunteers has held multiple volunteer days (including corporate volunteers) and the Chinese Conservation Education Trust has contributed to plantings at Sanders Reserve.

35.    Plants and support from the Mayors Million Trees, Trees for Survival, Rotary and Billion Trees have also been contributed to the plantings at Sanders Reserve.

36.    Since 2018, local volunteers have contributed 3,450 hours of their time (which translates to over 443 days) at Sanders Reserve.

37.    This has created a high level of community pride and ownership of Sanders Reserve. See Figure 2.

 

A picture containing text, grass, sky, outdoor

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Community group involvement at Sanders Reserve

 

Views

38.    The importance of protecting the views was implemented into the planting plan, with careful species selection according to placement on the slope.

39.    Low growing species were selected for the upper slope, medium growing species were selected for the middle slope, and mid to tall growing species were selected for the lower slope. Any tall species erroneously planted in the upper and mid slope will be relocated.

40.    The kiosk is situated at 40 metres above sea level and the slope below the kiosk descends to 15 metres above sea level at the bottom near the path. See Figure 3. This height difference was taken into account when planning the species to be planted on the slope.

41.    Indicative species planted on the upper slope are Phormium tenax (harakeke), Cyperus ustulatus (umbrella sedge), Hebe stricta (koromiko) and Piper excelsum (kawa kawa). These species range in height from 0.4m-4m at maturity. Any tall species that were planted on the upper slope in error (e.g. Leptospermum scoparium (mānuka) and Coprosma robusta (karamu) will be relocated.

42.    Indicative species planted on the middle slope are Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe) and Dodonea viscosa (ake ake). These species range in height from 3m-10m at maturity. Any tall species that were planted on the mid slope in error (e.g. Leptospermum scoparium (mānuka) and Coprosma robusta (karamu) will be relocated.

43.    Indicative species planted on the lower slope are Coprosma robusta (karamu), Leptospermum scoparium (mānuka) and Kunzea ericoides (kānuka). These species range in height from 6m-18m at maturity.

44.    The slope below the kiosk is an exposed site. Due to this level of exposure, it is expected that species growth and mature height will be affected, resulting in smaller and shorter plants at maturity.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3. Contour lines at Sanders Reserve. Note that mountain bike tracks in the area below the kiosk that is the subject of this report have been recommended for decommissioning.
(Image source: Auckland Council GIS online system, November 2021).

 

45.    Local community members expressed concern that the native plants below the kiosk would block the view from the kiosk in coming years. They also expressed concern that not being able to be seen from the kiosk when walking on the track below the kiosk plantings was a safety risk.

46.    The protection of views is a key objective of the reserve management plan, and the location of future planting as described above was therefore planned with this objective in mind, following ecological best practice.

47.    It is considered that the plantings below the kiosk would not compromise key view shafts. There may however be tall species that were planted in error near the upper and mid slope, that could potentially block views in the long term.

48.    It is therefore recommended that only tall species be relocated if they are present near the upper and mid slope.

49.    This will mitigate the concern of local residents about the native plants obscuring the view from the kiosk.

50.    Due to the steep topography of the slope, the plantings below the kiosk have no impact on the visibility of walkers from the kiosk. Therefore, the concern expressed by a local community member that the plantings below the kiosk pose a safety risk due to lack of visibility is not considered to be a material risk posed by the plantings in question.

Conclusion from analysis

51.    Note that the financial analysis and risk assessment under the “Financial Implications” and “Risks and Mitigation” sections of this report form part of staff advice and are considered in the conclusion and staff recommendation.

52.    Staff recommend option (i) for the native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve. This option has the lowest financial and reputational risk (refer to the Finance and Risks sections of the report). It also takes into account the significant investment of community time and effort into the native plantings; the climate mitigation effects of the native plants in this area and the contribution of these plants to the Urban Ngahere Strategy.

53.    Option (i) also contributes directly to the following Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes #1, #3 and #4 outlined in the “Local Impact and Local Board Views” section.

54.    Relocation of tall species that were erroneously planted near the upper and mid slope will mitigate the concern of local residents about the native plants obscuring the view from the kiosk.

55.    Relocation is recommended to be carried out in the winter months to ensure high levels of plant survival.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

56.    Impact on emissions (mitigation): The 13,700 native plants in the area below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve currently contribute to increased carbon capture on council parks and contribute to the net-zero emissions goals of Auckland Council. Removal of these native plants will likely have a small impact on carbon capture, but this is still important to note.

57.    Impact of climate change (adaptation): The 13,700 native plants in the area below the kiosk contribute to growing our urban forest to sequester carbon and reduce flood and heat impacts which are key actions for adapting to climate change. Removal of these native plants will reduce the contribution of this park to mitigation of these impacts.


 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58.    The native plantings contribute to the following key Auckland Council strategies:

i.    Upper Harbour Urban Ngahere Action Plan

ii.   Auckland’s Climate Action Framework

iii.   Upper Harbour Open Space Network Plan

iv.  North West Wildlink

v.   Upper Harbour Ecological Connectivity Strategy

Auckland Council departments worked with on Sanders Reserve plantings include:

i.        Parks Specialists (Community Parks and Places)

ii.       Project managers and Maintenance Delivery Co-ordinators (Community Facilities).

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

Local impacts and local board views

59.    A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 14 October 2021. The local board indicated that there was concern from some local community members regarding native plants that had been planted below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve, including perceived safety concerns – specifically of not being able to be seen from the kiosk when walking on the track below the kiosk plantings.

60.    At the workshop, local board members showed a preference for relocation or removal of the plants below the kiosk to address these concerns and requested staff to look at options and cost estimates.

61.    The native plantings contribute to the following Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes:

Outcome #1: Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities

Outcome #3: Healthy and active communities

Outcome #4: Our unique natural environment is protected and enhanced.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62.    The cultural benefits of Auckland’s urban ngahere are diverse and priceless. Native forest is important to mātauranga Māori (knowledge and understanding), and trees create a cultural connection to place and history.

63.    The urban ngahere is an important part of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s cultural heritage.

64.    Remnants of native forest represent traditional kai o te ngahere (supermarkets), wānanga o te ngahere (learning centres), kapata rongoā (the medicine cabinet), kura o te ngahere (schools) and wairua o te ngahere (spiritual domain).

65.    Trees also represent birth whenua and landing places of waka (canoe).

66.    The recent plantings at Sanders Reserve contribute towards the cultural benefits of the urban ngahere of Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

67.    Indicative funding costs have been identified for all eight options and a summary outlined in Table 1 below. The preferred and recommended option based on financial and reputational risk is highlighted with a green outline.

Table 1. Cost estimates for removal or relocation of native plants below the kiosk at Sanders Reserve.

Options

Description

Contractor estimated cost

Site remediation^ cost

Total cost

Option 1

Relocate* only the tall species from upper and mid slope below kiosk.

Community Park Ranger time

Community Park Ranger time

Low (within existing resource)

Option 2

Remove** only the tall species from upper and mid slope below kiosk.

Community Park Ranger time

Community Park Ranger time

Low (within existing resource)

Option 3

Relocate top 1/3rd of plants below kiosk.

 $30,911.78 (ecological contractor)

 $2,550.00

(ecological contractor)

$33,461.78

Option 4

Remove top 1/3rd of plants below kiosk (by hand)

 $7,712.94 (ecological contractor)

 $1,259.00

(ecological contractor)

$8,971.94

Option 5

Remove 1/3rd of plants below kiosk via mowing

$3,000.00 (Community Facilities)

$1,300.00

(Community Facilities)

$4,300.00

Option 6

Relocate all plants below kiosk

$92,735.36 (ecological contractor)

 $6,415.00

(ecological contractor)

$99,150.36

Option 7

Remove all plants below kiosk (by hand)

 $23,183.84 (ecological contractor)

 $4,535.00

(ecological contractor)

$27,718.84

Option 8

Remove all plants below kiosk via mowing

$10,000.00 (Community Facilities)

$4000.00

(Community Facilities)

$14,000.00

*Relocation within Sanders Reserve. This includes digging up each plant, moving it to a new location at Sanders Reserve, and replanting.

**Removal of plants is defined as eliminating and disposing of the plants from the site

^ Site remediation includes filling in holes, mowing and seeding with grass. It excludes follow up maintenance by the contractor i.e. follow up mowing, watering, additional seeding. Community Facilities however will do follow-up maintenance such as mowing in the future as needed.


 

 

 

68.    In addition to the above costs, it is important to consider the costs associated with the plantings below the kiosk.

69.    The 13,700 plants below the kiosk cost council $16,813. This was funded through local board LDI funding since 2018. In addition, a sizeable number of the plants were also provided by the Mayors Million Trees, Rotary and Trees for Survival.

70.    The costs associated with options 3 to 8 will have to be funded from LDI funding.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

71.    The risk assessment in Table 2 below sets out the type of risk for each option, as well as the level of risk and mitigation.

Table 2. Risks and Mitigations of native plant relocation or removal at Sanders Reserve

Options

Description

Type of risk

Risk

Risk level

Mitigation

Option 1

Relocate only the tall species from upper and mid slope below kiosk.

 

Financial

Very low cost involved therefore no financial risk

low

None required

 

 

Reputational

Local residents ask why the majority of plants remain

low

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants remaining

 

 

Environmental

Very low environmental impact therefore no risk

low

None required

 

 

Strategic

Local residents ask why the majority of plants remain

low

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants remaining

Option 2

Remove only the tall species from upper and mid slope below kiosk.

Financial

Very low cost involved therefore no financial risk

low

None required

 

 

Reputational

Local residents ask why the majority of plants remain. Stakeholders may be concerned about destruction of native plants.

medium

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the majority of plants remaining. Communicate with stakeholders about the reason the plants are being destroyed. Recommend relocation instead of destruction of plants.

 

 

Environmental

Medium to low environmental impact due to destruction of native plants

medium

Relocate plants instead of removal; give plants away to local community (with the caveat that it is not standard practice for the public to remove plants from parks).

 

 

Strategic

Local residents ask why the majority of plants remain

low

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants remaining

Option 3

Relocate top 1/3rd of plants below kiosk.

Financial

Cost of plant relocation is high

high

This option is not recommended

 

 

Reputational

Relocating plants comes with a medium risk to reputation due to the public perception of plants being removed from their current location after they have been planted in the recent past

medium

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants being relocated

 

 

Environmental

Relocating 1/3rd of the plants has low carbon and climate change impacts

low

None required

 

 

Strategic

Local residents may ask why 1/3rd of plants are being relocated

low

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants being relocated

Option 4

Remove top 1/3rd of plants below kiosk (by hand)

Financial

Cost of plant removal is medium, however the sunk cost of the plants already planted needs to be considered

medium

Simpler removal method to be used

 

 

Reputational

Relocating plants comes with a medium risk to reputation due to the public perception of plants being removed from their current location

medium

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants being relocated

 

 

Environmental

Medium to low environmental impact due to destruction of 1/3rd of the native plants

medium

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants being mowed

Option 5

Remove 1/3rd of plants below kiosk via mowing

Financial

Cost of plant removal is medium, however the sunk cost of the plants already planted needs to be considered

medium

Removal of 1/3rd of plants is not recommended

 

 

Reputational

Perception by public of mowing 1/3rd of these native plants is negative

medium

Communicate with public as to why the plants are being mowed

 

 

Environmental

Medium environmental impact due to removal of 1/3rd of the native plants

medium

Communicate with local residents the reasons for the plants being removed

Option 6

Relocate all plants below kiosk

Financial

The high cost of relocation is a financial risk and while it is preferable to relocate the plants rather than remove them, this option is not recommended

high

This option is not recommended

 

 

Reputational

Public and stakeholder perception of Auckland Council and the Local Board's environmental and financial decision making as well as value of community engagement is a risk

high

Communicate with public and stakeholders the reasons as to why the plants are being relocated.

 

 

Environmental

Risk of plant loss and impact of soil disturbance

high

Relocate plants at the correct time of the year (winter) and remediate the soil

Option 7

Remove all plants below kiosk (by hand)

Financial

Removal by hand is very expensive, and the overall cost of the plants that have been planted in this area need to be taken into consideration

high

Communicate with public as to the reasons why the plants are being removed by hand and why public money is being spent on the plant removal. However, this option is not recommended.

 

 

Reputational

Public and stakeholder perception of Auckland Council and the Local Board's environmental and financial decision making as well as value of community engagement is a risk

high

Communicate with public and stakeholders the reasons as to why the plants are being removed.

 

 

Environmental

Removal of all plants presents a climate and environmental risk due to the small but still notable mitigatory effects of the plants on carbon emissions, and their contribution to the Urban Ngahere Strategy

high

Mitigate the removal of the plants with additional planting in other reserves.

Option 8

Remove all plants below kiosk via mowing

Financial

While the cost of mowing the plants is lower than other methods of removal, the overall cost of the plants that have been planted in this area need to be taken into consideration

high

Communicate with public as to why the plants are being mowed and public money is being spent on this project

 

 

Reputational

Mowing the plants will have a significant risk to Auckland Council and Local Board reputation due to the visual message this gives that the plants are of no value, and that volunteer efforts are not valued.

high

Communicate with public as to why the plants are being mowed

 

 

Environmental

Removal of all plants presents a climate and environmental risk due to the small but still notable mitigatory effects of the plants on carbon emissions, and their contribution to the Urban Ngahere Strategy

high

This option is not recommended

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72.    Pending a decision from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report, staff will provide assistance where practicable with the implementation of the decision.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Julia Watson - Volunteering & Programmes Team Leader

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Variations to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 Work Programme

File No.: CP2021/18550

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To approve variations to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its work programme on 17 June 2021 (UH/2021/71). This included an activity to deliver two outdoor movie screening events, one at Rosedale Park and one at Luckens Reserve.

3.      The August 2021 COVID-19 outbreak resulted in cancellation of local board events across Auckland and uncertainty in regards to future events. The new government COVID-19 Protection Framework is expected to cover events over the 2022 summer period, including any movie screenings. However, this is at additional costs not previously identified and further uncertainties, including attendance. 

4.      The local board have indicated a preference for cancelling the Movies in Parks (ID 1503) work programme activity for 2021/2022 and re-allocate the unspent $30,000 of locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational (opex) budget to other activities in its work programme.

5.      Cancellation of projects and variations of budget allocations are considered to have a substantial impact on approved projects and the overall work programme. These are considered a substantial variation that requires a formal decision by the local board (UH/2021/71).

6.      This report provides an opportunity for the local board to formalise variations to its 2021/2022 work programme.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the following variations to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme:

i)        cancel activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’, Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022.

ii)       allocate $2,950 of locally driven initiatives operational budget originally allocated to activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’, Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022, to activity ID 1612 ‘Local Small Business Mentors Programme’, Auckland Unlimited Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022, to support ten (10) more businesses.

iii)      allocate $15,000 of locally driven initiatives operational budget originally allocated to activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’, Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022, to activity ID 1692 ‘Upper Harbour Construction Waste Enforcement and Leadership’, Infrastructure and Environmental Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022, to provide more visits and engagement at construction sites in the Scott Point and Whenuapai areas.

iv)      allocate $12,050 of locally driven initiatives operational budget originally allocated to activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’ to activity ID 474 ‘Community Grants Upper Harbour, Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.      The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its Customer and Community Services (CCS) 2021/2022 work programme on 17 June 2021 (UH/2021/71). This included an activity to deliver two outdoor movie screening events, with local pre-entertainment, themed activities and food stalls (Movies in Parks ID 1503, total budget approved of $30,000). These were:

·   Movies in Parks, Friday 4 February, Luckens Reserve, approved budget $15,000

·   Movies in Parks, Friday 12 March, Rosedale Park, approved budget $15,000

8.      Since August 2021, COVID-19 alert restrictions have resulted in the cancellation of local board events across Auckland. On 17 September 2021, the local board received advice via memo on the impact on regional and local events of COVID-19 alert level restrictions and how such events would be organised and managed under the 4 alert levels (Attachment A).

9.      The local board indicated its preferred direction to cancel the Rosedale Park event and proceed with the Luckens Reserve event.

10.    On 17 November 2021, the local board received further advice from the Event Production Team on the impact of the government announcements on the COVID-19 Protection Framework (Attachment B).

11.    This advice included information on how the proposed COVID-19 Protection Framework intends to ease restrictions of access for fully vaccinated people, including attending events. It also included information on the planning and cost implications of implementing the new framework at council events.

12.    The local board was advised that the new framework has operational requirements and costs for implementing the vaccination checks and additional health measures which were not considered in the original event budget approved in the 2021/2022 work programme.

13.    Estimates are that costs could be up to $6,000 extra for some events.

14.    As the remaining Movies in Parks event at Luckens Reserve was scheduled to take place under the new framework, the Event Production Team sought local board direction on whether it could allocate $6,000 to this event, in addition to the already allocated $15,000.  This amount was available to allocate from the cancelled Rosedale Park event as no funds had been spent.

15.    The local board have indicated their preference is to cancel the Movies in Parks (ID 1503) work programme activity for 2021/2022 and re-allocate the unspent $30,000 of locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational (opex) budget to other activities in its work programme.

16.    Cancelling projects and variations of budget allocations are considered substantial impacts on approved projects and the overall work programme. As a substantial variation, a formal decision by the local board is required (UH/2021/71).

17.    This report provides an opportunity for the local board to formalise its intended variations to the 2021/2022 work programme.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.    The local board have indicated their intent to cancel activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’. Should the local board want to proceed with this decision, a total of $30,000 of LDI opex budget originally allocated to that activity will be available to reallocate to other activities in the 2021/2022 work programme.

19.    The following activities have capacity for delivery of additional scope by the end of the current financial year (30 June 2022).

Local Small Business Mentors Programme (ID 1612)

20.    Auckland Unlimited have indicated there is capacity to offer this programme to ten (10) businesses, on top of the thirty (30) businesses already funded through this work programme activity.

21.    The programme launched for business registrations on 4 October 2021 and over three-quarters of the local board funded places were accessed within the first two weeks. Further efforts to promote the initiative to eligible Upper Harbour Local Board area businesses have continued throughout the second quarter and more businesses can be supported through this initiative.

22.    To support ten (10) more businesses, the local board will need to re-allocate $2,950 from the ‘Movies in Parks’ (ID 1503) work programme activity.

Upper Harbour Construction Waste Enforcement and Leadership (ID 1692)

23.    This work programme activity provides increased construction waste compliance and enforcement, with a focus on Scott Point and Whenuapai. The construction and demolition waste advisor works with builders and developers to improve site practices and provide increased reporting to the council’s compliance team.

24.    The current level of service offers weekly surveillance and reporting but there is capacity to increase this if budget is made available. An increase in budget would allow for more visits and engagement in the area, more closely aligned to visit levels in other areas such as Flat Bush (funded by the Howick Local Board).

25.    Staff have indicated that there is capacity to increase the scope of this project up to $15,000.

Community Grants Upper Harbour (ID 474)

26.    The local board has a total budget of $96,133 in its 2021/2022 community grants activity line. In comparison, the previous financial year of 2020/2021, the available budget was $237,383.

27.    In the first round of local and multi-board grants for 2021/2022, the local board received applications totalling $118,359.52. The local board allocated $33,000, leaving $63,133 available to be allocated in two more rounds this financial year.

28.    The local board’s contestable grants are popular with community groups. Should additional funding be allocated to this activity line in the current financial year it is likely the local board would be able to allocate it during one of the two future grants rounds. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.    Auckland Council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

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

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

30.    The impacts of climate change are assessed on a project-by-project basis and the appropriate approach is considered for each project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

31.    The proposed work programme variations are unlikely to have a substantial impact on climate change, but it is possible that cancelling the events results in a reduction of waste that would have been produced in association with their delivery.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

33.    Auckland Unlimited have indicated capacity to deliver the expanded scope to the ‘Local Small Business Mentors Programme’ (ID 1612) in the current financial year 2021/2022.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.    The local board have expressed a preference for cancelling the Movies in Parks (ID 1503) activity in the 2021/2022 work programme. This report allows the local board to formalise this decision as well as the opportunity to re-allocate the unspent budget to other activities in its 2021/2022 work programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.    The Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme includes activities that will have an impact on a service, facility, or location of significance to Māori. In these situations, appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation is undertaken, including to meet our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Treaty of Waitangi.

36.    Progress updates on delivery of Māori outcomes within specific activities are available through quarterly performance reports.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.    Should the local board formalise the decision to cancel activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’, a total of $30,000 of LDI opex budget will be available for reallocation to other activities in the 2021/2022 work programme.

38.    The Event Production Team has confirmed that the full $30,000 amount is available to reallocate to other activities.

39.    Reallocation options and any financial implications of these are covered in the ‘analysis and advice’ section of this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and

mitigations

40.    The Event Production Team do not have capacity to carry out surveys of local board areas to determine how local communities feel about the COVID-19 Protection Framework and if this would increase or decrease the likelihood of them attending events. The team was unable to guarantee attendance or identify the communities’ preferences for keeping or cancelling the events.

41.    The re-allocated budgets have to be delivered by the end of the current financial year, 30 June 2022. Operating departments have confirmed capacity to deliver on the options provided in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42.    The Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme will be updated to reflect the board’s formal decisions and any variations will be reflected from the quarter two performance report onwards.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Auckland Transport - proposed speed limit changes (Tranche 2A)

File No.: CP2021/17784

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide feedback on Tranche 2A of Auckland Transport’s proposed speed limit changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.     Through Vision Zero, Auckland Transport (AT) has adopted the goal of eliminating road transport related deaths and serious injuries (DSI) within the Auckland road network by 2050. One of the faster and most cost-effective ways to prevent DSI is to set safe and appropriate speed limits for the function, safety, design and layout of roads.

3.      As part of Tranche 1 of Auckland Transports Safe Speeds Programme safe speed limits were set on many high risk urban and rural roads and within town centres across Auckland between June 2020 and June 2021.

4.      Roads where safe speed limits were set on 30 June 2020 have experienced a 67 per cent  reduction in fatalities, 19 per cent reduction in all injury crashes, and a minor reduction in serious injuries[1]. Total deaths and serious injuries (DSI) reduced on these roads by seven per cent, compared to an upward trend in road trauma seen on the rest of the road network.

5.      Further changes to speed limits are now being proposed for a number of roads across Auckland where current speed limits are not deemed safe and appropriate. This is referred to as Tranche 2A of the Safe Speeds Programme.

6.      Details of the changes proposed in each local board area are provided as Attachment A

7.      Public Consultation on Tranche 2A closed on 14 November 2021. A summary of the consultation feedback is provided as Attachment B.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on Tranche 2A of Auckland Transport’s proposed speed limit changes.

Horopaki

Context

8.      AT is the road controlling authority for all roads within the Auckland transport system. Generally, this is the local road network which includes public roads and beaches but excludes State Highways for which Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency has responsibility.

9.      Reviewing and ensuring that speed limits across Auckland are set at speeds that are appropriate for road function, safety, design and use, is one of the key measures that AT is undertaking to improve safety on Auckland’s roads. Setting safe and appropriate speed limits will contribute to a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads and ensure speed limit consistency on the network.

10.    Setting safe and appropriate speed limits also supports AT’s Vision Zero approach (adopted by the AT Board in September 2019), which provides that no deaths or serious injuries are acceptable while travelling on our transport network.

11.    AT controls more than 7,300 kilometres of roads and - through the Safe Speeds Programme - is working through a multi-year programme to review all speed limits across its network.

12.    Speed limits must be reviewed and set (by bylaw) in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. In line with government strategy and legislation, AT is prioritising high risk roads for review.

13.    Previously AT made the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 (under the Land Transport Act 1998) which set new speed limits for the highest risk roads following AT’s first tranche of speed limit reviews. Within this first tranche, speed limits were reviewed on around 10 per cent of the local road network. Where new safe and appropriate speed limits were required to be set, these came into effect from mid-2020 to mid-2021.

All road performance

14.    Roads where speed limits were changed on 30 June 2020 have experienced a 67 per cent reduction in fatalities, 19 per cent reduction in all injury crashes, and a minor reduction in serious injuries. Total deaths and serious injuries (DSI) reduced by seven per cent.

15.    This equals four lives saved and 48 less injury crashes on roads treated with safe and appropriate speeds.

Rural road performance

16.    Rural roads where speeds were changed on 30 June 2020 have seen a 78 per cent reduction in fatalities and a small reduction in serious injuries.

17.    This equates to a DSI reduction of 16 per cent on the rural network where speed limit changes have been made. The overall number of crashes is similar to pre-implementation, but the crash severity rates have reduced, this is what would be expected on higher speed roads.

18.    While it will take additional time to confirm that these trends are sustained, initial indications are promising.

19.    AT is now proposing further speed limit changes for a number of roads across Auckland after reviewing and finding that their current speed limits are not safe and appropriate. This is part of the second tranche of reviews under the Safe Speeds Programme (Tranche 2A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.    AT is proposing to amend the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 and set new safe and appropriate speed limits for 823 roads across Auckland with a total length of 614km (approximately eight per cent of the road network), with these new limits proposed to come into force mid-2022.

21.    AT has reviewed the existing speed limits for each of the roads identified and found they are not safe and appropriate for the function, design and use of the roads. This means there is now a legal obligation to improve the safety of the roads. Making no change is not an option. This means AT is required to either:

·    set a new safe and appropriate speed limit, or

·    install engineering measures to improve the safety of the road, like road widening, resurfacing, barriers, road markings, speed humps etc.


 

22.    Physical constraints and the corresponding costs involved mean that it isn’t viable to ‘engineer up’ these roads to support their existing speed limits. Setting safe and appropriate speed limits is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Community Engagement

23.    Public consultation on the Safe Speeds Programme Tranche 2A took place from 27 September – 14 November 2021, including:

·    a flyer mailout to 340,257 properties and PO Boxes on/near the roads where changes to speed limits are proposed

·    advertising in the NZ Herald, community newspapers, specialist/ethnic media:

Central Leader, East & Bays Courier, Eastern Courier, Manukau Courier, North Harbour News, North Shore Times, Nor-West News, Papakura Courier, Rodney Times, Franklin County News, Western Leader, Hibiscus Matters, Pohutukawa Times, Chinese Herald, Mandarin Pages, Ponsonby News

·    radio advertising on: Niu FM, Radio Samoa and Radio Waatea

·    radio interviews and adlibs on: Niu FM, Radio Samoa and Radio Waatea

·    media release and on-going media management

·    published an article in Our Auckland

·    translated consultation materials into Te Reo Māori, Tongan, Samoan, Simplified Chinese, Korean and NZ Sign Language

·    sent flyers, posters and hardcopy Freepost feedback forms, in multiple languages to every library and service centre in Auckland

·    put posters on trains, buses and ferries that could reach 280,000 commuters each day

·    15 online webinars.

24.    Feedback has been provided through a number of channels:

·    online via http://AT.govt.nz/haveyoursay

·    via a survey

·    via a mapping tool

·    at public hearings held on 25 November.

25.    Local boards have also had the opportunity to present at public hearings.

26.    A summary of feedback from the local community has been provided as Attachment B. This includes feedback on specific streets in your area, as well as broad feedback about the Safe Speeds Programme more generally.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27.    The primary climate change benefit of safe and appropriate speed limits is that they support and encourage greater take-up of walking, cycling and micromobility by reducing the risk to vulnerable road users, making these modes more attractive. This supports emissions reductions.

28.    For town centres where speed limits were reduced and safety improvements introduced under the first tranche of speed limit changes, there has been strong positive feedback, with 19 per cent of respondents advising they are now participating in at least one active mode activity (e.g. walking or cycling) more often since the projects have been completed.

 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.    The Safe Speeds Programme has been endorsed by the AT Board, the Auckland Council Planning Committee and conforms with direction from the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018/19 – 2027/28 and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

30.    In March 2021, Auckland Transport staff held a workshop with Auckland Council’s Planning Committee to provide an update to Councillors on Vision Zero, road safety performance over the past three years and sought feedback on the direction and priorities for Tranche 2 of the programme. The Committee expressed informal strong support for the direction of the Safe Speeds Programme, with a number of members supportive of the programme moving faster into their community areas.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31.    Public submissions and feedback are provided as Attachment B.

32.    This report provides the opportunity for local boards to provide feedback on changes proposed in Tranche 2A.

33.    Feedback provided in relation to Tranche 1 has also been considered by Auckland Transport in the development of the current proposals.

34.    For the residential areas where speed limits have been reduced under the first tranche of the Safe Speeds Programme, there has been strong positive feedback on the safety improvements, with 79 per cent of respondents commenting that the area feels safer overall. As noted above, 19 per cent of respondents advised they are now participating in at least one active mode activity (e.g. walking or cycling) more often since the projects have been completed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.    Engagement on Tranche 2 has been undertaken with kaitiaki at northern, central and southern transport hui during 2021 alongside detailed engagement on the rural marae workstream, which is part of the second stage of Tranche 2.

36.    Mana whenua are, in general, supportive of the Safe Speeds Programme and positive safety, community and environmental outcomes arising through safe and appropriate speed limits. There is in particular strong engagement and support for the rural marae workstream which forms part of the second phase of Tranche 2.

37.    Further engagement will be undertaken following the public engagement period to determine feedback on and support for the final proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38.    There are no financial implications arising from local boards providing feedback on the Safe Speeds Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39.    Delays due to Covid-19 and lockdown in the Auckland Region have added complexity to both public consultation and implementation timelines.

40.    When Auckland moved into Alert Level Four, a temporary pause was put on all new consultations to allow time to adapt our consultation strategy and increase our digital engagement. The following measures were undertaken to ensure a quality engagement process:

·    the consultation start date was delayed by three weeks from 6 September to 27 September

·    the consultation length was extended from 5 to 7 weeks

·    the number of online events during the consultation was significantly increased

·    digital advertising spend was increased, and digital engagement plans were put in place with Auckland Council’s Engagement Partners who helped reach our diverse communities.

41.    Steps have also been taken to ensure flexibility in the implementation timeline, and local boards will be kept up to date with any changes to the dates that the new speed limits will take effect.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42.    Early in 2022 Auckland Transport will finalise an analysis and feedback report, including feedback from both the public and local boards.

43.    On 31 March 2022 staff will present this report and recommendations to the AT Board.

44.    The new speed limits are proposed to come into force on 31 May 2022 for the majority of roads, and 13 June 2022 for roads associated with schools, allowing for school speed changes to be made at the start of a school week.

45.    These dates may need to be revised due to the impacts of Covid-19 and to take into account consultation feedback. Local boards will be kept updated if any changes are made.

46.    More speed limit changes (Tranche 2B) are planned to be publicly consulted in 2022. AT has engaged with all local boards affected by Tranche 2B and will continue to keep local boards updated as the speed reviews are finalised.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board Proposed speed limit changes - Tranche 2A

77

b

Upper Harbour Local Board Summary of consultation feedback - Tranche 2A

79

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts – Acting General Manager Local Board Servcies

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2021/18412

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order; or

·        random order.

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 order 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

113

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/18160

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To receive financial and non-financial performance report for the first quarter of the 2020/2021 financial year (1 July to 30 September 2021).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      This report provides a retrospective overview of the financial and non-financial performance of Auckland Council against the 2021/2022 Upper Harbour Local Board Agreement for the period beginning 1 July to 30 September 2021 – quarter one (Q1).

3.      The key activity updates from the 2021/2022 work programme (Attachment A) this period are:

·        completion of: playspace renewal at Bluebird Reserve (ID 28620), playspace reconfiguration at Wharepapa Reserve (ID 20751), timber bridge upgrade at Orchard Reserve (ID 24058), HVAC installation at Sunderland lounge (ID 15894)

·        one of the two outdoor movies the local board planned under ‘Movies in Parks’ (ID 1503) was cancelled at the request of the board due to COVID-19 concerns

·        the local board approved the concept design for the Caribbean Drive Sports fields upgrade and new toilet facility (ID 23783) at 19 August 2021 business meeting.

4.      Overall, 104 activities within the agreed 2021/2022 work programme are on track, one activity has some identified risk or issue which is being managed. There are no activities identified as having a significant risk of delivery. One activity has been merged.

5.      The 2021/2022 annual budget factors in some impacts of COVID-19 but by the end of Q1 we already have had 6 weeks of lockdown. This has already had an impact on council’s service delivery. With alert levels to last 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 (Attachment B). Overall, the net operational financial performance of the local board is tracking well to revised year to date budget. Revenue is below budget for the year to date due to facility closures in response to alert level restrictions, offset by lower operating expenditure. 

7.      There has been a slowdown in delivery from the local board’s 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.

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 forty-two percent of the budget. More than half 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the quarterly performance report for the period corresponding to quarter one of the 2021/2022 financial year (1 July to 30 September 2021). 

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

 

Horopaki

Context

10.    The Upper Harbour Local Board agreed key initiatives, budgets and levels of service for the 2021/2022 financial year with the Governing Body on 17 June 2021 through the adoption of its local board agreement (UH/2021/74).

11.    The annual local board agreement aims to meet the local board priorities as identified through the 2020 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes:

·        Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities

·        An efficient and accessible travel network 

·        Healthy and active communities

·        A resilient local economy

·        Our unique natural environment is protected and enhanced.

12.    Specific activities and projects to be delivered each year against the agreed budgets are outlined in work programmes which are developed annually alongside local board agreements.

13.    The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme which is delivered through the following operating departments:

·        Customer and Community Services (UH/2021/71)

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services (UH/2021/68)

·        Auckland Emergency Management (UH/2021/70)

·        Auckland Unlimited (UH/2021/69).

14.    The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet local board plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

15.    Auckland has faced COVID-19 restrictions (Level 3 and 4) from 17 August 2021 - 6 weeks of Q1 (just under half the period this report covers).

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

18.    Quarterly performance of each agreed work programme activity is reported with a status of green (on track), amber (in progress but some risk or issues which are being managed), grey (cancelled, deferred or merged), and red (behind delivery, significant risk). This is called the RAG (red/amber/green/gey) status.

19.    Graph 2 provides the percentage of activities by RAG status in Q1 of 2021/2022: 98 per cent of activities were identified to be on track (green); 1 per cent of activities were identified to be in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber); and 1 per cent of activities were identified in Q1 as merged (grey).

20.    There are no activities identified to be behind delivery or with significant risk in Q1.

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

21.    To complete the snapshot, and in addition to a RAG status, information on activity status is also collected for each quarter to show the stage of the activity.

22.    Activity status for Q1 of 2021/2022 is provided in graph 3 below. The number of activities differ by department as approved in the local board work programme. 

23.    The complete work programme with Q1 commentary from operating departments can be found in Attachment A.

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates from Q1

24.    A few highlights in Q1 are as follows:

·   Movies in Parks (ID 1503) - one of the two movies (at Rosedale Park) was cancelled at the request of the board due to COVID-19 concerns.

·   Sunderland lounge (ID 15894) - The heating and cooling system installation has been completed and the system is now fully operational. A fence will be installed in October/ November to screen the exterior condenser units to comply with resource consent conditions.

·   The following projects were completed: renewal of playspace at Bluebird Reserve (ID 28620), reconfiguration of playspace at Wharepapa Reserve (ID 20751), upgrade of timber bridge at Orchard Reserve (ID 24058).

·   Caribbean Drive Sports fields upgrade and new toilet facility (ID 23783) – local board approval of concept design at 19 August 2021 business meeting (UH/2021/99).

·   Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan (ID 1555) – completed classification review, investigation of freedom camping in vehicles draft bylaw implications and first draft of volume 2 maps.

·   Upper Harbour ecology initiatives assistance programme (ID 858) –seven community conservation group proposals were allocated funding in the first quarter.

·   Upper Harbour Construction Waste Enforcement and Leadership (ID 1692) – twenty-four construction site visits were undertaken in the Scott Point and Hobsonville Point area prior to lockdown in August 2021.

·   Pest Free and Ecological Connectivity Strategy Upper Harbour (ID 3126, carry forward) – the launch event for the Pest free and ecological connectivity strategy was held on 27 July 2021 with most of the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network groups in attendance.

Activities on hold

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

·   Upper Harbour - implement actions from the Greenways Plan (ID 20709) - This project is on hold for FY2021/2022 and the investigation and design of the Wharf Reserve path extension will commence in FY2022/2023. This project also has an amber RAG status. Funding is subject to allocations being approved in future years.

Activities to watch

26.    Event Partnership Fund Upper Harbour (ID 473): funding agreements have been completed and funding paid to Greenhithe Lunar New Year Festival 12 February 2022 and Shore to Shore 10 April 2022. The remaining events have not completed their agreements or lifted their funding in Q1 but had permit applications in process. These are the Greenhithe Christmas Parade (scheduled for 5 December 2021) and North Shore Run Series (scheduled to start on 28 November 2021).

27.    Local civic events (ID 475): delivery of an opening event for Bluebird playspace was postponed due to covid restrictions in Q1.

28.    Movies in Parks (ID 1503): with the cancellation of the Rosedale Park event in Q1, funds are available for reallocation. In addition, COVID-19 concerns continue and increased costs associated with delivering the remaining event under the new central government COVID-19 protection framework will require additional local board decisions in Q2.

Changes to the local board work programme

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

29.    These activities have been merged with other activities for efficient delivery:

·   Upper Harbour_Kauri Dieback Local Parks Projects FY 2021/2022 (ID 30313) and Upper Harbour_Kauri Dieback Local Parks Project FY2022/2023 (ID 30318) – these projects have been merged across financial years. The work will be delivered and reported under the new project ID 29331 “Upper Harbour: Kauri Dieback Local Parks Projects”

Activities with changes

30.    The following work programmes activities have changes which were approved by the local board in Q1 either via a formal decision or the minor variation process (UH/2021/71).

ID/Ref

Work Programme Name

Activity Name

Summary of Change

Resolution number

474

Customer and Community Services

Community grants Upper Harbour

The local board changed to their 2021/2022 grants programme on 19 August 2021 to take into account the reduction in the grants budget. In line with this, there are now two local grant rounds, one quick-response round, and two multi-board rounds.

UH/2021/100

462

Customer and Community Services

Connected and resilient communities: Albany

Inclusion of the word “safe” in the work programme scope following a presentation from SafeCity group and other stakeholders e.g. NZ Police, Business North Harbour regarding additional CCTV cameras in the Albany Village triangle.

Minor variation process – 22 July 2021

Table 1: Work programme change approved by the local board

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

32.    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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.    This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for quarter one of 2021/2022 from 1 July to 30 September 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.    The local board’s work programme contains a number of projects which delivered on Māori outcomes for July to September 2021. These include:

Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (ID 467)

·        Amber RAG status: progress on this project has been delayed due to COVID-19 Level 4 and 3 restrictions in Q1. Prior to lockdown restrictions, staff liaised with Ngati Manuhiri to expedite the installation of a sculpture in Albany and for Ngati Manuhiri to provide a face-to-face update at a local board workshop regarding progress and timelines for an unveiling and associated celebration event. Staff will follow up with Ngati Manuhiri once alert level restrictions are lifted and seek an update for the board on progress and timelines. Staff will scope options for delivery of other activities outlined in the work programme to support connections between Māori and the wider community, for instance, through Waitangi Day and Matariki or story telling opportunities.

Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori - Upper Harbour (ID 1323)

·        Matariki coincided with the July school holidays. The children's holiday programme was centred around te reo Māori, culture and customs. Programmes included learning te reo Māori, the meaning of Matariki, traditional games, weaving and Māori myths and legends. Te Wiki o te Reo Māori occurred during Lockdown and Albany Library promoted through the Beanstack app, an Auckland Libraries regional resource to support literacy, a te reo Māori online challenge aimed at families wanting to learn the language.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36.    This report is provided to enable the Upper Harbour 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

37.    The overall net operating result for the first three months of the financial year is only two per cent below the budget mainly due to lower operating revenue being offset by lower expenditure. 

38.    Revenue is below budget by forty-four per cent while expenditure is eleven percent below budget overall.

39.    Asset based services expenditure has continued with some disruptions caused by COVID-19 restrictions.

40.    Locally Driven Initiatives operating expenditure is below budget by forty-three per cent due to lockdown having an impact on the delivery of community projects.

41.    Capital expenditure delivery was below the budget by fifty-eight per cent and mainly focused on local asset renewals.

Financial Comments

42.    Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) is under budget by $289,000 for the year to date. This is primarily as a result of facility closures and lower maintenance activity, in response to alert level restrictions. LDI operational projects are currently $105,000 under budget. A variety of projects are yet to draw down on financial allocations as well as some projects are slightly behind schedule. 

43.    Capital spend of $431,000 represents investment in projects such as the sustainable sports park at Scott Point, walkway renewal at Fernhill Escarpment and playspace renewal at Greenhithe War Memorial Park.

44.    The complete Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B.

Revised Capex Budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53.    The local board will receive the next performance report for quarter two (1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021) in the first quarter of 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board quarter one 2021/2022 work programme update

125

b

Upper Harbour Local Board quarter one 2021/2022 financial performance

151

c

Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 CAPEX work programme

155

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Council-controlled Organisations quarterly update for quarter one 2021-2022

File No.: CP2021/18368

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To receive an update on the council-controlled organisations’ (CCOs) work programme items in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

2.      To adopt the updated Upper Harbour Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.      A number of general changes are proposed for the Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plans adopted at the 19 August 2021 Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting (UH/2021/101), as part of ongoing work to improve and refine the approach to engagement with CCOs. 

4.      The four substantive CCOs – Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare – have also provided updates to 5 November 2021 and may also propose specific changes.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Council-controlled Organisations update to 5 November 2021.

b)      adopt the updated Joint CCO 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

6.      Each local board has agreed an engagement approach with the four CCOs for the 2021-2022 local work programme (UH/2021/101). 

7.      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.

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

9.      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

 

 

10.    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.

11.    We are introducing these new reports gradually, so this first update may not include updates from all four CCOs.

12.    We expect to have updates from all four CCOs for all local board areas at the next update.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Changes proposed by Local Board Services

13.    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.

14.    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.

15.    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.

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

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

Auckland Transport

18.    Auckland Transport’s work programme update is available under Attachment B.

19.    The following lines are proposed to be removed from the engagement plan work programme:

·    Not progressing: Rame Rd Upgrade

·    Completed: 131 Oteha Valley Rd, Fairview Heights bus stop upgrades (PT Infrastructure)

Auckland Unlimited

20.    Auckland Unlimited’s work programme update is available under Attachment C.

Changes to the Auckland Unlimited work programme

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

22.    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)

23.    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. 

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

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

25.    Eke Panuku has not provided an update for this report. Eke Panuku will be joining the combined reporting framework in the next update.

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

Watercare

27.    Watercare’s work programme update is provided under Attachment D.

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 local board and Auckland Council’s substantive CCOs does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to will.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.    The local board will receive the next update in March 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board Joint CCO engament plan updated

171

b

Auckland Transport update

189

c

Auckland Unlimited update

201

d

Watercare update

203

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authoriser

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Māori Outcomes Annual Report - Te Pūrongo a te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021

File No.: CP2021/19117

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To present the annual Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report 2020-2021 shows how the council group is contributing to the 10 mana outcomes of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, and the LTP 10-year budget priorities.

3.      The council group published its first Māori Outcomes Report in 2019. This third edition flows on from earlier reports and provides information on performance, including how the council group has been supporting a Māori response and recovery from COVID-19. Each report aims to provide a comprehensive picture of annual progress to decision makers across the council group, Māori partners, elected members, leaders in governance, and whānau Māori.

4.      Highlights for the 2020-2021 year include:

·    approval by Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee of ‘Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau – a Māori outcomes performance measurement framework’

·    support for Māori led COVID-19 response and recovery initiatives through the Manaaki Fund 2020 which saw a total of $2.9m granted

·    the Māori Outcomes Fund achieving its highest ever annual spend of $17.6 million

·    Toi o Tāmaki / Auckland Art Gallery hosting the Toi Tū Toi Ora exhibition which was the largest exhibition in the 132-year history of the Gallery. Toi Tū Toi Ora received a record number of Māori visitors and showcased several up-and-coming and established Māori artists.

5.      A key learning for the year is the need to move towards a Māori-led funding approach by partnering with Māori organisations with similar aspirations and outcomes. Work is underway on this through a Māori-led initiatives fund.

6.      Separate to the annual Māori outcomes report is the 6-monthly measures report for Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau. The inaugural measures report for the July 2021 – Dec 2021 period will be presented to the PACE committee in the new year.

7.      The Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021 will be publicly published with copies distributed to key partners including mana whenua iwi and mataawaka entities.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the annual Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021: Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report

Due the size and complexity of the document, it will be circulated separately

207

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ashley Walker - Advisor - Maori Outcomes

Authoriser

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

 

 

Māori Outcomes Annual Report - Te Pūrongo a te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021

Due the size and complexity of the document, it will be circulated separately

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2021/17828

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide feedback on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 (the draft policy).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

·    the assessment of significance in terms of a continuum

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

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

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

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

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

·    ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

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

·    virtual workshops with community partners with demographic advisory panels

·    working with community partners to reach diverse groups.

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

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


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Significance and Engagement Policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation

213

b

Summary of regional feedback

253

c

Local Board specific feedback

261

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Authorisers

Lea van Heerden - Senior Parks Planner

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 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

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

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Upper Harbour Local Board input into Auckland Council's submission on Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2021/18528

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To receive the Upper Harbour Local Board input into Auckland Council’s submission on Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Bill (Resource Management – Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters – Amendment Bill).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (the Bill) was released on 19 October. The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve housing supply in Tier 1 council areas (i.e. New Zealand’s high growth cities) by speeding up implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by at least one year and enabling more medium density homes.

3.      Due to the limited three-week submission period, local board views on the Bill had to be provided by 9 November 2021 to enable those views to be included as an attachment to Auckland Council’s submission.

4.      As the Upper Harbour Local Board’s November business meeting was scheduled for 18 November 2021, the local board could not resolve its feedback at a business meeting.

5.      The local board’s formal feedback was agreed by the local board and approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board Chairperson using the following delegation process:

13

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

 

Resolution number UH/2020/47

MOVED by Member N Mayne, seconded by Member A Atkinson:  

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      delegate authority to the chairperson to approve the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, where timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

b)      restate resolution number UH/2019/138 b) iv) from the local board business meeting on 21 November 2019 as follows:

b)     agree to establish topic area leads to effectively and efficiently manage some aspects of the governance work of the local board for the 2019-2022 triennium, and confirm that topic area leads will:

iv)    lead the development of local board feedback on regional policies, plans and strategies relevant to the topic area and report back to the full local board for approval.

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

CARRIED

 

6.      A copy of the Upper Harbour Local Board feedback, submitted on 9 November 2021, is available under Attachment A of this agenda report.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board input into Auckland Council’s submission on Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Bill (Resource Management – Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters – Amendment Bill).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board feedback Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Bill

267

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2021/17749

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To present the updated governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The governance forward work calendar for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A to the agenda report. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.      The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·      ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·      clarifying what advice is expected and when

·      clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.      The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board governance forward work calendar

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance foward work calander - Jan 2022 to June 2022

273

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 November 2021

File No.: CP2021/17750

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Upper Harbour Local Board workshops were held on Thursday 11 and 25 November 2021. Copies of the workshop records are attached (refer to Attachments A and B).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 11 and 25 November 2021 (refer to Attachments A and B to the agenda report).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 11 November 2021

277

b

Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 25 November 2021

279

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board

09 December 2021

 

 

Local board members' reports - December 2021

File No.: CP2021/17751

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      An opportunity for members to provide an update on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the local board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal and written local board members’ reports.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 



[1] For the 12-month period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, compared to an average of the prior five years.