Agenda of Waitematā Local Board - Tuesday, 14 December 2021

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 30 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 Waitematā 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 5 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

9.1 Public Forum - Gael Baldock - social media use

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the local board about the Board’s use of social media.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Gael Baldock will be in attendance to speak about the use of social media by the Waitematā Local Board and members.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Gael Baldock for her presentation and attendance at the meeting.

9.2 Public Forum - John Pakenham, Little Libraries

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the board regarding the work being done on the Little Libraries programme in the area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. John Pakenham, Little Libraries, will be in attendance to address the board on the Little Libraries programme, and potential areas of collaboration with the Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank John Pakenham for his presentation and attendance at the meeting.

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.”

11 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) or Standing Order 1.9.1 (LBS 3.10.17) (revoke or alter a previous resolution) a Notice of Motion has been received from Deputy Chair Bonham and Member Gunthorp for consideration under item 13.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Cr Pippa Coom Monthly Report	11

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion – Member A Bonham to Recommend Plan Changes to AUP to Prohibit Recreational Helicopter Landings and Take-offs in Urban Residential Areas	29

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

Reallocation of budget from regenerative urban farm work programme 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/17683

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the reallocation of $70,000 from locally-driven initiatives operational expenditure from the 2021/2022 regenerative urban farm work programme line item.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In August 2020 the Waitematā Local Board approved $40,000 to fund the regenerative urban farm and low carbon diet engagement project, as part of its environmental work programme for the 2020/2021 financial year (resolution WTM/2020/188).

3. The aim of this project was to explore the feasibility of setting up an urban farm in the Waitematā Local Board area. A total of 13 sites were assessed by a number of experts.

4. In June 2021, a budget of $70,000 was allocated to the regenerative urban farm work programme to use the feasibility study and site assessment criteria developed in 2020/2021 to form strategic goals for a regenerative urban farm framework (WTM/2021/130).

5. Subsequent to the findings of the regenerative urban farm feasibility study completed in July 2021, staff have not been able to identify a suitable site on either private or public land to progress another urban farm within the Waitematā Local Board area.

6. Since a suitable site was not identified, Environmental Services staff recommend that the $70,000 funding approved by the local board for further development of the regenerative urban farm in 2021/2022 be reallocated.

7. At the 28 September 2021 workshop, the local board identified the following priorities to consider for budget reallocation, after receiving further advice from staff:

i. advocacy for community gardens and urban farms on park land

ii. support Kelmarna Community Garden Trust

iii. enable accessibility to the central city library green roof.

8. Staff have identified the following activities for reallocation of funds:

· expand Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme 2021/2022 ($20,000)

· further support Kelmarna Gardens’ regenerative practices ($15,000)

· enable a live feed for the installation and general viewing of the central city library living roof for 12 months and contribute towards native plants for the roof ($19,000)

· expand the 2021/2022 climate activator and climate network work programmes ($16,000).

9. Following the local board’s approval of the proposed reallocation, staff will continue to deliver the programmes with their increased budgets.

10. Staff will provide project delivery updates to the local board through the quarterly 2021/2022 work programme updates.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approve the reallocation of $70,000 from locally-driven initiatives operational expenditure from the regenerative urban farm work programme to:

· 2021/2022 Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme ($20,000)

· Kelmarna Community Garden Trust ($15,000)

· the central library living roof project ($19,000)

· 2021/2022 climate action activator and climate action network work programmes ($16,000).

Horopaki

Context

11. In August 2020 the Waitematā Local Board approved funding for the regenerative urban farm and low carbon diet engagement project, as part of its environmental work programme for the 2020/2021 financial year (WTM/2020/188).

12. The aim of this project was to explore the feasibility of setting up an urban farm in the Waitematā Local Board area. A total of 13 sites were assessed by a number of experts.

13. The site assessment criteria were developed in a co-design workshop with subject matter experts from Auckland Council’s Connected Communities, Community Facilities, Heritage, Development Programme Office, Parks, Sports and Recreation and Waste Solutions; alongside Eke Panuku and Auckland Transport, For the Love of Bees and other key members of the urban farming and organic community and residents.

14. Mana whenua were also identified as a key stakeholder and featured as a case study for the regenerative urban farm feasibility study. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei was engaged with to seek their feedback and an interview was conducted to learn about the Pourewa māra kai.

15. The site assessment criteria was used to assess sites for their suitability as a regenerative urban farm through the following lenses: impact, social, physical, compliance and economic.

16. There were no private, Auckland Transport or Eke Panuku owned sites identified as available to be assessed at this time.

17. Proposed locations on council land, as suggested by key stakeholders, are also not feasible. Some of these locations, such as Albert Park, are scheduled under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

18. Where a proposed location contains a site scheduled under the Auckland Unitary Plan, be that heritage, mana whenua and/or notable trees site, a consent is required. A consent is required for any activity that is not permitted in the relevant overlay activity table as specified in the Auckland Unitary Plan, particularly if the permitted activity does not meet the provided standard.

19. Specialist technical reports, prepared by external consultants, such as a heritage impact assessment, a cultural values assessment and/or an arboricultural report would be required to be submitted with any resource consent application. Conditions may be imposed as part of a granted consent, specifically relating to heritage, notable trees and/or cultural measures to mitigate effects of the proposal.

20. In June 2021, a budget of $70,000 was allocated to the 2021/2022 regenerative urban farm work programme to use the feasibility study and site assessment criteria to form strategic goals for a regenerative urban farm framework (WTM/2021/130). The framework would then provide a detailed plan to implement an urban farm.

21. The findings of the regenerative urban farm feasibility study completed in July 2021 indicated there was not a suitable site on either private or public land to progress another urban farm within Waitematā Local Board area at this time.

22. At a workshop on 28 September 2021, staff recommended the budget for the urban farm work programme be reallocated. After receiving advice from staff, the local board identified the following priorities to consider for budget reallocation:

i. advocacy for community gardens and urban farms on park land

· continue to explore and advise how the local board can advocate to develop community gardens and urban farms on parks’ land in the city centre

ii. support Kelmarna Community Garden Trust

· reallocate funding to Kelmarna Community Garden Trust to assist their work in becoming a regenerative farm

iii. enable accessibility to the central city library green roof

· reallocate funding to support the green roof project to become accessible to the public.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Since a suitable site for an urban farm has not been identified, Environmental Services staff recommend that the $70,000 funding approved by the local board for further development of the regenerative urban farm in 2021/2022 (WTM/2021/130) be reallocated.

24. Staff have identified the following activities for reallocation of funds:

· expand Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme 2021/2022 ($20,000)

· further support Kelmarna Gardens’ regenerative practices ($15,000)

· enable a live feed for the installation and general viewing of the central library living roof for 12 months and contribute towards native plants for the roof ($19,000)

· expand the 2021/2022 climate activator and climate network work programmes ($16,000).

Advocacy for community gardens and urban farms on park land

25. Currently the local board has $13,000 in the Waitemata`s gardens, food and sustainability work programme 2021/2022 to support local community garden activity in the local board area. This includes a $8,000 funding agreement with Gardens4Health to support current community gardens and new groups that are interested in starting up community gardens.

26. The local board also supports local community grants’ applications through the contestable funding rounds, which are assessed against the priorities in the local board plan.

27. The consultation on the Local Parks Management Plan for the board area, that is expected to take place next year, will also provide the local board an opportunity to engage with the public and understand more about their views on how park land should be used.

28. Part of this consultation could include seeking public views on different types of projects that could be delivered in local parks to support local residents to engage in gardening and making sustainable food choices.

29. Over time, this work will help guide the board on its advocacy for more community gardens and urban farms in its local board area.

Expanding Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme

30. The local board has expressed a need to advocate for more community gardens and urban farms on public land in Waitematā.

31. To bolster this support, staff recommend that $20,000 is reallocated to the Customer and Communities Services: Waitematā gardens, food and sustainability work programme. This will increase Gardens4Health’s assistance with community gardens.

Supporting Kelmarna Community Garden Trust

32. The local board indicated that it would like to see funds contributed to Kelmarna Community Gardens Trust to further support their regenerative practices.

33. Staff recommend $15,000 is allocated to Kelmarna Community Gardens Trust to top up its existing community grant. Connected Communities’ Strategic Broker - Waitematā will advise the local board on the details of activities planned for this budget including key performance indicators and will report back through the quarterly reporting process through the local board’s community garden work programme.

Enabling accessibility to the central library living roof

34. The local board also indicated its support for the central library’s living roof project.

35. Staff recommend that $19,000 be allocated towards this project. This funding will provide for the set up and subscription of a website portal that will enable Aucklanders to view live footage of the installation and general view of the roof for a 12-month period of the central library’s green roof through a timelapse camera.

36. Funding will also go towards native plants, sourced from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s Pourewa Nursery for the living roof.

Expanding climate action activities

37. Staff recommend the remaining $16,000 be redirected to expand the current climate action activator and climate action network work programmes for this 2021/2022 financial year. The proposed reallocation will contribute $6,000 to the climate action activator and $10,000 to the climate action network budget.

38. A budget of $6,000 will increase the climate action activator budget from $40,000 to $46,000 and will contribute towards:

· survey of all business district improvements within the Waitematā Local Board area and conduct interviews to identify low carbon, climate action, and other sustainability activities that could be incorporated into their business plans. An evaluation report on the survey results will be shared with the Waitematā Local Board and staff to inform future planning for actions with business improvement districts.

39. Staff also propose to reallocate $10,000 to the climate action network work programme, which will increase the budget from $11,000 to $21,000. This funding will contribute towards the following additional activities:

· two events and video content development involving the Songswriters4ClimateAction initiative to be shared with the climate action network. Under the current COVID-19 restrictions this initiative will be able to continue in an online environment

· support and participate at community events with council’s Live Lightly market stall promoting the Waitematā climate action programme, which will include Grey Lynn Farmers Market, Grey Lynn Car Booth Market, Parnell Community Centre Farmers Market, City Centre Market Freyberg Place and Ellen Melville Centre. Event organisers have indicated that these markets will be recommencing this financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

40. The activities identified for reallocation are recommended based on their positive climate impacts. The key impacts are listed for each project in Table 1.

Table 1. Proposed activities for reallocation and their positive climate impacts

Activity	Climate impact
Expanding Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme	· increases biodiversity, enriches soils and enhances the surrounding ecosystem · provides a low-carbon, resilient, local food system that enables local access to fresh and healthy food
Supporting Kelmarna Community Garden Trust
Enabling access and planting for central library living roof	· allows for stormwater retention and filtration · reduces pollutants entering stormwater system · improves air quality by reducing airborne pollutants, particulates and dust from inner city environment · increases biodiversity · captures and stores carbon dioxide while reducing building carbon emissions
Expanding climate action activator and climate action network work programmes	· increases community climate action to involve more local residents and businesses reducing or responding to climate change in personal lifestyle or local community-based ways, creating new social norms · identifies strategic opportunities and collaborations that will build on existing local activity in reducing emissions and strengthen community resilience · excels the transition towards a low carbon future

41. Reallocating budget towards these activities will have a range of positive impacts on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. The regenerative urban farm work programme was developed through a collaborative approach by council departments. Several departments including Chief Sustainability Office, Community Delivery, Community Facilities, Development Programme Office, Environmental Services, Healthy Waters, Local Board Services, Parks, Sports and Recreation and Waste Solutions were represented in a working group that consulted on the development of the programme, the delivery of the feasibility study and the scoping of alternative solutions to present to the local board at a series of workshops. Council-controlled organisations, Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku were also involved in the feasibility study.

43. The proposed reallocation of the urban farm budget has been a collaborative effort and is agreed upon between Connected Communities, Environmental Services and Healthy Waters.

44. Staff from various departments will continue to work together to support the local board where possible in achieving their aspirations for Waitematā.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. The proposed activities for reallocation have been recommended to all align with the local board’s plan outcome, that is ‘Waitematā is future-focused, green and resilient to climate change’.

46. At a workshop on 28 September 2021 the local board indicated priorities to support advocacy for community gardens and urban farms on park land, to support Kelmarna Community Garden Trust and enable accessibility for the central library’s living roof. The reallocation of funds will address these priorities, alongside other work such as the consultation on the Local Parks Management Plan for the board area.

47. The upcoming Local Parks Management Plan consultation will provide an opportunity for the local board to engage with the public and understand more about their views on how park land should be used. Part of this consultation could include seeking public views on different types of projects that could be delivered in local parks to support local residents to engage in gardening and making sustainable food choices.

48. This work will help guide the board on its advocacy for more community gardens and urban farms in its local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. Mana whenua was identified as a key stakeholder and a case study for the regenerative urban farm feasibility study. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei was engaged with to seek their feedback and an interview was conducted to learn about the Pourewa māra kai.

50. Further engagement with mana whenua will continue as native plants will be locally-sourced from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s Pourewa Nursery for the central library’s living roof.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51. The reallocation of $70,000 from the regenerative urban farm will not require any additional expenditure from the local board. Table 2 below breaks down the proposed reallocation of the budget.

Table 2. urban farm budget reallocation breakdown

Projects to be reallocated to	Amount of funding
2021/2022 Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme	$20 000
Kelmarna Community Garden Trust	$15 000
Central library living roof	$19 000
2021/2022 climate action activator work programme	$6 000
2021/2022 climate action network work programme	$10 000
Total	$70 000

52. The reallocation of $20,000 to Waitematā’s gardens, food and sustainability work programme will increase its current locally-driven initiatives budget from $13,000 to $48,000. This will enable Gardens4Health to further its assistance with community gardens.

53. Staff recommend reallocating $15,000 to Kelmarna Community Gardens Trust to support its regenerative practices. If Kelmarna is successful in its application for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant Programme 2021/2022, this reallocation will help top up its community-supported agriculture operation. The council received an application from Kelmarna requesting a total amount of $25,773 from the grant programme. The decision for this grant will be made by Environment and Climate Change Committee on 7 December 2021.

54. A contribution of $19,000 to the central library living roof project will go towards a 12-month website subscription that will host the viewing of the living roof. The funding will also pay for native plants for the living roof, to be sourced from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s Pourewa Nursery. The construction of the living roof is funded through Healthy Waters’ regional capital expenditure budget.

55. Staff recommend the remaining $16,000 of the urban farm budget be redirected to expand the current climate action activator and climate action network work programmes for this 2021/2022 financial year.

56. The reallocation of $6,000 will increase the climate action activator budget from $40,000 to $46,000. The climate action network work programme’s budget will increase from $11,000 to $21,000.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. The risks and mitigations of the reallocation of funding are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations of the reallocation of funding from regenerative urban farm

Risk	Likelihood	Mitigation
Increased Waitematā gardens, food and sustainability budget is not spent before end of 2021/2022 financial year	Low	This increased budget will be administered to Gardens4Health in the form of a funding agreement, who will then coordinate a funding round for community garden groups in the area to apply. This is accomplishable before the end of the year.
Kelmarna Community Garden Trust does not spend the additional budget before end of 2021/2022 financial year	Low	Kelmarna Garden’s operations have doubled in the last four years and they are seeking to expand further through the Regional Environment Natural Heritage grant, so it is likely these funds will also help them grow faster.
Central City Library living roof reallocation budget is not spent before end of 2021/2022 financial year	Low	The website subscription and plants can be purchased ahead of time if necessary. However, the project’s existing budget has been affected due to cost impacts from COVID-19, therefore any additional contributions will help significantly.
Climate action activator and climate action network budgets are not spent before end of 2021/2022 financial year	Low	Additional activities have been purposefully scoped to be achieved this financial year. This includes events, which have been confirmed to proceed in the current COVID-19 restrictions.

58. The COVID-19 Protection Framework is unlikely to affect these proposed additional activities. However, where a work programme activity cannot be completed on time or to budget, due to unforeseen circumstances, this will be signalled to the local board at the earliest opportunity.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. Following the local board’s approval of the proposed reallocation, staff will continue to deliver the programmes with their increased budgets.

60. Staff will provide project delivery updates to the local board through the quarterly 2021/2022 work programme updates.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Linh Tra - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

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

File No.: CP2021/17717

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To formalise local board 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 Waitematā 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 ⇩	List of changes proposed for local board area	49
b ⇩	Summary report of consultation feedback on speed limit changes	51

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

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

File No.: CP2021/18984

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The key activity updates from this period are:

· Completion of Waitematā Local Board Community Grants and Multi-board Round One (ID 555)

· Completion of the initial concept plan for Basque Park (ID 20409)

· Completion of Home Reserve and play space renewal (ID 20508)

· Renewal of Outhwaite Park playspace and park (ID 18237)

· Comprehensive renewal of Pt Erin Pool (ID 2549)

· Renewal Victoria Street path (ID 19072)

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

· LB event - Parnell Festival of Roses (ID 554)

· LB event - Regenerative urban farm and healthy sustainable diet engagement programme (ID 882)

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

· The net operational financial performance of the local board is below the revised year-to-date budget (96 percent).

· Revenue is unfavourable to budget for the year to date, which has been caused by the COVID-19 restrictions placed on local facilities.

· From the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed by year-end. For those projects affected by COVID-19 restrictions, we will monitor progress closely in quarter two and present options to the board in the next performance report.

· Capital projects underway or completed include the Central Library roof remediation, Outhwaite Park playground and car park renewal, Symonds Street heritage toilet renewal, restoration of the Myers Park Caretaker Cottage and the path upgrade at Victoria Park.

6. The Customer and Community Services CAPEX budget have 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 Waitematā Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

· Arts, Community and Events;

· Parks, Sport and Recreation;

· Libraries and Information;

· Connected Communities;

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew;

· Community Leases;

· External Partnerships;

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

· Auckland Unlimited (formerly ATEED)

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by the outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

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

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

11. Impacts on individual activities are reported in the work programme

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

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

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

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

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates

14. The key achievements in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2020/2021 include:

· Delivery of diverse programming for vulnerable communities (ID 548)

· Extension of hours of library services and programming (ID 1389)

· Completion of Waitematā Local Board Community Grants and Multi-board Round One (ID 555)

· Delivery of 191 volunteer hours in the ecological and environmental programme (ID 1220)

· Completion of the initial concept plan for Basque Park (ID 20409)

· Completion of Home Reserve and play space renewal (ID 20508)

· Completion of Weona Westmere area tree planting (ID 26100)

· Restoration of Myers Park Caretakers Cottage and Shed (ID 19166)

· Renewal of Outhwaite Park playspace and park (ID 18237)

· Establishment of Piki Toi programme (ID 543)

· Comprehensive renewal of Pt Erin Pool (ID 2549)

· Renewal Victoria Street path (ID 19072)

Activities with significant issues

Arts, Community and Events work programme

15. In the Arts, Community and Events work programme, one activity in progress but facing significant issues (red). Activities with significant impact are discussed below:

Table 1: Arts, Community and Events activities with significant impact

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

ID 554 LB event - Parnell Festival of Roses

Red

In progress

With the current COVID-19 alert level restrictions and the Erebus Memorial construction project expected to commence shortly, the board needs to consider the cancellation of the 2021 festival. A cancellation decision date of 18 October 2021 was agreed upon.

Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme

16. In the Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme, five activities are in progress but are delayed (amber) and one activity was cancelled in the period July to September 2021 (grey). Activities with significant impact are discussed below:

Table 2: Community Facilities activities with significant impact

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
ID Central Library - comprehensive roof remediation (areas 1 through 12)	Amber	In-progress	The roof structure is very complex and the works are to be undertaken in stages. Work has been done on planning waterproofing has commenced. This project is expected to be completed by February 2022 pending COVID-19 restrictions.
ID 23785 Central Library - replace level 3 toilet	Amber	In progress	The work is being evaluated in line with the allocated budget and the tenders received. Physical works to be completed in FY2021/2022.
ID 15395 Cox's Bay to Wharf Rd Greenway - renew pedestrian bridges and pathways	Amber	In progress	Construction work was delayed due to Covid-19 Level 4, but it resumed in September. Physical works contract completion is now planned for early April 2022 due to a change in the delivery programme.
ID 18237 Outhwaite Park - renew playspace and adjacent carpark	Amber	In progress	Construction work was delayed due to Covid-19 Level 4, but it resumed in September. Completion is expected in early November 2021.
ID 20686 Renewal of the Symonds Street heritage toilets. FY18/19 - investigation and designFY19/20 to FY20/21 - concept design (consultation, seismic assessment, obtain required consents)FY20/21 to FY21/22 - physical works	Amber	In progress	Construction work was delayed due to Covid-19 Level 4, but it resumed in September. Physical works completion is expected in early November 2021.
ID 26041 Newmarket Park - stabilise slope with planting	Grey	Cancelled	This project is to be cancelled due to the identified scope no longer requiring stabilising, so no further works are required here.

Community Leases work programme

17. In the Community Leases work programme, one activity is on hold (amber) and one activity is cancelled (Grey). Activities with significant impact are discussed below:

Table 3: Community Leases activities with significant impact

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
ID 1093 19 Salisbury Street, Herne Bay	Amber	On Hold	Due to COVID-19 the expiry date of the group's loan with Council's Parks Sports and Recreation needs to change. Once these changes are confirmed, staff will complete a lease renewal to the club, with variation, to align the lease expiry date to the group's loan expiry date.
ID 1099 510 Richmond Rd, Grey Lynn	Grey	Cancelled	This has been cancelled from the Community Leases work programme because it is a centre management agreement managed by Connected Communities.

Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme

18. Most Infrastructure and Environment Services programmes use quarter one to finalise contracts and procurement. As such the impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown that began on 17 August have generally not significantly impacted the work programme for this quarter.

19. In the Infrastructure and Environment Services work programme, there is one activity in progress but facing significant issues (red). Activities with significant impact are discussed below:

Table 4: Infrastructure and Environment Services activities with significant impact

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

ID 882 Regenerative urban farm and healthy sustainable diet engagement programme

Red

In progress

Following a feasibility study from 2020/2021, the board was advised that setting up a new urban farm was not feasible at this time. Suggestions for reallocation of funds were presented for the board to give feedback. In quarter two, staff will present a reallocation report to seek Boards feedback.

Changes to the local board work programme

Cancelled activities

20. These activities are cancelled:

Table 5: Work programme activities that have been cancelled.

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
ID 26041 Newmarket Park - stabilise slope with planting	Grey	Cancelled	This project is to be cancelled due to the identified scope no longer requiring stabilising, so no further works are required here.
ID 1099 510 Richmond Rd, Grey Lynn	Grey	Cancelled	This has been cancelled from the Community Leases work programme because it is a centre management agreement managed by Connected Communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

22. 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

23. 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The following activities have a direct Māori outcome focus or contribute towards specific Māori outcomes in the local board plan:

Table 6: Work Programme activities that contribute towards Māori outcomes

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

ID 543 Māori Responsiveness: Local Māori aspirations in Waitematā

Green

In progress

Staff delivered programming and worked with Māori organisations. This included a Piki Toi - Book launch event, working with Māori Wardens in the city centre area around homelessness, antisocial behaviour and community safety initiatives. The contract has been drafted for stage two of rohe stocktake report and planning has commenced for the next hui.

ID 1390 Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori - Waitematā

Green

In progress

Libraries continue to provide programmes during COVID- 19 lockdown. The online programme and support were well received by patrons that attended.

26. Waitematā Local Board continue to develop relationships with mana whenua and hosted one quarterly zoom hui with iwi in the period July to September 2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. This report is provided to enable the Waitematā 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.

28. Financial Performance

29. Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services is below the revised budget by $645,000 for the year to date, while the Locally Driven Initiatives operational projects are currently on budget. Projects will be monitored closely, and any delivery risks will be brought to the board as part of the next performance report.

30. Capital spends of $3.1 million represents investments in the Central Library roof remediation, Outhwaite Park playground and carpark renewal, Symonds Street heritage toilet renewal, restoration of the Myers Park Caretaker Cottage, path upgrades at Victoria Park, as well as other projects across the local board area.

31. The complete Waitemata Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in attachment B.

Revised Capex Budget

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

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

34. 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.

35. 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.

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

37. The Customer and Community Services Capex work programme financial allocations have been updated in accordance with the carryforwards (refer to attachment C).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. 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.

39. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitematā Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022 Q1 Report July to September	183
b ⇩	Financial Performance to 30 September 2021	219
c ⇩	CCS Capex work programme	225

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Sarah Jacknife - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

Changes to local board members appointments and delegations

File No.: CP2021/18527

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider current vacancies across the local board members portfolio lead topics and delegations and seek appointment of board members to these positions.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Elected members participate as representatives of the local board on a number of external community organisations.

3. At its 3 December 2019 business meeting the local board resolved (Resolution number WTM/2019/256) to:

· appoint topic portfolio leads and co portfolio leads to act as champions for the identified areas.

· appoint members to be a point of consultation for staff on all applications for general landowner consent, appoint members to be point of consultation for staff on proposed asset renewal works, and appoint members for landowner consents for filming and for event notifications and event landowner consents

· delegate to nominated board members to have the authority to provide local board views on applications for liquor licences

· delegate to nominated board members to provide views on whether a resource consent should proceed as non-notified, limited notified or fully notified application and also delegate to nominated board members to speak at hearings on notified resource consent applications

· agree to review these appointments and delegations by 27 April 2021.

4. Also, on 3 December 2019, the local board resolved to appoint board members to external community groups and organisations (Resolution number WTM/2019/257)

5. At its 18 February 2020 meeting the local board resolved to appoint nominated members to additional identified relevant groups (Resolution number WTM/2020/25).

6. The local board also conducted a review of local board members topic portfolio and appointment allocations in April 2021.

7. In October 2021 Member Sarah Trotman resigned from her position as a local board member of the Waitematā Local Board. This created some vacancies across the portfolio topics and delegations and external appointments.

8. At the 16 November 2021 business meeting the local board confirmed its appointment of Glenda Fryer to the vacancy created by the resignation of former member Sarah Trotman.

9. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to consider the vacancies as well as consider any further changes to the portfolio topics and external appointments and delegations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) consider and approve new appointments for board members to the portfolio topic areas, external appointments and delegations

Horopaki

Context

10. The practice of appointing local board members as topic area/portfolio leads support the local board to undertake its governance role in an efficient and effective way.

11. The topic portfolio area leads would:

· act as a champion for the topic area in full local board conversations

· focus on work programme activities/projects within their topic area

· maintain relationships with key stakeholders

· understand relevant community needs and preferences.

12. Leads may also:

· be appointed as the nominated local board member to provide feedback on behalf of the local board on relevant matters (e.g., landowner consents) and appointed to related external organisations

· undertake learning and development opportunities and attend conferences (using their individual development budget provided as part of the Kura Kāwana development programme) relevant to the topic area

· highlight relevant issues and emerging priorities during local board plan and work programme development

· act as a key contact for community groups and members of the public on the topic area.

13. Topic area leads would enable individual local board members to use existing or build new knowledge and expertise in the topic area and enable other members to focus their time on other parts of the governance workload.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The following members are appointed as topic portfolio holders and co portfolio holders:

Table 1 Current portfolio areas set up

Local Board Portfolio Areas	Portfolio holder	Co portfolio holder
Arts, Culture and Events	Kerrin Leoni	Alexandra Bonham
Māori outcomes	Kerrin Leoni	Richard Northey
Community Development	Richard Northey
Environment and Infrastructure	Julie Sandilands	Alexandra Bonham
Parks, Sport and Recreation	Adriana Avendaño Christie	Richard Northey
Local Economic Development		Adriana Avendaño Christie
Transport	Graeme Gunthorp	Julie Sandilands
Planning and Heritage	Alexandra Bonham	Graeme Gunthorp

15. Currently the following members are appointed to the external community groups and organisations listed below:

Table 2 – current local board members appointments to external organisations:

External organisation	Appointee	Alternate
*Business Associations*
Heart of the City	Richard Northey	Graeme Gunthorp
Newmarket Business Association	Graeme Gunthorp
Parnell Business Association		Adriana Avendaño Christie
Ponsonby Business Association	Adriana Avendaño Christie	Alexandra Bonham
K Road Business Association	Alex Bonham	Richard Northey
Uptown Business Association	Kerrin Leoni	Julie Sandilands
Grey Lynn Business Association	Julie Sandilands	Kerrin Leoni
*Other*
Ponsonby Community Centre Board	Richard Northey	Alexandra Bonham
Grey Lynn Community Centre Committee	Adriana Avendaño Christie	Julie Sandilands
Auckland Central CAB and Ponsonby/Grey Lynn CAB	Richard Northey
CRL Aotea Community Liaison Group	Graeme Gunthorp	Richard Northey
CRL Karangahape Road Liaison Group	Richard Northey	Alexandra Bonham
CRL Mt Eden Community Liaison Group	Adriana Avendaño Christie
CRL Albert Street Business Forum		Graeme Gunthorp
CRL C1 and C2 Community Liaison Group	Graeme Gunthorp	Julie Sandilands

16. Currently the following members are appointed to internal groups as listed below:

Table 3 – local board members appointments to internal organisations

Internal organisation	Lead	Alternate
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board	Richard Northey	Kerrin Leoni
Ponsonby Park Project Control Steering Group	Graeme Gunthorp	Adriana Avendaño Christie

17. Currently the following members are appointed to liaise with the following residents associations:

Table 4 – local board members appointments to residents’ associations:

Residents Associations	Lead
Auckland City Centre Residents Group	Richard Northey
Parnell Community Trust
Parnell Community Committee
St Mary’s Bay Residents Association	Adriana Avendaño Christie
Grafton Residents Association	Kerrin Leoni
Herne Bay Residents Association	Alexandra Bonham
Freemans Bay Residents Association	Graeme Gunthorp
Grey Lynn Residents Association	Julie Sandilands
Western Bays Residents Association

18. Additionally, in February 2020 the local board resolved (Resolution number WTM/2020/25) to add further identified groups, and appointed members to those groups.

Table 5 – local board members appointments to further identified groups:

Other
Ports of Auckland Community Reference Group	Alexandra Bonham	Richard Northey
Meola Stream Community Liaison Group	Julie Sandilands	Adriana Avendaño Christie
Taskforce on Alcohol and Community Safety in the Central City	Joint lead – Richard Northey Joint lead - Adriana Avendaño Christie

19. Current Appointments and Delegations:

The table below shows the delegated board members who provide feedback on behalf of the local board:

Table 6 Waitemata Local Board Members Delegations

Delegation	Lead	Alternate
General landowner consents (excluding for filming and events)	Member Adriana Avendaño Christie	Chair Richard Northey
Landowner consents for filming		Member Adriana Avendaño Christie
Events landowner consents	Member Kerrin Leoni	Member Alexandra Bonham
Liquor licences	Chair Richard Northey	Member Alexandra Bonham
Resource consent feedback	Member Alexandra Bonham	Member Graeme Gunthorp
Notified resource consents	Member Alexandra Bonham	Member Graeme Gunthorp

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. These decisions are procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. This report recommends the appointment of nominated local board members to ensure that council can undertake its operational and statutory duties in a timely manner, while receiving local board input and decision-making in matters that are of local importance.

22. Changes to local board members topic area allocations will be communicated with relevant staff from the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report seeks to appoint nominated local board members to perform particular functions.

24. Any local board member who is appointed as a nominated local board member should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. It is advisable that the local board consider the following potential risks with its approach to appoint topic portfolio leads.

Risks	Mitigation
A member may provide direction or views which do not reflect those of the full local board	Using the workshop process as the mechanism for all local board members to receive updates and provide governance direction
Staff may seek direction from a topic area lead instead of the full local board, or seek direction from a topic area lead prior to the full local board, resulting in duplication of work
Key knowledge and information on a topic may be retained with the topic area lead and not shared with the whole local board
A topic area lead may enter into discussions at the management or operational level if meeting regularly with staff without a clear governance purpose for the discussion.	Local board members are reminded of the limited resources available to the topic portfolio leads
Local board members may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests	Local board members are encouraged to disclose memberships of external organisations in the conflict of interest register.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Following local board decision, staff will inform stakeholders of any changes.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Carlos Rahman - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2021/17719

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· the assessment of significance in terms of a continuum

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

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

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

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

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

· ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

That the Waitematā 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	253
b ⇩	Summary of regional feedback	293
c ⇩	Waitematā Local Board Specific Feedback	301

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2021/18817

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2022 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

· alphabetical order of surname

· pseudo-random order; or

· random order.

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ballot order effects and Auckland Council elections_November 2021	311

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

14 December 2021

Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update: Quarter One, 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/17523

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. Changes are shown in Attachment A, which include Appendices A-D which outline the work programme updates from Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited and Watercare.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update for Quarter One 2021/2022

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

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

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

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

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

· Additional work programme items, and proposed engagement level

· Proposed changes to the engagement approach with the local board

· Proposed changes to the extent of community engagement

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Changes proposed by Local Board Services

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Transport

17. Auckland Transport’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided in Attachment A (Appendix A).

18. Auckland Transport has proposed adding the following projects:

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Wayfinding Project

· LBP – Multiple Modes - Davis Crescent, Newmarket.

Auckland Unlimited

19. Auckland Unlimited’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided in Attachment A (Appendix B).

Changes to the Auckland Unlimited work programme

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

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

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

· Sponsored Events (i.e., Elemental)

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

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

23. These proposed changes are reflected in Attachment A (Appendix B).

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

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

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

Watercare

26. Watercare’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided in Attachment A (Appendix D).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

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

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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

38. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitemata Local Board joint CCO Engagement Plan	319

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Carlos Rahman - Senior Local Board Advisor

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Trina Thompson - 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.

Chair	Richard Northey, (ONZM)
Deputy Chair	Alexandra Bonham
Members	Adriana Avendano Christie
	Glenda Fryer
	Graeme Gunthorp
	Kerrin Leoni
	Julie Sandilands

Authors	Gabriel Ford - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager