Agenda of Franklin Local Board - Tuesday, 22 February 2022

The Chair will open the meeting and welcome everyone present.

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 Franklin Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 December 2021, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements:

a) Josephine Elworthy, Clevedon Trails and Judy Donavan, Pukekohe Tramping Club

b) Kiriwaitai Wilson

c) Ashleigh (Beatle) Brougham

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 Franklin Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation - Kawakawa Bay Boat Club

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Andrea Couldrey and Derek Nielsen from the Kawakawa Boat Club will be in attendance to speak to the board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Andrea Couldrey, Secretary/Treasurer, and Derek Nielsen, committee member from the Kawakawa Boat Club will address the meeting to discuss options and ideas for parking at the boat ramps at Kawakawa Bay.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Andrea Couldrey, Secretary Treasurer and Derek Nielsen, committee member of the Kawakawa Boat Club for their attendance and presentation regarding options for parking at the boat ramps at Kawakawa Bay.

8.2 Deputation - Homelands

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Connie Clarkson will be in attendance to present on behalf of Homelands.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Connie Clarkson will be presenting “an overview of what Homelands and Peter Gordon are doing in the rural South Auckland area as the nation’s foodbowl (Local Board Plan Outcome 1 key initiative) for the board’s consideration”.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Connie Clarkson for her attendance and presentation on Homelands activity and on possible opportunities for local producers.

b) request that the Franklin Economic Advisor assess this opportunity and return to the board with advice on options for board or other council organisation support for consideration.

8.3 Deputation - Innovating Franklin

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Mike Marr and Amanda Mills will be in attendance to represent Innovating Franklin.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A presentation on Innovating Franklin and what this company is doing in the Franklin Local Board area will be delivered by Mike Marr and Amanda Mills.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) thank Mike Marr and Amanda Mills for their attendance and presentation on Innovating Franklin’s work in the local board area.

b) request that the Franklin Local Economic Advisor assess any opportunities and return to the board with advice on options for board or other council organisation support for consideration.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Auckland Transport - Franklin Local Board update February 2022

File No.: CP2022/00777

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Franklin Local Board on Transport related matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The purpose of the report is to provide an update on transport related items including:

· Otau Mountain Road

· Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw

· Forward Work Programme Update

· Pukekohe to Papakura electrification

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport (AT) February update report.

Horopaki

Context

3. AT is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. AT reports on a regular basis to local boards, as set out in the Local Board Engagement Plan. This reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

4. This section of the report contains information about relevant projects, issues and initiatives.

Otau Mountain Road

5. Rayonier, a professional logging company, have the harvesting rights to the Greenridge blook adjacent to the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park. After consideration of options it was deemed by Rayonier that the only viable option for extracting the logs was via Otau Mountain Road. Otau Mountain Road is a legal public road and as such logging trucks can use the road without any special consent from Auckland Transport.

6. As the date for harvesting came closer local residents became increasingly concerned about a number of issues, and in particular safety. Rayonier had been engaging with the community well in advance of the proposed commencement of logging.

7. As concerns increased the matter was escalated within AT and with Rayonier, Watercare, Regional Parks, Local Board Services and members Fulljames and Bell we have been working towards are solution that enables logging extraction, but minimises risk.

8. In the run into the new year’s break there were two meetings, on line, with the residents Rayonier, elected members and AT. There was also an on-site meeting. The key issues were identified noise, dust, speed, safety, maintenance and engine breaking.

9. Rayonier has worked the trucking firms, transporting the logs, to manage engine breaking and speed, through driver education and an agreement to reduce speed. AT has also worked Rayonier to expedite signage and advised residents that at the reduced speeds the operation was deemed low risk.

10. In 2022 AT plan to continue with maintenance as necessary and provide regular updates by email.

Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw

11. Auckland Transport (AT) is proposing this new bylaw to consolidate five former bylaws which cover the regulation of special activities on the roads throughout Tāmaki Makaurau. The five incorporated bylaws are all either expired or situated to do so in 2022:

· Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015

· Rodney District Council General Bylaw 1998 (chapter 6: stock on roads)

· Franklin District Council Livestock on Roads Bylaw 2010

· Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

· Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

12. AT determined that a single bylaw encompassing all activities in the road corridor will make it easier for members of the public to find information about regulations, and for AT to regulate activities in a consistent and appropriate way. This is also an opportunity to account for recent emerging developments in transport, so that we can future-proof our regulations.

13. Public consultation is focusing on efforts on engaging with businesses and individuals who may be directly impacted by the proposed changes.

14. AT is seeking industry insights and understandings of impact to ensure the final bylaw is fit for purpose and responds adequately to your needs and concerns.

15. There has been concern amongst Local Boards about the timeframes and as a consequence, workshops are in the process of being organised.

Forward Works Programme Update

16. On 23 November 2021 senior managers from AT presented, at a Franklin Local Board workshop, on its forward works programme. As a consequence the board raised a number of issues. Listed below are updates on the some of the issues.

Site	Issue	Update
Glenbrook Beach Rd	Road quality	Defects identified and being addressed.
Clevedon Village – footpaths	Does AT have any footpaths works planned	No works planned
Clevedon – Kawakawa Road - Ness Valley Rd Corner	High number of crashes	This stretch of road is scheduled for resurfacing in this financial year

Pukekohe to Papakura Electrification

17. The board has been briefed on the electrification of rail between Pukekohe and Papakura and the implications for passenger service. These services are scheduled to cease from August 2022 until 2024 and buses will serve as a replacement. The board will receive a further update in the near future.

18. One area of increasing concern is the about the number of infrastructure projects in the Drury area. These include

· Pukekohe to Papakura electrification

· Papakura to Drury motorway widening, including Drury overbridge

· Routine rail maintenance and weekend and holiday closures

· Three planned stations

· Private sector works.

19. There is some public confusion and about impacts and closures. AT engagement staff are working with their equivalents at the other agencies to ensure more integrated communications.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. AT engages closely with Council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and Council’s priorities.

21. AT’s core role is in providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network.

22. There is a growing global, national and local need to urgently address the threats posed by climate change through reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The scientific evidence is compelling. In New Zealand the Climate Change Response (Zero-Carbon) Act was enacted in 2019, which requires national GHG emissions to be net-zero by 2050. In June 2019 Auckland Council declared a climate emergency, followed by the endorsement in July 2020 of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

23. Tackling climate change will require a very significant change to the way we travel around our region although the timing and the detail of how this change might unfold are still to become obvious.

Climate change targets

24. Development of the regional land transport plan (RLTP) occurred with a strong awareness of central government climate change legislation and Auckland Council climate change targets. Auckland Council through the Auckland Climate Plan has committed to a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, the amount required to keep the planet within 1.5°C of warming by 2100.

25. Roughly five percent of Auckland’s road and rail strategic networks are found in areas susceptible to coastal inundation, including parts of the state highway network which are crucial links for freight movements and access to key regional destinations. Over 1,000km (or about 13 percent) of AT’s local road network has recently been identified as vulnerable to a 1-in-100 year flood event. AT is currently identifying and prioritising the risks of climate change to the transport system (assets, services, customers and staff) to permit a more strategic approach to designing and managing our assets in the future.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The impact of information (or decisions) in this report are confined to AT and do not impact on other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. This report is intended to inform the local board on matters of local interest in order to enable the board to raise any localised issues or impacts not already considered by Auckland Transport.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. There are no impacts specific to Māori for this reporting period.

29. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi-the Treaty of Waitangi, and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

30. Our Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them.

31. This plan in full is available on the AT’s website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no direct financial implications for the local board in receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. Risks are managed as part of each AT project

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. In addition to upcoming workshops the board will be updated at its April 2022 meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Ioane Afoa, Operations Performance Manager, Auckland Transport

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Proposed reserve revocation of 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands

File No.: CP2022/00690

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek updated views of the Franklin Local Board on the proposed reserve revocation of 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands following review by the Department of Conservation (DOC).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands were approved for sale by the Franklin Local Board by way of service property optimisation (direct service reinvestment) in March 2019. The revocation of the reserve status of both properties, which is required to enable sale, was approved by the PACE Committee in February 2020.

3. Eke Panuku Development Auckland (Eke Panuku) subsequently commenced the reserve revocation process. The results were reported back to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee (PACE) in May 2021, seeking approval to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status of each property. The request was approved by the PACE Committee.

4. In June 2021, both reserve revocation applications were lodged with DOC. In October 2021, DOC completed its preliminary review and advised Eke Panuku that the Minister of Conservation had received two submissions directly. These submissions were provided to Eke Panuku. The Minister of Conservation seeks Auckland Council’s consideration of the additional submissions and views.

5. All submissions have been reviewed by Eke Panuku and council’s Land Advisory Services and Community Investments teams. Staff support the revocation of the reserve status of these properties.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) note the additional submissions received on the proposed reserve revocation of 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands;

b) endorse the proposed revocation of the reserve status of 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands.

Horopaki

Context

6. 17W Hawke Crescent and 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands were approved for sale by the Franklin Local Board by way of service property optimisation (direct service reinvestment) on 26 March 2019 (FR/2019/38).

7. On 13 February 2020, the PACE Committee approved, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status of both properties (PAC/2020/9).

8. Following approval, Eke Panuku commenced the reserve revocation process. Six submissions were received opposing the reserve revocation and one submission was received from a party interested in purchasing 39R Pohutukawa Road. Two submissions were received from parties interested in purchasing 17W Hawke Crescent. The results were reported back to the PACE Committee on 13 May 2021, seeking approval to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status of each property. The request was approved by the PACE Committee (PAC/2021/16).

9. Following the PACE Committee approval, Eke Panuku lodged both reserve revocation applications with DOC in mid-June 2021. In October 2021, DOC completed its preliminary review and advised Eke Panuku that the Minister of Conservation had received two submissions directly. Both submissions objected to the proposed reserve revocation of 39R Pohutukawa Road; with one also objection to the 17W Hawke Crescent reserve revocation.

10. The Minister of Conservation seeks Auckland Council consideration of these submissions under the provisions of s24(2)(f) Reserves Act 1977, which provides that “the Minister shall have power to receive such submissions and make such inquiries as he thinks fit on the proposal”. A copy of the additional submissions were provided to enable Auckland Council to consider the submissions and provide its views for the Minister’s consideration.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. Seven submissions were received by Eke Panuku regarding the proposed reserve revocation of 39R Pohutukawa Road and two submissions received regarding the proposed revocation of 17W Hawke Crescent during the public consultation process.

12. Two submissions were sent directly to DOC by members of the public. Both objected to the proposed reserve revocation of 39R Pohutukawa Road with one also including 17W Hawke Crescent.

13. The first submission sent directly to DOC was from D Borthwick. It objects to the proposed reserve revocation of 39R Pohutukawa Road on the grounds that the reserve provides recreational/mental health value; and ecological value as a flight corridor in relation to the Jacobs Bay wetland area.

14. The second submission from H & K Vlaardingerbroek objects to the proposed reserve revocation of both 39R Pohutukawa Road and 17W Hawke Crescent on the grounds of preservation of wildlife/ecological values, and archaeological, geological, historic and scientific features.

15. The following table summarises the main points of all submissions received during public consultation and staff comment:

Submitter	Matters Raised	Staff Comments (Eke Panuku, Land Advisory Services and Community Investments)
A J Bryce for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- Has been told the reserve cannot be built on due to the cave under the property - The cliff face is sandstone and eroding and a house should not be built on the property - Would like a reduction in rates if the property is sold	- Site visit undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed- Both reserves are subject to the impacts of erosion on the coastal cliffs - A 20m esplanade strip (private) will be placed on the property before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted - Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report - Rates are levied on the capital value of a property. Should the capital value of a property be reduced due to the sale of an adjoining or nearby reserve land this will be reflected in the rates levied in the future
J & M Toebosch for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- The reserve is popular with locals, walking groups, tourists and cyclists - Provides an exceptional viewing spot for annual powerboat racing, America’s Cup and watching orcas and dolphins - The public notice was not published in the local paper. There was no sign erected on the reserve and there was a short time frame for submissions - An engineering report from 2016 identified stormwater and stability issues for the site - There is a large sea cave running under the reserve - The reserve was gifted by the original developers to the people of Beachlands in perpetuity. It is therefore not Council’s right to sell - May ask for compensation as a result of loss of value to their property - Council has a duty to protect this reserve	- There are other parks in the area. These locations present greater opportunity for wider community gathering, fostering social capital, and people’s wellbeing due to quality of outlook and facilities. Beachlands Park is located across the road and there are other parks within 350m walking distance. - There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). Both reserves provide viewing platforms. - A public notice was placed in the Eastern Courier on 30 September 2020 and again on 4 November 2020. The notice was placed in the Eastern Courier because it has a much larger reading audience than the Pohutukawa Times. The notice was also placed on the Auckland Council website and letters were sent to the adjoining owners. The notification period ran until 30 November 2020 which was a much longer timeframe than required under the Reserves Act 1977 - The 2016 engineering report suggested ways to mitigate stormwater issues - A Site visit was undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed - Both reserves are subject to the impacts of erosion on the coastal cliffs - A 20m esplanade strip (private) will be placed on the property before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted - Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report - This property was not gifted. It is one of several parcels of land created on subdivision in 1925 to provide pedestrian access to the foreshore. Lot 89 was vested in the Crown as a reserve on subdivision for plantation reserve purpose - Rates are levied on the capital value of a property. Should the capital value of a property be reduced due to the sale of an adjoining or nearby reserve land, this will be reflected in the rates levied in the future - The property does not meet Council’s open space policy requirements
D Borthwick for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- There is a large cave under the reserve - Suggests Auckland Council inspect the cave before proceeding with any sale - Have witnessed many locals enjoying the view from the reserve. Mental health is critical and the reserve should remain for the community to enjoy - Could be a potential site for a community garden as there are benefits of plants for locals to enjoy	- A Site visit has been undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed - Both reserves are subject to the impacts of erosion on the coastal cliffs - Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report - There are other parks in the area. These locations present greater opportunity for wider community gathering, fostering social capital, and people’s wellbeing due to quality of outlook and facilities. Beachlands Park is located across the road and there are other parks within 350m walking distance. - A reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east) are coastal and have many trees for wildlife
C Pinch for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- There are sea caves under the reserve - The property is unsafe and unstable and should not be built on - There needs to be more planting done to maintain the safety of this reserve and keep the community green - If the reserve is sold and the property is developed, it will remove their view and devalue their property	- A site visit was undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed - Both reserves are subject to the impacts of erosion on the coastal cliffs - A 20m esplanade strip (private) will be placed on the property before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted - Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report - There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). Both reserves are coastal and have many trees for wildlife - The loss of sea view does not address the value of the Reserves Act 1977 - Rates are levied on the capital value of a property. Should the capital value of a property be reduced due to the sale of an adjoining or nearby reserve land, this will be reflected in the rates levied in the future
S Brady for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- The reserve provides a lovely sea outlook and enjoyment to locals - Does not wish for the reserve to be sold to be developed upon	- There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). Both reserves provide viewing platforms. - The property is not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets.
H & K Vlaardingerbroek for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- They live opposite the reserve and bought their house for maximum view of the sea view - The land agents indicated the property is a public reserve that would never be sold - The reserve is geologically very high risk and hence the reason it has been left as a reserve - Provided photos of the cliff before and after a slip in 2016 - A 2016 report tells of water and instability issues. It also warns of massive risk and drainage costs if developed - The large cave under the reserve identified in a 1992 report also warns of unsuitability for building upon - The reserve is used by locals, tourists, walkers, cyclists and photographers for views of the gulf, orca, sperm whale, dolphins, yacht and powerboat racing - Council should protect this reserve - The property was gifted to Beachlands and not the council - The public notice was not published in the local paper. There was lack of signage and a short time frame for submissions may be lawfully unjust - Will they be compensated if the reserve is developed due to loss of value to their own property. Will they have a rates reduction? Will all houses surrounding the reserve have a reduction in rates and loss of value? - The reserve could be used for many other things including a proper viewing platform, an ANZAC memorial site, a memorial to the founders of the area. - Trees could be planted on the reserve to attract birds	- The protection of sea views is not a requirement of the Reserves Act 1977 - The property is not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets. - Both reserves are subject to the impacts of erosion on the coastal cliffs - A 20m esplanade strip (private) will be placed on the property before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted- The 2016 engineering report suggested ways to mitigate stormwater issues - Site visit undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed - Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report - There is currently no gap in the provision of neighbourhood parks in the immediate area. There are other parks in the area. These locations present greater opportunity for wider community gathering, fostering social capital, and people’s wellbeing due to quality of outlook and facilities. Beachlands Park is located across the road and there are other parks within 350m walking distance. Some of these parks have viewing platforms. - This property was not gifted. It is one of several parcels of land created on subdivision in 1925 to provide pedestrian access to the foreshore. Lot 89 was vested in the Crown as a reserve on subdivision for plantation reserve purpose - A public notice was placed in the Eastern Courier on 30 September 2020 and again on 4 November 2020. The notice was placed in the Eastern Courier because it has a much larger reading audience compared with the Pohutukawa Times. The notice was also placed on the Auckland Council website and letters were sent to the adjoining owners. The notification period ran until 30 November 2020 which was a much longer timeframe than required under the Reserves Act 1977 - There is no evidence that the value of a property will decrease due to the sale of a reserve. There will be no rates reduction. - This property is not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets. Suggestions can be passed onto the Franklin Local Board for consideration for other parks in the area. - There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). Both reserves provide viewing platforms.
C Hodges for 39R Pohutukawa Road	- Enquired about the price for the site	- Advised about the reserve revocation process and advised that their interest would be held on file should the property become available for sale
Mr Lamb for 17W Hawke Crescent	- Interested in purchasing the property (phone call received)	- Advised about the reserve revocation process and advised that their interest would be held on file should the property become available for sale
S & K McCormick for 17W Hawke Crescent	- Interested in purchasing the property	- Advised about the reserve revocation process and advised that their interest would be held on file should the property become available for sale

16. The following table summarises the main points of the submissions made directly to DOC and staff comment:

H, K, R & S Vlaardingerbroek for 39R Pohutukawa Road & 17W Hawke Crescent

- Around 1997, two reserves in Beachlands were sold and now three more reserves are proposed for sale despite protests and submissions from the local community. This sets a precedent for the future of all other green spaces

- Both reserves are visited by many species of seabirds, wood pigeons, herons, king fisher, tuis and fantails etc. Council started planting native plants further attracting these species

- Council should conserve and plant out these green spaces for future generations. Filling them with native trees is a great way to stablise, future proof and conserve

- 39R Pohutukawa Road was gifted to the people of Beachlands (not the Council)

- A cave network connects with 37 Pohutukawa Road (partially geologically documented in both the Riley & Fraser reports commissioned by Council). The cave has not been explored or investigated as to the very early Maori presence. Caves with multiple entrances were of value

- Auckland University regularly send students to the cliffs in Beachlands for learnings such as remnants from past events such as Taupo and Rangitoto eruptions

- If sold to a developer, for building stability, this may be lost to cliff piling or filled with concrete before being properly studied

- Properties are recommended for reserve revocation when they are not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets.

- There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). There are also reserves within a short walking distance from 17W Hawke Crescent. One at 1W Hawke Crescent and Sunkist Bay Reserve to the east. All of these reserves are coastal and have many trees for wildlife

- The properties are not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets.

- This property was not gifted. It is one of several parcels of land created on subdivision in 1925 to provide pedestrian access to the foreshore. Lot 89 was vested in the Crown as a reserve on subdivision for plantation reserve purpose

- Site visit undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed

- The cliff below the reserve can be accessed via the shore at low tide from Shelly Bay Reserve at 1R Pohutukawa Road

- Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report

- A 20m esplanade strip (private) will be placed on the property before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted

D & R Borthwick for 39R Pohutukawa Road

- The former Manukau City Council previously decided against selling the property after staff went out in a boat and viewed the section from the sea (presumably because of the cave)

- Has noticed a big increase in native birds over the last three years. We need to continue a corridor for these birds for their flight paths

- Has personally witnessed locals enjoy and appreciate the property. It is important for mental health issues

- The property is critical for the wellbeing of native birds and people

- Site visit undertaken to inspect the cliff below the reserve at 39R Pohutukawa Road. There is a cave, but it runs under the adjoining property, which has been developed

- Potential purchasers will be advised to obtain a geotechnical report

- There is another reserve at 17R Pohutukawa Road and another at 1R Pohutukawa Road known as Shelly Bay Reserve (both within 350m to the east). Both reserves are coastal and have many trees for wildlife

- There is currently no gap in the provision of neighbourhood parks in the immediate area. There are other parks in the area. These locations present greater opportunity for wider community gathering, fostering social capital, and people’s wellbeing due to quality of outlook and facilities. Beachlands Park is located across the road and there are other parks within 350m walking distance. Some of these parks have viewing platforms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. The proposal to utilise both properties for residential housing will have a potential increase on emissions due to the emissions associated with development and construction. We note the emissions are anticipated to be of minimal impact, and given the shortage of housing in Auckland, we recommend that both properties are utilised for the development of residential dwellings.

18. Both properties are coastal properties and it is recognised that coastal properties may be impacted in the future by rising sea levels. However, we consider there to be low potential impact on both properties from rising sea levels. This is due to both of these properties being on a cliff overlooking the water and significantly above the high water mark.

19. In addition, we are recommending that a 20m esplanade strip (private) is placed on 39R Pohutukawa Road before disposal to ensure that future development of the site is restricted, and future management responsibility of the coastal hazards impacting the site such as coastal erosion and land instability is the responsibility of the future land owner.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Council’s Community and Investment Team and Parks have confirmed that the reserves are not needed to meet the council’s recreational open space provision targets in the locality.

21. Council’s Community and Investment Team and Parks, Sports and Recreation team support the reserve revocation and divestment of both properties by way of Service Property Optimisation.

22. Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team has confirmed that the sites are eligible for reserve revocation and disposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. The Franklin Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and sale of 39R Pohutukawa Road, Beachlands at its 26 March 2019 business meeting.

24. The Franklin Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and sale of 17W Hawke Crescent, Beachlands at its 26 March 2019 business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Eke Panuku notified all the relevant Mana Whenua iwi authorities of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the properties and no objections were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The proceeds of sale are reinvested locally into eligible community projects at a neutral cost and no cost to the ratepayer. Service Property Optimisation by way of direct reinvestment will result in the Franklin Local Board utilising the proposed divestment proceeds from the subject properties to reinvest into an eligible local project of its choosing.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. If the reserve status of the properties is not revoked, it will not be possible to progress the disposal. The properties would remain in council ownership and would incur ongoing maintenance and management costs and as open space.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Eke Panuku will be reporting back to the PACE Committee in April 2022 and will include the submissions provided by DOC. Any commentary from the Franklin Local Board with regards to these submissions will be included in the report to the PACE Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Image - 39R Pohutukawa Road	25
b ⇩	Image - 17W Hawke Crescent	27
c ⇩	Public notice 1	29
d ⇩	Public notice 2	31
e ⇩	Submission - A J Bryce	33
f ⇩	Submission - J&M Toebosch	37
g ⇩	Submission - D Borthwick	39
h ⇩	Submission - C Pinch	41
i ⇩	Submission - C Pinch1	43
j ⇩	Submission - S Brady	47
k ⇩	Submission - H&K Vlaardingerbroek	49
l ⇩	Submission - C Hodges	55
m ⇩	Submission to DoC - Vlaardingerbroek	57
n ⇩	Submission to DoC - Borthwick	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moira Faumui - Portfolio Research Analyst

Authorisers

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Asset Optimisation (Acting)

Marian Webb - GM Assets and Delivery

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Variation to 2021 - 2024 Customer and Community Services work programme – changes to various projects

File No.: CP2022/00778

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for a variation to the 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Franklin Local Board approved the following playground renewal projects on 24 August 2020 as a part of their 2020-2023 Customer and Community Services work programme (resolution number FR/2020/74). Both approved projects were allocated budget from the Asset Based Services (ABS): capital expenditure (Capex) – Local Renewal budget as below:

i) ID 20740 Massey Park – renew play spaces – approved budget of $348,709

ii) ID 26076 Kevan Lawrence Park - renew play spaces – approved budget of $248,115.

3. As projects progress through the consultation, investigation and design process, the specific work required, and the cost of delivery can change, impacting the approved budget. As a result, variations may be required to the work programme to accommodate final costs and updated timeframes for some projects.

4. Both the Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park playground are situated in high use parks and provide for local residents and visitors to Waiuku township. The initial round of playground renewal work was completed in the financial year 2020/2021. However, due to constraints within the project budget at that time, several elements of the approved concept plan were unable to be delivered.

5. At the direction of the local board staff investigated further options to address these gaps in delivery which were presented back to the local board at a workshop on 14 December 2021. The local board provided positive feedback and supported the proposal in principle.

6. Staff seek approval of additional budget in financial year 2021/2022 for the playground renewal projects at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park as below:

i) ID 20740 Massey Park – renew play spaces – at an increase of $252,000 for:

· Accessible playground under surfacing - $192,000

· Installation of barrier fencing - $60,000.

ii) ID 26076 Kevan Lawrence Park - renew play spaces – at an increase of $390,000 for:

· Addition of accessible play items, playground under surfacing, pathways connections and standard fencing – $390,000

7. To fund the additional budget for the playground renewal at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park, staff have identified three projects on the current approved 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme (resolution number FR/2021/90) which require less renewal funding than the amount that was allocated in financial year 2021/2022.

i) ID 20699 Te Puru Park – renew skate park – a reduction of $140,000

ii) ID 15559 Umupuia Coastal Reserve – upgrade park assets – a reduction of $160,000

iii) ID 25952 Franklin – refurbish toilet/amenity blocks – a reduction of 100,000.

8. The budget reductions for the identified projects will be rephased over future years in consultation with the local board as part of the development of next year’s work programme.

9. Additionally, staff have identified $242,000 of unallocated renewal fund in financial year 2021/2022.

10. The identified unallocated renewal fund and realignment of allocated budget from the three identified projects could be utilised to undertake the required work at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park playgrounds as part of the 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme as outlined in Attachment ‘A’.

11. The proposed variations are within the Franklin Local Board 2021/2022 financial year budget envelope and will not substantially impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

12. Subject to the local board’s decision, staff will update the work programme and progress updates will be provided to the local board as part of the quarterly reports.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) approve the following variations including budget and timeline changes to its adopted 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme as per attachment A, specifically:

i) additional budget allocation for project ID 20740 Massey Park - renew play spaces, utilising $252,000 of ABS: Capex Renewal budget over financial year 2021/2022.

ii) additional budget allocation for project ID 26076 Kevan Lawrence Park - renew play spaces, utilising $390,000 of ABS: Capex Renewal budget over financial year 2021/2022.

iii) variation to project ID 20699 – Te Puru Park – renew skate park utilising $10,000 of ABS: Capex Renewal budget over financial year 2021/2022, a reduction of $140,000.

iv) Variation to project ID 15559 – Umupuia Coastal Reserve – upgrade park assets utilising $40,000 of ABS: Capex Renewal budget over financial year 2021/2022, a reduction of $160,000.

v) variation to project ID 25952 Franklin – refurbish toilet/amenity blocks utilising $1,065,000 of ABS: Capex Renewal budget over financial year 2021/2022, a reduction of $100,000.

Horopaki

Context

13. Projects to renew playgrounds at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park were approved by the Franklin Local Board as a part of the local board’s 2020-2023 Customer and Community Services work programme on 24 August 2020 (resolution FR/2020/74). The budget allocated for all projects on the work programme and the anticipated timelines were best estimates and are subject to change as projects progress through the design and delivery process.

14. The playgrounds are situated in high use parks and provide a service to local residents and visitors to Waiuku township. The initial round of playground renewal work was completed in the financial year 2020/2021. However, due to constraints within the project budget at that time, several renewal elements of the approved concept plan scope were unable to be delivered.

15. Both playground renewal projects are partially complete, and approval is now required for the additional funding to be included in the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services work programme to achieve delivery of full scope for these projects.

16. At the direction of the local board, staff investigated further options to address these gaps in delivery which were presented back to the local board at a workshop on 14 December 2021 as shown in Attachment B and C. The local board provided positive feedback and supported the proposal in principle.

17. At the completion of financial year 2020/2021 an underspend of ABS: Capex Renewal funding of $242,000 was identified and made available to fund renewal projects in the financial year 2021/2022.

18. Staff have identified three projects in the current approved 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme where budget allocation needs to be realigned:

· The projects ‘Te Puru Park – renew skate park’ and ‘Umupuia Coastal Reserve – upgrade park assets’ are in the investigation and design phase. This phase requires extensive and thorough Iwi consultation requiring additional time, therefore less funding will be spent in financial year 2021/2022. Staff recommend that the budgets be rephased over future years for both projects.

· The project to refurbish toilet and amenity blocks within the Franklin Local Board area is in investigation and design phase and it is anticipated that there will be $100,000 less funding spent in financial year 2021/2022. A reduction of $100,000 is recommended to be rephased over future years for the project.

19. All future budget allocations to deliver the full scope of work for each project will be discussed with the local board as part of the development of their next year’s work programme.

20. Approved funding allocation for these projects is shown in the Table ‘1’ below:

Table 1: Approved funding allocation for the identified projects

Resolution Number	Project ID	Activity Name	Activity Description	Budget source	Total Budget Allocation
FR/2020/74	20740	Massey Park – renew play spaces	Renew playground. FY19/20 - investigation and design FY20/21 - physical works	ABS: Capex Renewal	$348,709
FR/2020/74	26076	Kevan Lawrence Park – renew play spaces	Renew playground at Kevan Lawrence Park. FY19/20 - investigation and design FY20/21 - physical works	ABS: Capex Renewal	$248,115
FR/2021/90	20699	Te Puru Park – renew skate park	Renew skate park. FY21/22 - investigation and design FY22/23 - physical works	ABS: Capex Renewal	$727,935
FR/2021/90	15559	Umupuia Coastal Reserve – upgrade park assets	Upgrade Park assets including the driveway, amenity block and playground. FY19/20 - FY20/21 - investigation and design FY21/22 - FY22/23 - physical works (LDI Capex contribution $100,000)	ABS: Capex Renewal	$544,711
FR/2021/90	25952	Franklin – refurbish toilet/amenity blocks	Refurbish the following toilet/amenity blocks: Centennial Park, Clarks Beach (Halls Beach), Grahams Beach Road Reserve, Heights Park Cemetery, Hunua Hall, Kawakawa Bay Boat Ramp, Kawakawa Bay Central, Orere Point Reserve, Pukekohe Town Centre, Sandspit Reserve, Seddon Park, Te Toro Recreation Reserve, Waiau Beach (wharf toilet) and Waiau Pa Domain. FY21/22 - investigation and physical work	ABS: Capex Renewal	$1,165,000

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Staff are seeking approval for a variation to the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services work programme. This includes additional budget allocation for the two playground renewal projects at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park and reduction in renewal funding in financial year 2021/2022 for the three identified projects as outlined in Table 2 below.

22. At the completion of financial year 2020/2021 an underspend of ABS: Capex Renewal funding of $242,000 was identified and made available to fund renewal projects in the financial year 2021/2022. This can also be utilised to fund the two playground renewal projects in financial year 2021/2022.

23. Proposed variations and how they will affect the current 2021–2024 Customer and Community Services work programme are shown in Attachment A and noted in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Description of the proposed variations to the 2021 - 2022 Customer and Community Services work programme

Project ID

Activity Name

Budget variations

FY2021-2022

Details

20740

Massey Park – renew play spaces

ABS: Capex Renewals budget of $252,000 is now required for:

· Accessible playground under surfacing - $192,000

· Barrier fencing - $60,000

Approved FY21/22 budget $0

Revised FY21/22 budget 252,000

Revised total project budget $600,709 (an increase of $252,000)

Request for increase in budget will ensure delivery of identified requirements for connector paths and an accessible play surface such as rubberised wet pour to ensure accessibility for all playground users.

Additionally, the playground is being moved to a more suitable position within the park which provides excellent passive surveillance and easy access to other park amenities such as toilets. A barrier fence is required for safety of users because the new position is close to busy roads.

Project ID	Activity Name	Budget variations FY2021-2022	Details
26076	Kevan Lawrence Park – renew play spaces	ABS: Capex Renewals budget of $390,000 is now required for: · Addition of accessible play items, playground under surfacing, pathway connections and standard fencing - $390,000 Approved FY21/22 budget $0 Revised FY21/22 budget $390,000 Revised total project budget $638,115 (an increase of $390,000)	Request for increase in budget will ensure delivery of identified requirements for connector footpaths, accessible play items and an accessible play surface such as rubberised wet pour to ensure accessibility for all playground users.
20699	Te Puru Park – renew skate park	ABS: Capex Renewals budget of $10,000 is now required for: · Project management costs · Iwi consultation Approved FY21/22 budget $150,000 Revised FY21/22 budget $10,000 Approved FY22/23 budget $570,000 Approved FY23/24 budget $0 Revised FY23/24 budget $140,000	Request for reduction in funding in financial year 2021/2022 is due to the need of extensive consultation with local iwi as the site has been identified as a burial ground. Additionally, a proposal has been made by the project manager upon consultation from Parks Sports and Recreation team for a new park location for the skate park nearby. Staff anticipate further delays in project delivery. It is recommended that the project is rephased to allow sufficient time for ongoing consultation with local Iwi. All future budget allocations to deliver the full scope of works will be discussed with the local board as part of the development of next year’s work programme.
15559	Umupuia Coastal Reserve – upgrade park assets	ABS: Capex Renewals budget of $40,000 is now required for: · Project management costs · Iwi consultation · Design Approved FY21/22 budget $200,000 Revised FY21/22 budget $40,000 Approved FY22/23 budget $310,000 Approved FY23/24 budget $0 Revised FY23/24 budget $160,000	Request for reduction in funding in financial year 2021/2022 is due to extensive consultation process with local iwi to ensure the required outcomes. It is recommended that the project is rephased to allow sufficient time for ongoing investigations with local Iwi. All future budget allocations to deliver the full scope of works will be discussed with the local board as part of the development of next year’s work programme.
25952	Franklin – refurbish toilet/amenity blocks	ABS: Capex Renewals budget of $1,065,000 in now required for: · Project management costs · Investigation and design · Physical work Approved FY21/22 budget $1,165,000 Revised FY21/22 budget $1,065,000 Approved FY22/23 budget $0 Revised FY22/23 budget $100,000	It is recommended that the project be rephased to allow sufficient time for the materials to be supplied as there is a delay in the supply chain from the contractors.

24. Staff will ensure that the proposed variations are within the local board’s financial year 2021/2022 budget envelope and will not substantially impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

26. This is an administrative report and the budget variations proposed in the report have no direct effect on climate change. Each project will be considered individually to assess the impacts of climate change and the approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

27. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in carbon emission from construction, including contractor emissions. Staff will seek to minimise carbon and contractor emissions as far as possible when delivering the projects. Maximising the upcycling and recycling of existing material, aligned with the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recycle), will also be prioritised to ensure minimum impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Council staff from within the Customer and Community Services directorate (Community Facilities Operational Management and Maintenance and Parks, Sport and Recreation) teams have been consulted and are supportive of the proposed budget changes as the scope of work will improve play accessibility for all users and reduce the cost of maintenance at Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park playgrounds.

29. The overall 2021-2024 work programme was developed through a collaborative approach by operational council departments, with each department represented in an integrated team.

30. Staff collaboration will be ongoing throughout the life of the projects to ensure integration into the operational maintenance and asset management systems.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Community facilities and open spaces provide important community services to the people of the local board area. They contribute to building strong, healthy, and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities improve lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride amongst residents.

32. During consultation with the community, staff received feedback requesting improvements to safety and accessibility to the playground at Massey Park as part of the playground renewal project. This feedback has been used to develop the concept design and the existing site is away from the newly refurbished skatepark, existing toilet and basketball facilities which leads to a lack of use.

33. The Community Facilities Area Manager discussed playground concept designs for Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence Park with the Franklin Local Board at a workshop on 14 December 2021. The local board indicated support for the concept designs for both play spaces in principle which include accessible play items and under surfacing as part of the play surface renewal.

34. The project aligns with the following Franklin Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes and objectives:

Table 3: Franklin Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes and objectives

Outcome	Objective / Initiative
Outcome 3: Fit for purpose places and facilities	We will plan for and respond to future growth and the impacts of climate change whilst protecting and celebrating what is special and unique about our communities.
Outcome 6: A sense of belonging and strong community participation	We will support and enable community organisations to deliver local community activities and cultural programmes, to encourage local participation and to respond to local change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. The project proposal discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community through the provision of quality facilities and open spaces that promote good health, the fostering of family and community relationships and connection to the natural environment.

36. Engagement with mana whenua on the Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence playground renewal projects was undertaken as part of earlier consultation process on the initial concept design. Feedback from Ngāti Te Ata was received supporting the project work for both playgrounds at Waiuku. There will be further opportunities for mana whenua to be involved in the project through the design process and opportunities for integrating traditional Māori design into the additional playground elements.

37. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and Local Board Plans.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. The proposed variations are within the local board’s budget envelopes for each year and will not substantially impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

39. Details of proposed variations are outlined in Table 2 and the recommended changes as shown in attachment A have been agreed with the local board’s lead financial advisor.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Amendments to the budget and timeline for Massey Park and Kevan Lawrence are required for the financial year 2021/2022 and are essential for delivery of the full scope of the projects. If the local board does not approve the change, these projects will remain incomplete and may not meet community expectations.

41. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a further negative impact on the delivery of the work programme if the COVID-19 alert level changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Subject to the local board’s decision on the proposal outlined in this report, the local board’s work programme will be amended to reflect the decision and works will commence on the projects as per the timing outlined in the approved work programme.

43. Progress and updates on the work programme will be reported to the local board as part of the quarterly reports to the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed amendment to 2021 - 2024 Customer Community Services Work Programme	69
b ⇩	Massey Park - Design and Build	71
c ⇩	Kevan Lawrence Park - Design and Build	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moushmi Sharan - Work Programme Lead

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00460

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Water Strategy sets a vision for Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s waters and provides strategic direction for investment and action across the Auckland Council group.

3. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

4. Local boards have previously provided feedback on the 2019 public discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei), and this was considered in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy. Local board feedback is now being sought on the draft Auckland Water Strategy framework.

5. The core content for the Auckland Water Strategy framework was endorsed at the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the 2nd of December 2021 (ECC/2021/44). The content is now being drafted into a final document and will be brought to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for consideration and adoption in March 2022.

6. Staff workshopped the framework with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons throughout September-November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

7. Refer to Attachment A to the agenda report for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the eight strategic shifts of the Water Strategy framework:

i) Te Tiriti Partnership

ii) Empowered Aucklanders

iii) Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access

iv) Regenerative Water Infrastructure

v) Water Security

vi) Integrated Land use and Water Planning

vii) Restoring and Enhancing Water Ecosystems

viii) Pooling Knowledge.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Auckland Council group has a broad role in delivering water outcomes:

· Auckland Council provides storm water infrastructure and services; resource management regulation, consenting, monitoring, and compliance for effects on fresh water and coastal water; and research, reporting, policy, and strategy functions

· Watercare provides drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and services

· Auckland Transport influences land use and the storm water network. The transport network is Auckland’s largest public realm asset and investment.

9. The Auckland Council (the Water Strategy) project began as a response to the 2017 Section 17A Value for Money review of three waters^{^[1]}delivery across the council group. The review recommended the council produces a three waters strategy. The scope of the water strategy was subsequently expanded to incorporate other water related responsibilities, outcomes, and domains (e.g. natural waterbodies, groundwater, coastal waters, etc).

10. A discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei) was consulted on in 2019. The purpose of this document was to elicit community views on the future of Auckland’s waters and how the council should be planning for these in its water strategy.

11. This process established a high-level vision for Auckland’s waters, ‘te Mauri o te Wai o Tāmaki Makaurau - the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water - is protected and enhanced’, and presented key values, issues and principles that were designed to inform strategy development. Actions and targets were not discussed. Strategic direction, actions and targets have been identified as part of the subsequent strategy development.

12. The Water Strategy sets a vision for Auckland’s waters and provides strategic direction for investment and action across the council group. The council has developed the strategy drawing on:

a) relevant legislation and central government direction

b) the council’s strategies, policies and plans, and guidance including:

i) The Auckland Plan 2050 - includes high-level approaches for how we can prioritise the health of water in Auckland by adopting a te ao Māori approach to protecting our waters; adapting to a changing water future; developing Aucklanders’ stewardship; restoring our damaged environments; protecting our significant water bodies; and using Auckland’s growth to achieve better water outcomes.

ii) Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland's Climate Action Plan - acknowledges that climate change will mean a changing water future and identifies integrated, adaptive planning approaches and water-sensitive design as key enablers of a climate-ready Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

c) the council’s Three Waters Value for Money (s17A) Review 2017

d) the Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document framework and feedback from local boards, community and mana whenua from 2019

e) individual iwi engagement and Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum engagement in 2021

f) internal staff engagement during 2020-2021

g) the Water Sensitive Cities Index and benchmarking in 2021.

13. The intent of the Water Strategy is that the council fulfils its obligations to identify and plan for future challenges across its broad range of functions that affect water outcomes. These challenges are:

a) protecting and enhancing the health of waterbodies and their ecosystems

b) delivering three-waters services at the right time, in the right place, at the right scale, as the city grows

c) having enough water for people now and in the future

d) reducing flood and coastal inundation risk over time

e) water affordability for Aucklanders

f) improving how the council works with its treaty partners

g) improving how the council organises itself to achieve these outcomes.

14. The Water Strategy is intended to guide decision-making to 2050. Staff have therefore considered Tāmaki Makaurau’s broader context over the life of the strategy including:

a) land use change, as driven by population growth in particular

b) mitigating and adapting to climate change

c) partnership approach with mana whenua

d) growing iwi capacity and further settlements that will affect governance structures

e) technological change.

15. Council has also considered the direction from central government to deliver management of freshwater, land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects^{^[2]}.

Central Government Three Waters Reform

16. The Water Strategy has been developed during a period of significant uncertainty for the council group. Central government has recently indicated that participation in the proposed Three Waters Reforms will be mandated in the planned enabling legislation. The reforms would move management of three waters assets to a new inter-regional entity. Economic regulation is also planned.

17. While the final form of the proposed structures is not known, it is important to understand that the proposed reform would not affect all areas of delivery for the Water Strategy. Council would retain its:

a) core role as environmental regulator

b) core role as regulatory planning authority

c) core treaty partnership role for local government

d) core role to engage and be the voice for Auckland communities

e) management of the council group’s own water consumption (towards consumption targets).

18. The Water Strategy provides strategic direction to the council group. Over the next few years, as the shape and impacts of proposed reform become clearer, the council would use the strategy in appropriate ways to provide direction to any processes that arise. This strategy would become council’s position on the aims and outcomes sought from any new entity.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The purpose of this report is to provide local boards with an opportunity to feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is finalised and recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

The Water Strategy Framework

20. The Water Strategy framework sets a vision for the future (previously adopted in 2019), a foundational partnership and eight key strategic shifts to guide change. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

21. The framework articulates Auckland’s context, challenges, aims, and required actions. The framework is designed to make implementation steps clear for council to track progress and so that communities and partners can hold council accountable to progress over time.

22. The framework consists of:

a) vision

b) treaty context

c) challenges

d) cross-cutting themes

e) strategic shifts and associated aims and actions

f) implementation.

23. The diagram below shows the Auckland Water Strategy Framework. Refer to Attachment A for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework, including the aims and actions associated with each strategic shift.

Vision: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced

24. Auckland’s vision for the future is ‘te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s waters, is protected and enhanced’.

25. The Water Strategy vision describes Tāmaki Makaurau’s desired long-term future and will guide council decision-making over time towards that agreed goal. The vision outlines a future for Tāmaki Makaurau where the region’s waters are healthy, thriving, and treasured. This vision also describes a future where the deep connections between water, the environment and people are recognised and valued.

26. The mauri – the life sustaining capacity – of water is a fundamentally intuitive concept. It is something all Aucklanders can appreciate. There is a qualitative difference that is readily felt and sensed when walking alongside a healthy waterbody compared to a waterbody that has been channeled, polluted, or piped, for example.

27. The Our Water Future public discussion document received strong support for the vision. In the document, the vision was explained as:

a) special to this place (Auckland)

b) recognising the vital relationship between our water and our people

c) recognising the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki within the region

d) representing values that can unify us in our actions

e) setting a long-term aspiration for the way we take care of our waters.

28. The council set a long-term aspiration for Auckland when it adopted this vision in 2019. An aspiration for a future in which:

a) Aucklanders are able to swim in, and harvest from, our rivers, estuaries and harbours.

b) Life in and sustained by water is thriving.

c) Everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.

29. Adopting this vision recognised that addressing Auckland’s water issues and challenges over time requires a bold vision and new ways of working together with council’s treaty partners and communities. The vision signals a greater recognition of a Māori worldview, of environmental limits and interconnectedness of people and environment.

30. The vision is also consistent with council’s obligations and aspirations, as well as central government direction. For example,

a) the purpose of local government is to take a sustainable development approach to the broad role of promoting the four well-beings

b) the purpose of the Resource Management Act is sustainable management of natural and physical resources in ways that enables the four well-beings

c) Te Mauri o te Wai aligns with te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), which provides for local expression

d) the Auckland Plan directs council to ‘Apply a Māori worldview to treasure and protect our natural environment (taonga tuku iho)’

e) mauri is embedded in the Auckland Unitary Plan

f) the Our Water Future public discussion document introduced the vision of te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau and applying a Māori world view

g) Te mauri o te wai is referenced in the council’s 2021 Infrastructure Strategy.

Over-arching challenges

31. The intent of the Water Strategy is that the council fulfils its obligations to identify and plan for future challenges across its broad range of functions that affect water outcomes. Tāmaki Makaurau faces several overarching challenges that inform the strategic direction set by the Water Strategy. These are:

a) protecting and enhancing the health of waterbodies and their ecosystems

b) delivering three-waters services at the right time, in the right place, at the right scale, as the city grows

c) having enough water for people now and in the future

d) reducing flood and coastal inundation risk over time

e) affordability for Aucklanders

f) improving how the council works with its treaty partners

g) improving how the council organises itself.

32. Attachment A provides a more detailed description of each over-arching challenge.

Treaty Context

33. Māori have enduring rights and interests related to water as a taonga and as indigenous peoples. These rights are affirmed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and international law.

34. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its statutory Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland context. Like the council, mana whenua are long-term contributors to water outcomes.

35. This section within the framework acknowledges that the treaty provides the context for partnership between council and mana whenua for the protection, management, and enhancement of water.

Cross-cutting themes

36. In addition to over-arching challenges, there are cross-cutting themes that inform the council’s strategic approach in the Water Strategy. The cross-cutting themes must be accounted for as the actions in the strategy are delivered.

Climate Change

37. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation have been integrated within the strategy.

Equity

38. The Auckland Plan 2050 describes sharing prosperity with all Aucklanders as a key challenge now and for the future. Auckland has equitable access to water supply and sanitation and performs well against international peers; however, there are areas for improvement that are captured in the strategy. Other equity issues such as flood protection and access to blue-green space for recreation are also considered within the strategy.

Strategic Shifts

39. The Water Strategy framework includes eight overarching strategic shifts. Each strategic shift is intended to represent long-term change in the council’s approach towards a stated aim. To achieve this, each strategic shift has associated actions with indicative implementation timings identified. Shifts are designed so that the council can add actions over time to the framework as progress is made.

40. The strategic shifts were arrived at by considering the changes that the council must make to respond to the challenges and cross-cutting themes above, as well as responding to the water sensitive cities benchmarking undertaken. Actions were developed and grouped according to council functions so that they might be more easily implemented by areas in the council group.

Table one: Water Strategy Strategic Shifts and Associated Aims
Strategic shift	Aim
Te Tiriti Partnership The council and mana whenua working together in agreed ways on agreed things.	The council and mana whenua iwi are partners in the protection, management, and enhancement of water.
Empowering Aucklanders Working with Aucklanders for better water outcomes.	Aucklanders are empowered to shape decisions about and are prepared for our changing water future.
Regenerative Water Infrastructure Auckland’s water infrastructure is regenerative, resilient, low carbon, and increases the mauri of water. It’s able to be seen and understood by Aucklanders.	Regenerative infrastructure systems enhance the life-sustaining capacity of water (mauri).
Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access Prioritising mauri when using water, to sustain the environment and people in the long term.	When the council allocates water from the natural environment, water use is sustainable, and considers the health and wellbeing of ecosystems and people.
Water Security Water abundance and security for growing population through efficient use and diverse sources.	Auckland captures, uses, and recycles water efficiently so that everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.
Integrated Land use and Water Planning Integrating land use and water planning at a regional, catchment and site scale.	Water and its life-sustaining capacity is a central principle in land management and planning decisions.
Restoring and Enhancing Water Ecosystems Catchment-based approaches to the health of water ecosystems.	Auckland has thriving and sustainable natural water ecosystems that support life, food gathering and recreation.
Pooling Knowledge Shared understanding enabling better decisions for our water future.	Auckland has the knowledge about water needed to make good quality, timely, and strategic decisions about water.

Implementation

41. Successfully delivering on the vision and integrated aims of the Water Strategy will require a coordinated and sustained approach to delivery across the council group.

42. The Water Strategy sets out a range of actions to be implemented over time for the council group. The actions fall within two broad timeframes: near term (year one and years one – three) and medium term (years four – ten). Near term actions are prescriptive and specific. Medium term actions are more illustrative and require further development to implement successfully.

43. To implement the Water Strategy, the council will need:

a) to take a consistent, sustained approach to putting te mauri o te wai at the centre of council group planning and investment decisions and action

b) the skills and capacity to deliver on the water strategy, legislative requirements, and partnership relationships

c) a strong culture of holistic planning, action, reporting and post-implementation review that feeds back into adaptive planning processes

d) clarity of the roles and responsibilities across the council group, with all teams directed and accountable for their role and function

e) to give mana whenua clear sight of the council’s work on water and enable participation/direction.

44. Changes required to give effect to the implementation of the strategy include:

a) appoint Executive Lead Team Water Lead (complete)

b) Water Strategy programme implementation coordinator

c) coordinated workforce planning to fill gaps and changing needs

d) update investment prioritisation criteria to reflect the Water Strategy

e) council reporting on te mauri o te wai

f) integrated Asset Investment and Asset Management Planning, with an independent audit process.

Central government context

45. The Water Strategy considers and responds to current and expected direction from central government to:

a) deliver management of freshwater, land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way

b) a strengthening of the partnership between the council and mana whenua in environmental management goal setting and decision-making frameworks

c) the inclusion of Te Mana o Te Wai in the Auckland Unitary Plan

d) a switch from an individual activity effects-based assessment (under the Resource Management Act 1991) to a more holistic limits-based approach, reflecting the need to better manage cumulative effects on water bodies

e) an expectation of stronger enforcement of regulatory environmental obligations through policy effectiveness reporting (feedback loops between policy and actions) and improved compliance monitoring and enforcement reporting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. Climate change is a cross cutting theme of the Water Strategy (along with equity). The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation were integrated into the strategy’s core content as it was developed.

47. Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for the issues raised in the Water Strategy, including:

· influencing demand for water use

· affecting water availability of a given water source over time

· increasing flood and coastal inundation hazard risk to life and property.

48. Improving our mitigation of and resilience to these impacts via the approaches described in the Water Strategy aligns with council’s existing goals and work programmes for climate action.

49. The physical impacts of climate change will have implications both for water management (including Māori water rights) in Auckland, and for related issues such as energy supply, social welfare, food security, and Māori land.

50. Water infrastructure has significant embodied carbon emissions. The regenerative water infrastructure strategic shift sets the council on a path to zero or low emissions water infrastructure.

51. The projected impacts of climate change on Auckland’s aquatic environments, and the associated risks, are detailed in two key report series: the Auckland Region Climate Change Projections and Impacts^{^[3]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[4]}.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. There is broad agreement across the council group that better integration in water-related matters is needed, and that improvements in investment and decision-making processes are possible.

53. Staff have worked across the council group to develop the Water Strategy’s core content through working groups, workshops, and review of material.

54. The strategic shifts and actions in the Water Strategy represent significant change in the way that the council group approaches water-related challenges and opportunities in Auckland. In time, the way that staff work and the tools they have available will change. Greater and more coordinated oversight of resources that are used to deliver water outcomes is essential.

55. The Water Strategy embeds concepts like mauri and water-sensitive design into council’s approach going forward. These actions require careful, considered partnership with mana whenua to create new frameworks that will guide decision-making. Coordinated education and upskilling programmes for staff will be needed to enable successful implementation.

56. Of note is the action to implement a council group knowledge governance framework for water. This will mean review and redesign of processes governing the production of knowledge; how council mobilises knowledge for different users and uses; and how council promotes the use of knowledge.

57. The framework will help facilitate a culture change across the council group, encouraging the sharing of knowledge across departments and organisations, and better connecting teams in the ownership of knowledge and insights.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. Local boards have a strong interest and role in improving water outcomes across Auckland and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

59. Staff workshopped the Water Strategy framework, including each strategic shift and associated aims and actions, with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons September to November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

60. Previous local board feedback informed development of the Water Strategy. Staff held workshops with all local boards in late 2018 on the Our Water Future – Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document and sought their feedback through formal business meetings. Local board resolutions were provided to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018 (ENV/2018/168) when the discussion document was approved for public consultation.

61. During public engagement, local boards hosted many of the Have Your Say consultation events and helped to ensure local views were fed into the feedback. This feedback has been an input to the development of the strategy. There was broad support for the vision, values, issues, processes and principles presented in the discussion document. The Environment and Climate Change Committee adopted the framework as the basis for developing the Auckland water strategy.

62. Key themes from local board engagement are presented below. Staff have designed the strategic shifts and actions to address these key themes – these are noted in italics:

i) A desire to improve engagement with local communities and deliver targeted education programmes – Empowering Aucklanders strategic shift.

ii) Recognising water is a limited resource, that access to water is a human right and supply must be allocated fairly – Water Security and Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access strategic shifts.

A need to improve the diminishing water quality of local water bodies including urban streams, gulfs and harbours – Restoring and Enhancing water ecosystems strategic shift.

iii) A need to carefully manage urban development and take up opportunities to embed water-sensitive design - Integrated Land use and Water Planning strategic shift.

iv) A need for proactive monitoring and enforcement, supported by a robust and transparent evidence base – Pooling Knowledge strategic shift.

63. Feedback on several water-related topics that were not part of the discussion document’s scope was also received from local boards. This included water infrastructure, the importance of future proofing our assets, incorporating sustainable options such as greywater reuse and roof collection, and the management of contaminant run-off and stormwater discharges.

64. Staff considered these important issues and they have been incorporated into the strategy – see Regenerative Water Infrastructure strategic shift.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65. Every iwi and hapū has associations with particular waterbodies^{^[5]} that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikōrero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is fundamental to providing for the food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being of iwi and hapū.

66. Engagement with Māori that has informed this work includes:

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Guidance to the Water Strategy 2019

· submissions to the Our Water Future Public Discussion Document 2019

· Te Pou Taiao engagement throughout 2021

· individual engagement with iwi partners 2021 including face-to-face hui.

67. Refer to Our Water Future: Report on Māori response to Auckland Council Water Strategy consultation for further information on the submissions of Māori who responded to public discussion document consultation. Key themes from Māori engagement are presented below. Staff have designed the strategic shifts and actions to address these key themes – these are noted in italics:

a) Māori are committed to the maintenance of the mauri of water and they want to be a part of the conversation – Te Tiriti Partnership and Empowering Aucklanders strategic shifts.

b) Awareness/Education (concerns for peoples’ priorities, climate change has arrived – inevitable there will be changing water patterns) – Empowering Aucklanders strategic shift.

c) Water sovereignty (should be allowed water tanks on our properties) – Water Security strategic shift.

d) Reciprocity (look after our environment it will continue to look after us) – Restore and Enhance Water Ecosystems, Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access and Regenerative Water Infrastructure strategic shifts.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68. Implementing the proposed Water Strategy actions will have budgetary implications in time. Cost scenarios have not been undertaken for the actions as this is work that is required as the group works through the implementation of the strategy. Most actions do not commit the council group to a singular solution, but rather to investigate options and their associated cost within the action, for subsequent decision making. From a cost perspective it is expected that the actions associated with each strategic shift will be possible through:

· providing clear strategic direction to improve current processes (no new spend)

· redirecting current spend to higher priority activity aligned to strategic direction

· new spend, prioritised through council processes (i.e. Annual Budget and Long-Term Plan/10-year Budget).

69. Over the next 30 years, the council expects to spend approximately $85 billion on infrastructure for three waters alone (capital and operational expenditure). There is considerable scope to align that spend to the vision of the water strategy.

70. Where actions do require additional spend, such spend must be considered through council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan/10-year Budget processes. Additional spend would not be limited to three waters infrastructure and services and would include all council group functions related to water outcomes.

71. It is also noted that central government’s messaging for its Three Waters Reform programme suggests the proposed new water entities may have access to greater lending facilities. This would presumably impact delivery of three waters infrastructure and services in Auckland, some of which would relate to the proposed Water Strategy’s strategic shifts and associated actions.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

72. The recommendation requesting local board views does not present a risk.

73. The risks and mitigations listed below relate to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s decision to adopt the Water Strategy.

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

Insufficient or inconsistent implementation of the strategy

Medium risk

Poor coordination is a key driver for the strategy and implementation must respond to this reality.

The Strategy needs buy-in across the council leadership and consistent political leadership to ensure coherent implementation.

Staff with responsibilities for shifts and actions have been engaged in the development of the strategy.

A Water Strategy programme implementation coordinator will provide support to implementation.

Central government reform: if established, a new three waters entity disregards strategic intent of Water Strategy

High risk

The council should use the Water Strategy to assist in articulating the long-term aims for water in Auckland. The Strategy may also be useful to guide discussions during any transition process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74. The Water Strategy final document and will be brought to Environment and Climate Change Committee for consideration and adoption in March 2022.

75. A high-level implementation plan for the Water Strategy, with action-owners, will accompany the final document.

76. The actions related to each strategic shift may require further refinement and the core content will require editing appropriate for an external-facing document. A workshop of the Environment and Climate Change Committee on actions and the draft strategy will be scheduled prior to the Water Strategy document being presented to Environment and Climate Change Committee for adoption. Local board chairpersons will be invited to that workshop.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Water Strategy Core Content (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00110

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The proposal helps to help protect sensitive areas, public health and safety and access to public places from harms caused by freedom camping in vehicles by:

· prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in certain areas of Auckland

· providing for freedom camping to be temporarily prohibited or restricted in a specific area

· providing for temporary changes to restrictions that apply in a specific area.

4. Council received feedback from 1,617 individuals and organisations to the Have Your Say consultation and from 1,914 individuals to a research survey. This included 45 Have Your Say feedback and 109 research survey respondents from the Local Board area.

5. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted.
Proposal 2	Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:
Proposal 2.1	Use a certified self-contained vehicle
Proposal 2.2	Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area
Proposal 2.3	Depart by 9am on the third day
Proposal 2.4	Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks.
Proposal 3	Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed.
Proposal 4	Schedule 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping would be allowed subject to conditions.
Other	Suggestions for additional prohibited or restricted areas.
Themes	Summary of key comment themes.

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

7. There is a reputational risk that Have Your Say feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations and does not reflect the views of the whole community, particularly as Auckland was under Covid-19 restrictions during consultation. This risk is mitigated by the research survey of a representative sample of Aucklanders and by providing a summary of all public feedback.

8. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 29 April and 6 May 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision in June 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive public feedback on the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 in this agenda report.

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

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in (c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw regulates freedom camping in public places

9. Auckland’s current Legacy Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 is a consolidation of pre-2010 legacy bylaw provisions developed before the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was passed.

10. A new bylaw must be made that aligns with the national legislation before the current bylaw expires on 29 October 2022 to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

11. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 in August 2017 which determined that a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 is an appropriate way to manage freedom camping in Auckland.

12. In March 2021 the Governing Body gave staff new direction to inform development of a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for Auckland. This decision followed consideration of possible elements to replace an earlier proposal developed in 2018, which was set aside by the Governing Body in August 2019.

13. On 23 September 2021, the Governing Body adopted for public consultation a proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 (GB/2021/112).

14. The proposal helps to help protect sensitive areas, public health and safety and access to public places from harms caused by freedom camping, by:

a) excluding land held under the Reserves Act 1977 from scope (council would maintain the current default prohibition on camping on reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, although local boards can choose to allow camping on some reserves by following processes set out in that Act)

b) managing freedom camping only on land held under the Local Government Act 2002

c) seeking to prevent freedom camping impacts in sensitive areas, and protecting public health and safety and managing access in all areas, by:

i) scheduling 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping is allowed

ii) scheduling 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping is allowed subject to site-specific restrictions

iii) including general rules to manage freedom camping impacts in all other areas (campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, stay a maximum of two nights, depart by 9am and not return to the same area within two weeks).

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 26 October until 5 December 2021.

16. Council received feedback from 1,571 individuals and 46 organisations (1,617 in total) provided via the Have Your Say webpage, by email and at virtual events.

17. Feedback was also received from 1,914 respondents to an external research survey of a representative sample of Aucklanders.

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

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

19. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area compared to Auckland-wide feedback

21. A total of 45 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 109 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

· for Proposal One there was majority support, similar to the level of support in overall feedback

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for three of the general rules, and support for an alternative departure time from HYS respondents

· for Proposals Three and Four there was majority support for most of the proposed prohibited and restricted areas in the local board area.

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted	82 per cent HYS support 89 per cent RS support	55 per cent HYS support 90 per cent RS support
2: Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:
2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle	52 per cent HYS support · 32 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 79 per cent RS support	68 per cent HYS support · 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 76 per cent RS support
2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area	68 per cent support · 12 per cent preferred 1 night 77 per cent RS support	39 per cent support · 32 per cent preferred 1 night 70 per cent RS support
2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day	35 per cent support · 59 per cent preferred 10am · 6 per cent preferred 8am 55 per cent RS support	28 per cent support · 24 per cent preferred 10am · 23 per cent preferred 8am 52 per cent RS support
2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks	60 per cent support · 7 per cent preferred 4 weeks 56 per cent RS support	40 per cent support · 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks 55 per cent RS support

Proposal

Local board feedback

Auckland-wide feedback

1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted

82 per cent HYS support

89 per cent RS support

55 per cent HYS support

90 per cent RS support

2: Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:

2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle

52 per cent HYS support

· 32 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’

79 per cent RS support

68 per cent HYS support

· 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’

76 per cent RS support

2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area

68 per cent support

· 12 per cent preferred 1 night

77 per cent RS support

39 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 1 night

70 per cent RS support

2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day

35 per cent support

· 59 per cent preferred 10am

· 6 per cent preferred 8am

55 per cent RS support

28 per cent support

· 24 per cent preferred 10am

· 23 per cent preferred 8am

52 per cent RS support

2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks

60 per cent support

· 7 per cent preferred 4 weeks

56 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal

Local board feedback (n=12)^{^[6]}

Auckland-wide feedback

3: Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed

· Maraetai Community Hall Grounds: 4 support, 2 oppose

· Maraetai Park and Foreshore: 4 support, 2 oppose

· Orere Point: 1 support, 1 oppose

· Orpheus Road Boat ramp: 2 support, 2 oppose

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[7]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

4: Schedule 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping would be allowed subject to conditions.

· Waiuku Service Centre: 3 support, 2 oppose

· Recreation and Parking (Colson Lane): 4 support, 2 oppose

· Maraetai Dressing Sheds Reserve: 4 support, 2 oppose

Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[8]}

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

22. Key themes from local feedback are consistent with regional feedback. For example, that:

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping

· freedom camping causes problems for Auckland and Aucklanders

· the proposed rules are too restrictive of freedom camping.

23. The proposal can be viewed in the link. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all local board Have Your Say feedback is in Attachment B.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

24. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. Staff note that this is a regulatory process to manage existing activities enabled by central government policy. It is not causing these activities to occur or affecting the likelihood that they will occur. The decision sought in this report therefore has no specific climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations, including Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, Parks, Sport and Recreation and Auckland Transport.

27. The Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their primary role in implementing and managing compliance with the Bylaw.

28. Council’s 86 park rangers help to manage compliance with council Bylaws, the Reserves Act 1977 and the Litter Act 1974 by carrying out education and monitoring on parks and reserves. However, rangers are not currently being warranted or renewing warrants, and Licensing and Regulatory Compliance will continue to carry out any enforcement required.

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

29. Concern about council’s ability to effectively implement the Bylaw and manage compliance within existing resources was a key theme of public and local board feedback in 2019. This issue remains in 2021 with most local boards (16 out of 21) raising it in response to the draft proposal, and is a key theme from Have Your Say consultation on the proposal.

30. In March 2021 the Governing Body requested advice about costed options for increasing the service levels for compliance associated with this Bylaw. Costings for these options were provided to the Governing Body in September 2021, for consideration during future Long-term Plan and Annual Plan cycles. The options included costings for:

· enhancement of council’s information technology systems, to enable the implementation of the new infringement notice regime

· use of contracted security services, to increase responsiveness to complaints (similar to the current arrangements for Noise Control), or for additional proactive monitoring at seasonal ‘hotspots’

· purchase of mobile printers, to enable infringement notices to be affixed to vehicles in breach of the Bylaw at the time of the offence

· camera surveillance technology to enable remote monitoring of known or emerging hotspots, for evidence-gathering purposes and/or to support real-time enforcement.

31. Local boards were advised in August 2021 that they can request further advice from Licensing and Regulatory Compliance if they wish to consider allocating local budget for enhanced local compliance activities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. The proposed Bylaw impacts on local boards’ governance role as it affects decision making over local assets, particularly parks and other council-controlled public places. There is also high community interest in freedom camping regulation in many local board areas.

33. Local boards provided formal feedback on the 2018 draft proposal to the Bylaw Panel in 2019, following on from their early feedback given during engagement in 2017, and site-specific feedback provided in 2018. This feedback supported the Governing Body decision to set aside the 2018 proposal to which this new proposal responds.

34. Three local board representatives participated in a joint political working group on 21 May 2021 to provide views on options for including general rules in the Bylaw. The working group unanimously supported the inclusion of general rules in the Bylaw, and five out of six members supported the recommended settings included in the proposal. A summary of the working group’s views was reported to the Governing Body on 27 May 2021.

35. In August 2021 staff sought local board views on a draft proposal for public consultation. The draft proposal was supported by 11 local boards with eight noting concerns or requesting changes, partly supported by six local boards noting concerns or requesting changes, and not supported by three local boards.

36. A summary of local board views of the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 23 September 2021 Governing Body agenda, page 257 (Attachment B to Item 13).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. The Bylaw has relevance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports two key directions in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau:

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

· kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

39. The proposal also supports the Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by ensuring that sites of significance to Māori are identified and protected from freedom camping harms.

40. Mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to provide feedback during the development of the 2018 proposal via dedicated hui and again through the public consultation process.

41. Feedback received on specific prohibited and restricted areas identified in the 2018 proposal was incorporated into the deliberations. This included the identification of sites of significance to Māori, such as wahi tapu areas.

42. General matters raised by Māori during past engagement included the need to ensure:

· the ability to add further sites of significance to the bylaw as these are designated

· provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, inlcuding in areas under a rahui

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

· clear communication of the rules in the bylaw and at freedom camping sites.

43. The proposal addresses these matters by proposing to prohibit freedom camping at sites of significance to Māori (such as Maraetai Foreshore and Onetangi Cemetery), provision in the Bylaw for temporary bans, and confirming council’s commitment to a compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness.

44. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide any additional feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person. No additional feedback was received from iwi and mataawaka organisations.

45. Eight per cent of people who provided feedback via the Have Your Say consultation and eight percent of research survey respondents identified as Māori.

46. The Have Your Say consultation identified that Māori had similar support for the use of general rules in principle, have similar mixed support on the four specific general rules and similar opposition to the specific restricted and prohibited sites compared to non-Māori.

47. The research survey identified that Māori had similar support for general rules and feel more strongly about the benefits and problems of freedom camping compared to non-Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. On 22 April 2022 local boards may present their formal views to the Bylaw Panel. On 29 April and 6 May 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of all public feedback to proposed new Freedom Camping Bylaw (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in the Franklin Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Advisor

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00694

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposed new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw and associated controls, staff have prepared a summary of feedback.

3. The proposal seeks to better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment.

4. Council received responses from 106 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 27 October 2021. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Banners	· Proposal 10: Verandah signs
· Proposal 2A: Election signs (9-week display)	· Proposal 11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)
· Proposal 2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks, reserves, Open Space Zones)	· Proposal 11B: Wall-mounted signs
· Proposal 2C: Election signs	· Proposal 12: Window signs
· Proposal 3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	· Proposal 13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones
· Proposal 3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	· Proposal 13B: Open Space Zones
· Proposal 3C: Event signs	· Proposal 13C: Commercial sexual services
· Proposal 4: Free-standing signs	· Proposal 14A: General (safety and traffic)
· Proposal 5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	· Proposal 14B: General (tops of buildings)
· Proposal 5B: Portable signs	· Proposal 14C: General (illuminated signs)
· Proposal 6: Posters	· Proposal 14D: General (business that cease trading)
· Proposal 7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	· Proposal 15: Controls and approvals
· Proposal 7B: Real estate signs	· Proposal 16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings
· Proposal 8: Stencil signs	· Other feedback
· Proposal 9: Vehicle signs

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

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal on 28 March 2022, and deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in April 2022. The Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport will make final decisions in April and May 2022 respectively.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls in this agenda report.

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

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel.

Horopaki

Context

Two bylaws currently regulate most signs in Auckland

8. Two bylaws currently regulate most signs in Auckland:

· The Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2015 / Signage Bylaw 2015 and associated controls

· Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu Pānui Pōti a Auckland Transport 2013 / the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

9. The Signage Bylaw minimises risks to public safety, prevents nuisance and misuse of council controlled public places, and protects the environment from negative sign impacts.

10. The Election Signs Bylaw addresses public safety and amenity concerns from the negative impacts of election signs.

11. The rules are enforced by Auckland Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

12. The two bylaws and controls are part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the:

· Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part for billboards and comprehensive development signage

· Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section for signs on, in or over a scheduled item or its scheduled site on the Hauraki Gulf islands

· Electoral Act 1993, Local Electoral Act 2001 and Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005 for elections

· Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices and New Zealand Transport Agency (Signs on State Highways) Bylaw 2010 for transport-related purposes

· New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority codes and the Human Rights Act 1993 for the content of signs

· Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 for signs and structures in public places such as for events.

13. The Signage Bylaw 2015 will expire on 28 May 2022 and council must make a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council and Auckland Transport proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

14. On 26 August 2021, the Governing Body and Board of Auckland Transport adopted a proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls for public consultation (GB/2021/103; Board of Auckland Transport decision 26 August 2021, Item 10).

15. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Signage Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

Calendar

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

16. The proposal seeks to better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment. Major proposals in comparison to the current bylaws are:

· to make a new bylaw and associated controls that combines and revokes the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013

· in relation to election signs, to:

o enable election signs on places not otherwise allowed up to nine weeks prior to an election

o clarify that election signs on private property must not be primarily directed at a park, reserve, or Open Space Zone

o remove the ability to display election signs related to Entrust

· in relation to event signs:

o allowing event signs on the same roadside sites as election signs

o clarifying that community event signs on community-related sites may only be displayed if a not-for-profit provides the event

o enabling signs for temporary sales

· increase the current portable sign prohibited area to cover the entire City Centre Zone

· increase the maximum flat wall-mounted sign area in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m²

· add rules about signs that advertise the temporary sale of goods

· retain the intent of the current bylaws (unless stated) while increasing certainty and reflecting current practice. For example, to clarify that:

o signs on boundary fences with an Open Space Zone require council approval

o the placement of directional real estate signs applies to the ‘three nearest intersections’

o changeable messages relate to transitions between static images

o LED signs must comply with the relevant luminance standards

o there is a limit of one commercial sexual services sign per premises

· using a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.

17. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 22 September until 27 October 2021. Council received feedback from 76 people and 30 organisations (106 in total).

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

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

19. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. A total of four people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal.

22. There was majority support for Proposals 5B, 7A, 7B, 11A, 11B, 12, 13C, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 2B, 2C, 3C, 4, 6, 8 and 15, and majority opposition for Proposals 1, 2A, 3A, 3B and 5A. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

23. In contrast, there was majority support for all proposals (except Proposals 9 and 13A) from all people who provided feedback Auckland-wide.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic	Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1: Banners	0 per cent	100 per cent	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)	0 per cent	100 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	50 per cent	50 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	0 per cent	100 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	0 per cent	100 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	0 per cent	100 per cent	65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters	50 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	100 per cent	0 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	0 per cent	50 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	0 per cent	50 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	67 per cent	33 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	33 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	67 per cent	33 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	100 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)	67 per cent	33 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	50 per cent	50 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	7 per cent

Note: Above percentages may not add to 100 per cent because they exclude ‘don’t know’ / ‘other’ responses.

24. Key themes from the Auckland-wide feedback highlighted issues with illuminated signs (Proposal 14C), general rules for event signs (Proposal 3C), portable signs (Proposal 5B) and posters (Proposal 6), and the rules for commercial sexual service signs (Proposal 13C).

25. The proposal can be viewed in the link. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

26. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. Council considered climate impacts as part of the Bylaw review and proposal process. The use of signage in Auckland has minor climate implications.

28. The proposal continues to support climate change adaptation, for example by requiring signs to be secured and not able to be displaced under poor or adverse weather conditions.

29. The proposal has a similar climate impact as the current bylaws, for example illuminated signs may have a minor impact on emissions. The Bylaw however is limited in its ability to regulate for sustainability purposes. The Bylaw must be reviewed in 5 years and committee has resolved to investigate redistributing sign rules between the Bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan as part of the Plan’s next review (resolution number REG/2020/66) at which time illumination and sustainability issues could be examined.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The proposal has been developed jointly with Auckland Transport.

31. The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit and Parks, Sports and Recreation Department, and Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport.

32. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The Bylaw is important to local boards due to its impact on local governance. For example, it regulates signs about community events and signs on local facilities and parks.

34. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal in July 2021. The draft was supported in full by four local boards, 16 suggested changes and one deferred a decision. A summary of local board views and changes made to the draft proposal can be viewed in the 17 August 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda (Attachment B to Item 10).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The proposal supports the key directions of rangatiratanga and manaakitanga under the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025, and the Auckland Plan 2050’s Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome by:

· balancing Māori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to exercise their tikanga and rangatiratanga across their whenua with the council’s and Auckland Transport’s obligations to ensure public safety^{^[9]}

· supporting Māori who want to make their businesses uniquely identifiable and visible

· enabling Māori to benefit from signs to promote and participate in community activities and events, share ideas and views, and engage in elections

· protecting Māori and Tāmaki Makaurau’s built and natural environments from the potential harms that signs can cause.

37. The Issues of Significance also contains key directions for council-controlled organisations to integrate Māori culture and te reo Māori expression into signage. The council group are implementing policies to support the use of te reo Māori in council infrastructure and signs. The proposal, however, does not require the use of te reo Māori on signs as there is no central government legislation that gives the council or Auckland Transport the appropriate bylaw-making powers for this purpose.

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

39. Five individuals identifying as Māori (6 per cent of submitters) provided feedback.

40. There was majority support for Proposals 3A, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7B, 8, 11B, 12, 14A, 14B, 15 and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 1, 2A, 3B, 7A, 11A, 13A, 13B and 14C, and majority opposition to Proposals 2B, 9, 13C and 14D. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

41. In contrast, there was majority support for all proposals except for Proposals 9 and 13A from all people who provided feedback Auckland-wide.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. On 28 March 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Auckland Transport Board in April 2022. The Governing Body and the Auckland Transport Board will make a final decision in April and May 2022 respectively.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of all public feedback (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Copy of local feedback from the local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/00598

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal seeks to improve the current Bylaw by removing unnecessary rules about lighting, removing expired legacy council bylaws and updating the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw.

4. Council received responses from 30 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 5 December 2021. All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as following:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Remove reference to lighting rules regulated in the Auckland Unitary Plan since November 2016
Proposal 2	Remove reference to expired legacy bylaws
Proposal 3	Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 28 April 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision in April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 in this report.

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

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

Horopaki

Context

The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw enables council to minimise public health risk and nuisance on private property

8. The Auckland Council Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) seeks to minimise public health risks and nuisance by setting out:

· general rules about property maintenance (overgrown vegetation, deposited materials, abandoned buildings and feeding of wild animals)

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

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

10. The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework. The Bylaw does not seek to duplicate or be inconsistent with this framework which includes rules about:

· regulating vegetation on private property that can cause a danger or obstruct views in the Property Law Act 2007

· regulating litter on private property and allows for its removal based on visual amenity in the Litter Act 1979

· regulating antisocial behaviour by people entering abandoned buildings on private property in the Summary of Offences Act 1981

· regulating mechanical cooling tower systems associated with air conditioning or ventilation in the Building Act 2004.

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

11. On 23 September 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to improve the Bylaw for public consultation (Item 16, GB/2021/117).

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

13. The proposal seeks to minimise public health risks and nuisance on private property by:

· removing unnecessary rules about lighting as this has been regulate through the Auckland Unitary Plan since November 2016

· removing legacy council bylaws which have expired

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

14. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 26 October until 5 December 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 30 people.

Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Diagram

Description automatically generated

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

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

16. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

18. One person from the local board area provided feedback in support of all three proposals. This is similar with the Auckland-wide feedback.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
Proposal 1: Remove the lighting rules as these are now regulated through the Auckland Unitary Plan	100 per cent support	70 per cent support 13 per cent oppose 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’
Proposal 2: Remove references to the revocation of legacy council bylaw	100 per cent support	88 per cent support 8 per cent oppose 1 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent ‘I don’t know’
Proposal 3: Update the Bylaw definitions, structure, format, and wording	100 per cent support	86 per cent support 7 per cent opposed 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

20. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Council considered climate impacts as part of the bylaw review and proposal process. The Bylaw and proposed amendments do not create a direct climate impact, but climate change may affect the problems regulated by the Bylaw. In particular, past and future expected higher average temperatures may worsen Auckland’s pest problem and exacerbate the growth of legionella bacteria.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest and no impact on local governance for local boards. The Bylaw regulates activities on private property and has received low levels of public feedback.

24. Interested local boards have an opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in February 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025 in terms of kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

26. The Bylaw aims to provide some protection to public space from pests. However, two hui with Māori and a literature review of key documents did not identify specific or additional impacts on Māori outside of the defined problem. The health and nuisance issues which are the subject of the proposed amendments to the Bylaw are not identified in the Board’s ‘Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025'.

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

28. Two people identifying as Māori provided feedback. One person supported Proposals One, Two and Three, which is consistent with the Auckland-wide feedback. The other person only provided feedback in opposition to Proposal Two.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The cost of the Bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. On 25 March 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in April 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015’ diagram in Context).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	111
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Franklin Local Board area	127

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01109

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal helps protect the stormwater network from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance by requiring approvals for vesting of new stormwater assets and ensuring effective maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems.

4. Auckland Council received responses from 79 people and organisations.^{^[10]} All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Main proposals to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

Topic	Description
Proposal One	Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.
Proposal Two	Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals.
Proposal Three	Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points.
Proposal Four	Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network.
Proposal Five	Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions.
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters.

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

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 4 April 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision on 28 April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 in this report

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

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

8. The Governing Body adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 on 30 July 2015 (GB/2015/78), which replaced the operative and draft bylaws from the previous legacy councils.

9. The Bylaw seeks to regulate land drainage through the management of private stormwater systems and protection of public stormwater networks from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance.

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

10. The Bylaw is part of a suite of regulatory tools used to manage stormwater and land drainage throughout the Auckland region, including the Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government Act 1974.

11. The Bylaw is supported by operational guidelines and processes such as Engineering Plan Approvals. The council grants the approvals to developers for new private connections to the public stormwater network and vesting of public stormwater network for new developments.

12. Various Auckland Council teams such as Healthy Waters, Regulatory Compliance, and Regulatory Engineering work collaboratively to implement and enforce the Bylaw.

The council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

13. On 26 August 2021, the Governing Body adopted the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) for public consultation (GB/2021/102).

14. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 by the Regulatory Committee in 2020 (REG/2020/43). Figure 1 describes the process for the statutory review and the proposal to amend the Bylaw.

15. The proposal seeks to better protect the stormwater network from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance, by:

· specifying controls, codes of practice or guidelines for managing the public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

· considering additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals under the Bylaw

· requiring approvals for modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points into the stormwater network

· restricting or excluding certain activities for parts of the stormwater network

· updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions.

16. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 22 September to 27 October 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Process for the statutory review and the proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

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

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

18. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

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

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people and organisations from their local board area

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area

20. Five people and one organisation from the local board area provided feedback summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Local Board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.	50 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	50 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	50 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	17 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	67 per cent support	73 per cent support

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Effective stormwater management enhances Auckland’s response to climate change through resilience and adaptation to increased extreme weather events by regulating land drainage. Carbon emissions from constructed infrastructure can also contribute to climate change.

24. The proposal enables the council to help meet its climate change goals and align the amended Bylaw with the Built Environment priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

25. Feedback was received in relation to the latest version of the Stormwater Code of Practice, seeking to incorporate the sea rise levels based on the climate change scenario identified in the Auckland Climate Plan. This feedback has been forwarded to the relevant council units for consideration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The Bylaw impacts the operations of Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters teams as well as teams involved in the regulation, compliance and enforcement of stormwater such as the Regulatory Engineering and Regulatory Compliance. Impacted departments have been consulted with and are aware of the proposals.

27. Healthy Waters staff have also worked closely with Watercare to ensure the amended Bylaw is consistent with the recently updated Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015.

28. Auckland Transport has also submitted its formal feedback on the proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for local board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards.^{^[11]}

30. Interested local boards have an opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in February 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025 key direction of Manaakitanga – Improve Quality of Life by managing land drainage.

32. Mana whenua were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through online meetings, in writing via email, or through the online form.

33. The majority of submitters who identified as Māori supported Proposals One, Three, Four and Five. There was an even split between those who supported and opposed Proposal Two.

34. Some concerns were raised about Māori customary fishing rights when access to parts of the stormwater network is restricted. Any restrictions for health and safety reasons would be considered on a case-by-case basis with due consideration given to factors including access for cultural reasons. Further explanation on this matter is contained in the deliberations for Proposal Four.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There are no financial implications for the council arising from decisions sought in this report. The cost of reviewing the Bylaw and its implementation will be met within existing budgets.

36. Public feedback raised concerns regarding the financial cost of implementing the latest version of the Stormwater Code of Practice incorporating the sea rise levels based on the climate change scenario identified in the Auckland Climate Plan. This feedback (Attachment F of the draft Bylaw Panel report) has been forwarded to the relevant council units for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. The following risk has been identified, shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations relating to local board consideration of public feedback to the proposal

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. On 4 April 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

39. The Governing Body will make a final decision on 28 April 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015’ diagram in the Context section of this report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	SWBA Franklin Submissions (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa - New Zealand Geographic Board: recording of unofficial place names as official

File No.: CP2022/00662

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about an opportunity to provide input to a project being undertaken by Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board to record large numbers of unofficial place names as official.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board are undertaking a project to record unofficial place names as official.

3. Around 30,000 place names throughout New Zealand have been shown on maps and charts for many years yet are not official. Of this there are 1,421 identified within the Auckland Region.

4. Where there is no other recorded name for a place, and where Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers it unlikely that the public would object, a fast-track process is enabled under legislation.

5. Of the 1,421 names proposed to be made official, 690 are non-Māori in origin, and 731 are te reo Māori.

6. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are consulting with councils and relevant mana whenua to ensure names are adopted correctly and remove place names from the fast-track process if there are any objections. The fast-track process does not require public consultation.

7. Within Auckland Council, local boards are best placed to provide local views. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are also consulting directly with mana whenua to ensure their views are represented.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the report, including attachments which detail the unofficial place names in the local board area which are proposed to be made official

b) provide feedback on any place names that, in their view, should not proceed under the fast-track process.

Horopaki

Context

8. Around 30,000 place names throughout New Zealand have been shown on maps and charts for many years yet are not official. Of this there are 1,421 identified within the Auckland Region.

9. Making place names official is important as it means there is one agreed and correct name for a place, which is especially important in an emergency. It is also an important way to formally recognise New Zealand’s unique culture and heritage.

The fast-track process

10. Section 24 of the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2008, known as the fast-track process, authorises Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa to use its discretion to make existing recorded (unofficial) place names official when:

· there is no other recorded name for a place or feature on a map or chart, or in a database that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers to be authoritative, and

· Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers it unlikely that the public would object.

11. A recorded place name is one that has been used in at least two publicly available publications or databases that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has agreed are authoritative.

12. A programme to implement this fast-track process is divided into the councils by region so that hundreds of existing recorded place names can be made official as part of one process.

13. The fast-track process does not require public consultation. However, Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is consulting with councils and relevant mana whenua.

14. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has sought expert advice from a licensed te reo Māori translator about the correct standard conventions for writing the Māori place names, for example, spelling and macron use.

15. This project does not include applying formal boundary extents to any suburbs or localities – it is only about their names.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has given Auckland Council the opportunity to provide feedback on 1,421 unofficial places names throughout the Auckland Region to ensure that any issues or concerns are identified before the place names are officially adopted.

17. Within the shared governance structure of Auckland Council, local boards are best placed to represent local views.

18. The 1,421 place names are spread across all 21 of Auckland’s local boards, distributed as follows:

Table 1: Number of unofficial place names proposed to be adopted as official

Local Board	Number of place names
Albert-Eden Local Board	22
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board	171
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board	24
Franklin Local Board	177
Henderson-Massey Local Board	17
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board	58
Howick Local Board	21
Kaipātiki Local Board	22
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board	17
Manurewa Local Board	11
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board	20
Ōrākei Local Board	28
Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board	5
Papakura Local Board	10
Puketāpapa Local Board	14
Rodney Local Board	397
Upper Harbour Local Board	44
Waiheke Local Board	184
Waitākere Ranges Local Board	133
Waitematā Local Board	29
Whau Local Board	17

19. There is also an online map available showing the locations of each place name at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=ef47da1929664e3aba10233306a5449a

20. The list of proposed place name approvals has been divided into four types of change that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are proposing to make:

a) Previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted as is (376) (Attachment A)

b) Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons (205) (Attachment B)

c) Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly (150) (Attachment C)

d) Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is (690) (Attachment D).

21. The process for local boards to provide input is as follows:

· this report provides each local board with a list of recorded unofficial names that are proposed to be made official, organised into the four different types noted above

· each local board is invited to provide feedback on the following matters:

o any concerns, such as incorrect spelling, or other known names for the places or features

o any history/origin/meaning of these names that they wish to provide

o identification of any place names should not proceed under the fast-track process.

22. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa will not proceed with making a place name official if it is likely to cause controversy within a community. If a local board wishes to have a place name removed from the fast-track process, they must make it clear in their feedback to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa which name they object to, and why.

23. Any place names removed from the fast-track process will remain as an unofficial recorded place name and will not be discontinued or deleted.

24. More information on proposing a name change outside of the fast-track process can be found at https://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/propose-place-name

25. Each local board will receive a follow up memo at the conclusion of this project advising which names have been formally adopted within their local board area and which remain as an unofficial recorded place name.

26. Any stories that relate to local place names provided to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa may be entered in the New Zealand Gazetteer.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. There are no climate implications from providing feedback on unofficial names proposed to be made official.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Auckland Council’s GIS team is involved in this project to ensure that place names are recorded correctly with regards to feature type, and coordinates/position.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The list of proposed place names includes a substantial number of Māori names, and all local board plans include objectives relating to delivering on commitments to Māori.

30. Any place name that the local board or mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast track process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is consulting directly with mana whenua on the appropriateness of formalising place names that are currently in common use.

32. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has worked with a licensed Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori translator to ensure that Māori place names currently in common use reflect correct spelling and macrons, and that their correct meanings are understood. Any place names mana whenua are not able to clarify will be removed from the fast track process.

33. Any proposed names that mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast-track process.

34. The Auckland Plan 2050 includes the outcome Māori Identity and Wellbeing: A thriving Māori identity is Auckland's point of difference in the world. It advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders.

35. The Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework - Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau – includes a number of mahi objectives which are relevant to this work:

· The council group supports te reo Māori to be seen, heard, spoken and learned throughout Tāmaki Makaurau

· The council group reflects and promotes Māori culture and identity within the environment, and values mātauranga Māori

· The council group fulfils its commitments and legal obligations to Māori derived from Te Tiriti o Waitangi and has the capability to deliver Māori outcomes.

36. Ensuring that unofficially recognised Māori place names currently in use become part of New Zealand’s official list of place names is an important step to delivering on these outcomes.

37. Likewise, ensuring that non-Māori names are not officially adopted where there is a te reo Māori name known to local iwi also delivers on these commitments.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications from receiving this report.

39. There are no requirements to update signage, as all of the place names are commonly in use and would not create a name change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa will not proceed with making a place name official if it is likely to cause controversy within a community. Any place name that the local board or mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast-track process.

41. If any concerns arise in the future over the newly adopted official place names Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa may publish an amending notice in the NZ Gazette, or the public can make a proposal to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, depending on the nature of the change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Local boards are invited to provide formal feedback on the list of place names attached.

43. A follow-up memo will be shared with local boards indicating which place names were approved in each local board area as part of the fast-track process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment A Franklin Local Board	143
b ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment B Franklin Local Board	145
c ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment C Franklin Local Board	147
d ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment D Franklin Local Board	149

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Franklin Youth Advisory Board Terms of Reference

File No.: CP2022/00577

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the refreshed Franklin Youth Advisory Board’s Terms of Reference and delegate formal board endorsement.Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2021/2022 Franklin Local Board work programme includes line 130 Youth: Franklin Youth Participation with an allocated budget of $22,000. The funding is intended support providers to advocate for local youth, build leadership capability, increase rangatahi participation, support diverse participation and encourage engagement with youth across the Franklin Local Board area.

3. The Franklin Youth Advisory Board (FYAB) is the key group that is funded by the board and supported by the Auckland Council organisation, through its provider Youthtown, to deliver Franklin Youth Participation programme outcomes.

4. FYAB has updated its terms of reference and are requesting endorsement from the local board to strengthen the close working relationship with the board. This report suggests that the chair be delegated the authority to endorse and sign the Terms of Reference on behalf of the board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the updated Franklin Youth Advisory Board Terms of Reference

b) delegate the formal endorsement of the Franklin Youth Advisory Board’s Terms of Reference to the Chair or alternative board member.

Horopaki

Context

5. The 2021/2022 Franklin Local Board work programme includes line 130 Youth: Franklin Youth Participation with an allocated budget of $22,000.

6. The funding enables a service provider, in this case Youthtown, to work with the Franklin Youth Advisory Board to support them in advocating for local youth, building leadership capability, increasing rangatahi participation, supporting diverse participation and encouraging engagement with youth across Franklin on local board activities.

7. The FYAB is a group of young people from across the Franklin Local Board area. It advises the local board on the needs, preferences and interests of young people.

8. FYAB had reviewed their current Terms of Reference (TOR) and updated them to best reflect how they work and to use more appropriate language for a youth board.

9. On 30 November 2021 a workshop was held between the Franklin Local Board and FYAB where FYAB presented the new TOR, seeking feedback from the members. The feedback received has been incorporated into the new TOR.

10. FYAB have requested formal endorsement from the board and that a member be delegated board approval to sign the document on behalf of the board.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. Franklin Local Board supports arts, recreation and community initiatives that enable young people to connect to one-another and to their community in the places where they live. Therefore, the board fully support FYAB to extend its reach into the Wairoa subdivision of the local board area.

12. The new TOR will enable FYAB to continue their on-going work while recruiting new members. The TOR sets out the structure of the youth board, its membership, structure and provides more clarity around roles, responsibilities.

13. Staff recommend that the local board delegate the approval to enable a board representative to endorse and sign the new TOR for FYAB and in doing so demonstrate the close working relationship.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. FYAB consider climate and environmental impact in their kaupapa and delivery of their programmes and events.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. The Youth Empowerment Team and Connected Communities staff work alongside the Franklin Local Board and Youthtown to assist, advise, mentor and support FYAB as part of the Community Social Innovation work programme.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. Local board outcome 6: A sense of belonging and strong community participation has the following key initiatives that align with support of rangatahi:

· identify and support a network of representative community groups, including marae and the Franklin Youth Advisory Board and deliver a plan (including a capability and capacity building programme) to support them in successfully representing neighbourhood interests

· fund initiatives that provide activities for children and programmes for youth in our town centres and villages

17. Local board outcome 1: Our strengths generate local opportunity and prosperity has the following key objective for rangatahi:

· support our rangatahi (younger generation) to develop capability, access local employment and benefit from local development

18. The local board expressed their support and gratitude towards FYAB at the November workshop for the work and initiatives carried out by its members.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. FYAB are working towards increasing the opportunities for rangatahi Māori participation in activities, mentoring and skill development and representation in FYAB. This is likely to have benefits to Māori rangatahi over time.

20. FYAB are incorporating te reo Māori into their everyday practice and correspondence and ensuring members have an understanding of tikanga and protocols.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. There are no financial implications for this decision.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. There are no foreseeable risks to the approval of the TOR.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. If delegated, the Chair will sign the TOR and FYAB will be able to officially adopt them as their operating framework.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Franklin Youth Advisory Board Terms of Reference 2021	157

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kaiya Irvine – Specialist Advisor

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson – General Manager Connected Communities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Franklin Local Board

22 February 2022

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Franklin Local Board for Quarter Two 2021/2022

File No.: CP2022/00183

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Franklin Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for Quarter Two, 1 October – 31 December 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with Franklin Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

a) ID 1678 Auckland Unlimited Franklin Tourism Support. On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 the Franklin Local Board resolved (Resolution number FR/2021/160) to approve Franklin Tourism Development Fund allocations this financial year 2021/22. This allocated funding to Te Kopu, Clevedon Community and Business (CCBA), and Manukau Heads Lighthouse Trust (MHLT). Agreements have been signed with all three organisations.

b) ID 128 C&CS – Arts & Culture, Operational expenditure for Franklin Arts Centre: The Franklin Art Centre delivered six programmes with three sessions to a combined total of 603 participants and attendees during this quarter. Highlights included the opening of the show Aroha Mai in the NZ Steel Gallery which encouraged participants to engage with a digital VR Rongoā forest, the Spring/Summer Showcase of Franklin Artists in the Community Gallery supporting local artists to exhibit and sell their works.

c) ID 132 C&CS – Community Empowerment, Community led placemaking and safety: Staff have finalised a funding agreement with Waiuku Business & Development Association for their placemaking activations in 2022. Funding support was provided to Community Facilities to deliver a community-led programme to reduce anti-social behaviour by providing notices on compliance and maintenance requirements at east and west coast beaches. Staff supported Clevedon Community & Business Association with a proposal for a new resident’s welcome pack. Staff liaised with internal and external stakeholders to deliver a community-led Pukekohe cemetery restoration in Q2.

5. The financial performance report for the quarter is attached but is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on half-year annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on 28 February 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for Quarter Two ending 31 December 2021

b) note that the financial performance report in Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group half-year results for 2021/2022 are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX), which are expected to be made public on or about 28 February 2022

c) approve deleting line item ID 1746 Wairoa Work Experience programme and moving it into ID 1476 Franklin Economic Broker work programme

d) approve reallocation of funds including underspend to ID 1476 to support six food and six hospitality businesses to take part in the XLabs sustainability initiative commencing in February 2022

e) approve reallocation of funds to ID 1476 to support proposed culinary workshops

Horopaki

Context

6. The Franklin Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme for the following:

· Auckland Unlimited

· Customer and Community Services (C&CS)

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services (I&ES)

· Plans and Places.

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

8. Auckland faced COVID-19 restrictions (Alert Level 3) from the start of the quarter to 2 December 2021, when all of New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, also known as the traffic lights. Auckland went into traffic light red, moving to traffic light orange on 30 December 2021.

9. Auckland Council regional and community facilities were closed in Alert Level 3. Restrictions eased slightly in Level 3, Step 2 and from mid-November 2021 libraries and the majority of arts and community centres were reopened. Pools and leisure centres were able to reopen from 3 December 2021 when New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

10. Impacts on individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

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

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

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

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Key activity updates from Quarter Two

13. The following work programme activities identified as initiatives in the local board plan or activities in the local board agreement:

i) ID 1467 Auckland Unlimited Franklin Economic Broker. The Economic Broker continues to deliver the work programme in line with expectations. At present, the costs of the Broker including expenses and mobile phone costs are forecast to be $118,000 at financial year-end. This is able to be accommodated within the budget without any impacts on the projects being delivered. A portion of the funding allocated for the Franklin Economic Broker remained unspent due to the Broker not being in post for the full 12 months and has been identified as a source of funding to enable Franklin businesses to participate in the XLabs circular economy programme, designed to assist businesses to solve key sustainability challenges they face. Approval is sought to remove line item ID 1746 Wairoa Work Experience programme and allocate the funds to ID 1476 Franklin Economic Broker work programme. This will better align the activity description with the activity name to support additional participation in the XLabs programme. Approval is also sought to reallocate the remaining unspent Broker budget for an additional activity to complement the Franklin Culinary Workshop. Accelerator has also recently been identified via the restauranteur and New Zealand food champion Peter Gordon's Homeland project. This added activity will enable a swift follow up to the culinary workshops to maintain momentum and support further work in this area with a New Zealand based expert with global recognition. The evaluation of the value of the role has been completed and the findings will be shared with the local board in Q3.

ii) ID 130 C&CS Youth: Franklin youth participation. During lockdown the Franklin Youth Advisory Board (FYAB) have continued to work hard on their outcomes. They have continued with their fortnightly formal and informal meetings via Zoom as well as doing some personal development courses. Their personal development courses included a weekly Toastmasters course where they were given the opportunity to learn more about communication & leadership. FYAB have achieved progress with their work plan through Māori Language Week & Mental Health Awareness Week (MHAW). They posted daily on their social media during MHAW and held a mental health online workshop which was open to young people. Members connected with two fantastic speakers who work for organizations in this space who shared some of their strategies for dealing with mental distress. FYAB have also recruited five new members from across the Franklin area who will help diversify the group even further. The Chair presented a FYAB update at the November local board workshop and Youthtown presented the terms of reference for members to provide feedback. The Strategic Broker has provided a report to the next business meeting to enable endorsement.

iii) ID 932 I&ES. Waiuku Zero Waste Business and Community Education Programme. Physical in-person events have not been able to be completed through Q2 due to COVID-19 restrictions. Waiuku Zero Waste have used this time to look at different ways to deliver and have put some of their educational content into short video format. There are still plans in place to run in-person education in the new year. Waiuku Zero Waste has developed a tentative schedule of repair café events for 2022. This includes adding bike repair to try and further engage with local tāmariki. Community and business outreach and education has been ongoing throughout lockdown. Waiuku Zero Waste have met with local businesses and organisations including Pukekohe Youth Centre, Sustainability made simple Expo 2022 and Te Ara Hikoi. Formative research has been undertaken in the Beachlands/Maraetai area to explore education and engagement opportunities in the area.

iv) ID 142 C&CS – Grants, Community partnership fund Franklin: The Franklin Local Board received fifteen applications for 2021/2022 Franklin Strategic Partnership Grant. A total of $175,000 was allocated to twelve applicants, the remaining three had their events cancelled due to COVID-19.

v) The Chair presented a FYAB update at the November local board workshop and Youthtown presented the Terms of Reference for members to provide feedback. The Strategic Broker has provided a report on the February agenda to enable board endorsement.

Activities with significant issues

14. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as Red indicating significant issues:

i) ID 20415 C&CS, Community Facilities Big Bay Reserve - renew coastal assets: A consultant has been engaged to undertake an options analysis and the proposal is being reviewed with the next steps to be decided once the options analysis is completed.

Activities on hold

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

i) ID 621 C&CS, PSR, Mangrove removal programme FY22. Mangrove removal suspended during COVID-19 lockdown alert levels three and four. Due to the length of inactivity, we are alerting the local board that there will be a $10,000 underspend. Work recommenced in November with 248 volunteer hours recorded by the Mudlarks in November and December.

ii) ID 141 C&CS, RSPIP, Movies in Parks – Franklin: The Events Team have requested additional funding from the board to deliver these events. This funding will cover the cost of extra measures needed to meet the new government requirements for outdoor community events under the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

iii) ID 20455 C&CS, Community Facilities, Clarks Beach and adjoining accesses – renew steps and fences: Mana whenua have provided their initial feedback and currently working with a coastal designer to agree scope and proposal to design the replacement structure, with next steps to appoint a designer and begin investigation and design.

iv) ID 15561 C&CS, Community Facilities, Kawakawa Bay- planning and protection – esplanade renewal: Construction work completed, and practical completion certificate was issued, with next steps to finalise the hand over, documentation and project closure.

v) ID 27688 C&CS, Community Facilities, Kawakawa Boat Club – investigate and renew boat ramp pontoon piles: Preliminary cost estimates indicate the pontoon replacements will be more expensive than thought and will require replacement under a more detailed form of contract and tender. A coastal designer has been engaged to produce a requirement statement to assist tender submissions.

vi) ID 20570 C&CS, Community Facilities, Maraetai Park – upgrade junior play space: Professional services contract has been awarded with next steps to review plans with local iwi group and physical works to start in Financial Year 2023.

vii) ID 20637 C&CS, Community Facilities, Pukekohe War Memorial Town Hall - renew heritage assets: The heritage architect designer has been selected to investigate the full scope and design. Building identified as being earthquake prone and containing asbestos material and has weathertightness issue. The next step is to proceed with further investigation, conceptual and detailed design, as well as cost estimate.

viii) ID 19966 C&CS, Community Facilities, Puriri Road Reserve - replace access: Project is on hold awaiting local board direction in relation to alternative sources of funding from Eke Panuku.

Activities with changes

16. The following work programmes activities have been amended to reflect minor change, the implications of which are reported in the table below. The local board was informed of these minor changes and they were made by staff under delegation.

Table 2: Minor change to the local board work programmes

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Change	Reason for change	Budget Implications
1746	Auckland Unlimited	Wairoa work experience programme	Reallocate funds to ID 1467	To better align the proposed activity with the activity name. The proposal is to increase participation for additional services across Franklin LB area to attend XLab circular economy programme	$20K to be reallocated to the budget line ID 1467. The 20K to be allocated to 6 food businesses to take part in the XLab circular economy programme
1467	Auckland Unlimited	Franklin Economic Broker	Allocate underspend of the Franklin Economic Broker	Portion of underspend found due to the Economic Broker not in post for the full 12 months. Suggest that the underspend be allocated to running a second group of businesses to participate in the XLabs circular economy programme	$20K to be spent on 6 hospitality businesses to take part in the XLabs circular economy programme
1467	Auckland Unlimited	Franklin Economic Broker	Allocate underspend of the Franklin Economic Broker	Portion of underspend found due to the Economic Broker not in post for the full 12 months. Approval is sought to allocate underspend on culinary workshops to maintain momentum and support off the back of the Homeland project.	Underspend to be allocated to culinary workshops.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

18. Work programmes were approved in June 2021 and delivery is already underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

19. The local board is currently investing in a number of sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around individual carbon emissions, environment protection, biodiversity, improving waterways and changing behaviour at a local level. These include:

i) ID 627 I&ES, Healthy Waters, Waterways Protection Fund – Franklin: The Franklin Waterways Protection Fund round is opening on 10 January 2022, closing 18 February 2022. Through Quarter Two 2021 preparations for the fund were undertaken and communications materials prepared. The Franklin Local Board communications advisor has prepared and released media stories to get the message to the community and a mailout sent to landowners in priority catchments (Mauku, Whangapouri, Whangamarie, and Wairoa). Local community groups and Facebook groups have been advised of the funding round. From 1 December 2021 Healthy Waters staff will start visiting interested landowners to assist them in developing their projects and putting in an application. These will be assessed in Quarter Three and awarded via a local board business meeting in April 2022. Two past Mauku catchment recipients of the fund have also had their waterway protection projects audited and the applicants reimbursed for moneys spent as per their funding agreement.

ii) ID 629 I&ES, Healthy Waters, Franklin Industrial Pollution Prevention Programme – Pukekohe: This programme was originally scheduled to begin in September 2021 but has been rescheduled due to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. The second phase of the Pukekohe programme will commence in Quarter Three, with 80 visits to businesses over March through May 2022

iii) ID 661 I&ES, Environmental Services – Natural Environment Delivery, Finding Franklin Bats: Te rapu nga pekapeka o Franklin: Through Quarter Two EcoQuest have been working with Te Ara Hīkoi on a strategy to monitor long-tailed bats in the Franklin District. The project will focus on education and skills training with active involvement from the community; the ultimate objective is to find roosts so that they can be protected from predator pests. On 14 October 2021 an online presentation was given to the group outlining a proposed project plan. Contact has been regular with key members of the group to identify priority areas for an initial survey. Funding received from the Franklin Local Board has supported EcoQuest for the time spent planning this work and communicating the logistical and scientific aspects of this work to members. The COVID-19 lockdown has delayed the ability to carry out preparatory site visits, but an initial pilot survey is still on track for January 2022

iv) ID 720 I&ES, Healthy Waters, Papakura Stream Landowner Engagement Programme – Franklin: Conservation volunteers and staff planted 4,000 trees along the Papakura stream in October 2021. This was initially delayed by COVID-19 restrictions. Planning has begun for the 2022 planting season. To date, nine sites have been identified for planting and one for litter removal. Site visits and meetings with landowners have been conducted to confirm areas and assess what is needed on each site for restoration. Further funding opportunities have been identified and additional corporate support has been obtained for the 2022 calendar year, this will add to the number of trees planted and complement the support that is being received for the local board programme.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. This report informs the Franklin Local Board of the performance for Quarter Two ending 31 December 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. This report informs the Franklin Local Board of the activities that has a direct Māori outcome focus and explain its progress:

i) ID 131 C&CS Community Empowerment. Local Māori responsiveness – Franklin: The Strategic Broker promoted the TUIA rangatahi opportunity amongst local Māori communities, in expectation of an applicant commencing the programme in Q3. Rangatahi-led initiatives were scoped to improve rangatahi voter participation. Southern Strategic Brokers supported the Ara Kōtui project and planning of a many-to- many mana whenua and local board hui to held March or April. Planned ways to respond to the recommendations from Māori Responsiveness Action Plan (MRAP) internal review report 2020. Staff will action recommendations for Mana Whenua to review and update the MRAP and engage a contractor to facilitate Mana Whenua hui

ii) ID 1399 C&CS libraries: Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating Te Ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori: Te Reo continues to be used throughout all aspects of service offer including online mediums and onsite marketing

iii) ID 1566 C&CS The Southern Initiative: Youth Economy (Youth Connections) – Franklin: Funding of $50,000 to be provided to Te Ara Rangatahi to support Mahia te Mahi - Rangatahi Opportunities, Employment and Education programme which will support 25 rangatahi and will start at the end of January 2022. There is a slight delay in the start due to staffing changes

iv) ID 1214 C&CS PSR Wai-o-Manu Reserve development: A draft operational management plan will be presented in Q4

v) ID 3121 C&CS, RSPIP CARRY FORWARD FR: Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) tranche two – Māori outcomes: Naming for Tranche Two is underway

vi) ID 3122 C&CS, RSPIP CARRY FORWARD FR: Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) Tranche Two – Māori outcomes: Names have been presented in October at hui tuku ingoa and first tranche of 61 names adopted in December 2021. Gazettal to follow

vii) ID 654 I&ES Te Korowai o Papatuānuku: An additional cultural planting site has been agreed upon between Ngāti Te Ata and Auckland Council for restoration. This brings the total of new planting sites planned for June 2022 to two. In the New Year, Environmental Services staff will work with Ngāti Te Ata to expand the initial investment of the local board via an application to Mayor’s Million Trees and the Waterway Protection Fund.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Financial Performance

24. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the Council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on 28 February 2022. Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. 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.

26. The approved Customer and Community Services capex work programme include projects identified as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP). These are projects that the Community Facilities delivery team will progress, if possible, in advance of the programmed delivery year. This flexibility in delivery timing will help to achieve 100 per cent financial delivery for the financial year if projects intended for delivery in the current financial year are delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

27. 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

28. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter three (31 March 2022).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Quarter 2 Work Programme update (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Franklin Financial Report half year ending Dec 2021 - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Orrin Kapua - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Georgina Gilmour – Senior Advisor, on behalf of Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

[1] Three waters refers to drinking water, wastewater, and storm water.

[2] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

[5] Streams, springs, rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater, estuaries, harbours.

[6] Refer Submitter Numbers 151, 197, 244, 260, 406, 457, 955, 964, 1062, 1073, 1075 and 1445 in Attachment B.

[7] Proposed prohibited areas with majority support were Pakuranga Community Hall, St Heliers Community Library and Hall, Leigh Library and Grounds, Ti Point Walkway, Warkworth Town Hall Grounds, Onetangi Cemetery, Waiheke Island Artworks, Entrance of Goldie Bush Walkway, Lopdell Hall and House, Sandys Parade and Highwic House.

[8] Proposed restricted area with majority support was Whisper Cove (adjacent roadside parking).

[9] For example, the proposal does not apply council controlled public place rules to land under the control of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority or to internal signs not on or visible from council controlled public places or the Auckland transport system. The proposal does however apply rules to signs on marae that are visible from council controlled public places or Auckland transport system as these could have safety impacts.

[10] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

[11] The decision-making responsibility for Te Arai Drainage District, the Okahuhura Drainage Area and the Glorit Drainage District was reallocated to the Governing Body on 9 December 2020 (GB/2020/140).

Chairperson	Andrew Baker
Deputy Chairperson	Angela Fulljames
Members	Malcolm Bell
	Alan Cole
	Sharlene Druyven
	Amanda Kinzett
	Matthew Murphy
	Logan Soole

Author	Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Georgina Gilmour – Senior Advisor, on behalf of Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura