I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Waitematā Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Tuesday, 22 November 2022 1.00pm Waitematā
Local Board Office Online viewing via Microsoft Teams. |
Waitematā Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Genevieve Sage |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Greg Moyle, (JP, ED) |
|
Members |
Alexandra Bonham |
|
|
Allan Matson |
|
|
Richard Northey, (ONZM) |
|
|
Anahera Rawiri |
|
|
Sarah Trotman, (ONZM) |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Gabriel Ford Democracy Advisor
17 November 2022
Contact Telephone: (09) 353 9654 Email: Gabriel.ford@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
1 Nau mai | Welcome 5
2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies 5
3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest 5
4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence 5
6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements 5
7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions 5
8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations 5
8.1 Deputation - Paul Gilberd 5
8.2 Deputation - Gael Baldock 6
8.3 Deputation - Dan Moloney 6
8.4 Deputation - Lisa Prager 7
8.5 Deputation - Laulu Mac Leauanae and Glenis Philip-Barbara, Ministry of Culture and Heritage 7
9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum 8
9.1 Public Forum - Jo Malcolm 8
9.2 Public Forum - Roger Hawkins 8
9.3 Public Forum - Roger Burton 8
10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business 9
11 Declaration by Local Board Member 11
12 Extension of time request for the landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park 13
13 Local board appointments and delegations for the 2022-2025 electoral term 135
14 Appointments to external organisations 143
15 Local board governance work management for the 2022-2025 triennium 153
16 Arrangements for making urgent decisions 163
17 Adoption of a business meeting schedule 167
18 Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items
1 Nau mai | Welcome
Chair Sage will open the meeting with a karakia.
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes
That the Waitematā Local Board: a) confirm the minutes of its inaugural meeting, held on Wednesday, 2 November 2022, as a true and correct record.
|
5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations
Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waitematā Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the board about the landowner consent for the National Erebus Memorial Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Paul Gilberd will be in attendance to speak to the local board about the landowner consent for the National Erebus Memorial. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) receive the presentation and thank Paul Gilberd for his presentation and attendance.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the board about transparency. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Gael Baldock will be in attendance to speak to the local board about transparency. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) receive the presentation and thank Gael Baldock for her presentation and attendance.
|
Attachments a Gael Baldock Deputation Material......... 175 |
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the board about the landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Dan Moloney will be in attendance to speak to the local board about the landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) receive the presentation and thank Dan Moloney for his presentation and attendance.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the board about Auckland Transport; the use of glyphosate in daily spraying; and mature trees. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Lisa Prager will be in attendance to speak to the local board about Auckland Transport’s works on Surrey Crescent; to request to end the use of glyphosate spraying across Auckland in favour of steam weed treatment; and to request an investigation into Auckland Council’s maintenance of mature trees in the Waitematā Local Board area. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) receive the presentation and thank Lisa Prager for her presentation and attendance.
|
9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 5 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To give the board an update from Mataharehare. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Jo Malcolm will be in attendance to provide the board an update from Mataharehare. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) thank Jo Malcolm for her presentation and attendance at the meeting.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the local board about the seating in Point Erin Park. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Roger Hawkins will be in attendance to request a new seat at Point Erin Park. |
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) thank Roger Hawkins for his presentation and attendance at the meeting.
|
Te take mō te pūrongo Purpose of the report 1. To speak to the local board about Community Led Local Decisions. Whakarāpopototanga matua Executive summary 2. Roger Burton will be in attendance to speak to the local board about Community Led Local Decisions with the Erebus Memorial as an example.
|
Ngā tūtohunga Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) thank Roger Burton for his presentation and attendance at the meeting.
|
10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | 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.”
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Declaration by Local Board Member
File No.: CP2022/15630
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. Member Anahera Rawiri will make an oral declaration and sign a written declaration in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 14 of the Local Government Act 2002, which will be attested by Chair Genevieve Sage.
2. The Waitematā Local Board chairperson is authorised to administer the elected member’s declaration during the meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, clause 14).
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Gabriel Ford - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Extension of time request for the landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park
File No.: CP2022/15920
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. For the Waitematā Local Board to consider a request for a time extension to the landowner approval granted in November 2020 for the construction of the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park, Parnell.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. On 17 November 2020, the Waitematā Local Board granted landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ at Dove-Myer Robinson Park.
3. Written approval was communicated by letter to Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) on 7 December 2020. The written approval included a condition that the approval would expire two years from the date of issue of the letter (refer to Attachment A). Consequently, without a decision to extend the time for the landowner approval, the approval will expire on 7 December 2022.
4. MCH intended to start site works in March 2021, but construction on the memorial has been delayed by significant community objection and occupation of the site, COVID-19 restrictions, the Ombudsman’s inquiry, and more recently, the need for MCH to address the Ombudsman’s recommendations. MCH has requested an extension to the expiry of the written approval (refer to Attachment B).
5. The Waitematā Local Board needs to consider whether to grant the extension sought.
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) delay a decision on the Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s (MCH) request for an extension to the National Erebus Memorial landowner approval while the local board obtains further information, and has a reasonable opportunity to consider that information, including:
i) confirmation from MCH’s Chief Executive on whether having accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation, MCH considers it has taken reasonable steps to resolve the sense of grievance that the failure to consult more widely created and intends to recommence construction;
ii) any amended design plans, method statements, tikanga at the site and/or project changes in response to consultation from MCH;
iii) information from MCH on the options selected to address cultural issues and the future management of the site with respect to the care of the notable pōhutukawa and memorial;
iv) the Ombudsman's final report in response to complaints into the process by Auckland Council; and
v) updated advice regarding the options available to the local board in light of the above.
b) request staff to notify MCH at the earliest opportunity that irreversible works must not commence before a decision is taken on whether to extend the time for landowner approval
c) note that staff will update MCH within two weeks of the Ombudsman’s final report being received of the expected timeframe for MCH’s extension application being considered.
Horopaki
Context
6. The National Erebus Memorial project is sponsored and led by MCH. The purpose of the memorial is to commemorate the 257 passengers and crew who lost their lives when flight TE901 crashed into Mt Erebus in Antarctica, in what remains New Zealand’s worst civil disaster.
7. Auckland was identified as the appropriate location for the national memorial on the basis that the flight flew out of Auckland Airport and the majority of New Zealand passengers were from Auckland. Auckland Council in mid-2018 identified five potential sites for the proposed memorial and provided information on those sites to MCH.
8. MCH selected Dove-Myer Robinson Park as the preferred location for the memorial. Of particular importance in this decision was the preference expressed by many Erebus families that the memorial be located at a site that was tranquil, accessible and park like.
9. In November 2018, prior to the design process being started by MCH, the Waitematā Local Board and Ngāti Whātua Orākei supported, subject to conditions, locating the memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The local board’s in-principle approval (resolution WTM2018/176) was on the basis that the proposed memorial design follows a rigorous design process including a review of the short-listed designs by the Auckland Urban Design Panel and the Waitematā Local Board.
10. MCH completed a design process where six short listed designs were submitted for the particular lawn at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ was selected on advice from an expert panel. The structure is a cantilevered directional linear pathway that is made up of three key components; a white concrete walkway and two feature walls that rise either side of the walkway as it extends out over the terraced bank (see Attachment D).
11. The design was assessed by delegated board members, independent experts and staff as being consistent with the park outcomes and values established in November 2018, with the reasoning set out in the November 2020 business report (Attachment C).
12. Local board led consultation was undertaken in October 2019 to inform the decision on granting landowner approval. It focused on the effects the memorial would have on the people who use the park and who have an interest in the project. A summary is attached as Attachment E.
13. Of those who submitted on the council consultation, 57 per cent felt they would have a more negative experience and 43 per cent would have a more positive or the same experience.
14. There was a relatively even split between those who would visit less often and those who would visit more often or not change how often they visit. Of those who submitted on the consultation, 49 per cent would visit less often and 51 per cent would visit more often or not change how often they visit.
15. The weight of responses from those residing in the local board area opposed the memorial being located at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. Responses were more balanced amongst those not within the local board area:
· 77% of the 325 responses from within the Waitematā Local Board area were opposed to the memorial
· 51% of the 425 responses from the wider Auckland area (outside the local board area) were opposed
· 19% of the 95 responses from outside Auckland were opposed.
16. A resource consent determined by an independent commissioner, in the council’s regulatory capacity and an archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand were both obtained in 2020.
17. On 17 November 2020, the Waitematā Local Board granted landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ at Dove-Myer Robinson Park (refer to report in Attachment C). A letter was issued to MCH on 7 December 2020 formally recording Auckland Council’s landowner approval (refer to Attachment A).
18. The letter contained 23 conditions on the landowner approval. These conditions were developed by staff to give effect to the local board’s decision of 17 November 2020 and are based on standard conditions used for such approvals.
19. Condition 23 provides:
This written approval expires two years from the date of issue of this letter.
20. The written approval therefore expires on 7 December 2022.
21. MCH has requested an extension of time for the construction of the memorial.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Extensions to landowner approvals
22. Local boards have been allocated decision-making responsibility for various non-regulatory activities including the use of, and activities within, local parks and local community and recreation facilities. Considering and determining requests by the public and other third parties for the use of these parks and facilities is therefore within the allocated responsibilities of local boards. Auckland Council refers to these decisions as ‘landowner consents’ or ‘landowner approvals’.
23. Local boards have delegated landowner approval decisions to staff through the Auckland Council Combined Chief Executives Delegation Register. This delegation is subject to consultation with the local board. This enables this customer-facing process to be administered efficiently.
24. However, the Delegation Register provides for powers that the local board has delegated to staff to be exercised directly by a local board:
the local board may through the Chairperson, without amending its delegation to the Chief Executive, at any time or in any circumstance, direct officers that the local board will make a particular decision.
25. The Local Board Protocols also provide that the nominated local board member can request staff to refer landowner approval applications to a local board business meeting for a decision. This approach is typically exercised sparingly and in relation to issues of particular interest to the local board or local community.
26. In the present instance because of the high public interest in MCH’s application for landowner approval to place the memorial on Dove-Myer Robinson Park, the nominated local board member requested that both the ‘in principle’ and final landowner approval for the memorial come before the full local board for decision. The local board granted these approvals in November 2018 and November 2020 respectively.
27. Following a landowner approval decision taken either by staff acting under delegation or by a local board, a letter is issued to the applicant outlining the conditions on which the approval is made. A letter to this effect was issued to MCH on 7 December 2020 containing standard conditions that feature on most landowner approvals. Condition 23 of the letter states; “This written approval expires two years from the date of issue of this letter.”
28. The purpose of condition 23 is to ensure that projects for which approvals are obtained are progressed within a reasonable time. The intention is that they are “self-executing” so that the council staff do not need to monitor projects and periodically cancel those that have not progressed within a reasonable time, taking account of any extenuating circumstances.
29. Where an approval holder seeks to extend the period of the approval, the condition also provides an opportunity for the council to consider whether a project which has been approved and not progressed is still appropriate after a period of time in which matters may have changed.
30. It is not uncommon for an applicant to request an extension on their landowner approval, particularly in the last few years due to COVID-19 restrictions.
31. Extension decisions are commonly made by staff (under delegation) shortly before or after the expiry of a landowner approval. However, as with all decisions staff take under delegation from local boards, as outlined above, the relevant portfolio holder or Chairperson may request that the matter come before the full local board for decision. Given the public interest in this matter and the local board’s history of making decisions on this matter, the Chair has requested that the matter come before the full local board for decision.
32. When assessing a request for an extension to landowner approval, in addition to general public law considerations and the ordinary decision-making obligations under subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002, the council may consider:
· the extent of any progress made to date on the implementation of the landowner approval;
· the reasons for any delay in implementation;
· whether there are any changes to the approved proposal;
· whether there has been any other relevant changes in circumstances since the date the landowner approval was given.
33. Advice in relation to these matters in the context of the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park is set out below.
Progress made to date on implementation of the memorial
34. For the reasons outlined below, only site establishment works have taken place onsite to date. These include the installation of fencing around some of the works site area and minor establishment works, including the installation of cameras for security purposes.
35. Although onsite works have been limited, MCH has provided a schedule of actions it has taken in reliance on the landowner approval.[1] In particular, MCH states that it has:
· purchased all the steel for the memorial – which will be wasted if the construction cannot proceed;
· entered into several construction contracts (currently suspended). There is a main contractor and other subcontractors;
· expended significant time and resource working closely with local iwi – Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust – who have expressed support in the project;
· expended significant time and resource engaging with the Erebus families through all stages of the project. The families are also supportive of, and invested in, the project;
· entered contracts for security and labour personnel e.g. installing fencing;
· hired security staff to assist with the site, including the fenced area for pre-site preparatory works;
· spent time and money on CCTV for the site and meeting privacy guidelines;
· contracted with external providers to have as project managers;
· put together significant information-based materials, including on the MCH website. MCH has committed to continually updating its website to ensure up-to-date and accurate information is available to the community about the memorial;
· prepared and is continuing to develop a national programme around the Erebus story to involve and seek input from the community in the future. For instance, by providing opportunities for wider storytelling about the site, the memorial and surrounding area to share the interesting history of the places and people connected to the whenua in an inclusive, engaging and accessible way;
· engaged architects and other specialists who have undertaken much work on the project to date;
· commissioned an arborist to provide further advice to respond to concerns raised by the group and amended the design of the memorial within the scope of the resource consents as granted, following consultation with Regulatory Services; and
· prepared a Cultural Monitoring Plan endorsed by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust.
36. MCH places its total expenditure since receiving the landowner approval letter in December 2020 at $1,137,458 (GST exclusive).
The reasons for delay in implementation of the memorial
37. Delays to starting construction have been largely outside of MCH’s control. The delays have arisen due to significant community objection, which resulted in the establishment of a ‘protectors’ group at the site, COVID-19 restrictions, the Ombudsman’s inquiry, and more recently, the need to address the Ombudsman’s recommendations. MCH has provided the explanation below as to why construction has been delayed:
Construction of the National Erebus Memorial was ready to commence in March 2021, shortly after the grant of Landowner approval. The then Chief Executive of Manatū Taonga agreed to the commencement of construction on the basis all necessary pre-conditions for construction had been satisfied, including obtaining Resource consent, Archaeological authority and Landowner approval from the Auckland Council.
Protest activity commenced at the site in March 2021. At the time, Auckland was under Covid-19 Alert Level 3 restrictions and so contractors withdrew their personnel from the site due to health and safety concerns for both their staff and the public. The then Chief Executive agreed to halt site establishment and attempt to resolve the concerns of those opposed to construction of the Memorial before proceeding further. In late August 2021 the then Chief Executive agreed that reasonable attempts had been made to resolve the concerns raised and agreed to recommence construction.
Manatū Taonga was again ready to proceed with construction in August 2021. However, on 4 October 2021 Manatū Taonga was notified of an investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1975 into complaints about the Project. While the investigation was ongoing, Manatū Taonga agreed, through discussion with the Chief Ombudsman, and in recognition of the significant constitutional role the Ombudsman plays, that it would only start reversible works at site. The reversible works carried out pending the release of the Chief Ombudsman’s report on the investigation included the installation of fencing. Taking the important first step of site preparation at this time ensured further delays were kept to the absolute minimum and the momentum of the Project was maintained, an important matter for the families, and the many others looking forward to this Memorial being built.
Since release of the Ombudsman’s report ꟷ which contained a recommendation that, before a decision was made about whether to commence construction at the site, Manatū Taonga has taken reasonable steps to attempt to resolve the sense of grievance the failure to consult more broadly before forming a preference for the Dove-Myer Robinson Park site has created ꟷ Manatū Taonga has been committed to working with the group that submitted the complaint to the Ombudsman and other persons with an interest in the Project to address the Chief Ombudsman’s recommendation.
38. It is also relevant that the local board requested in April, May and November 2022 that MCH not undertake irreversible works while the Ombudsman’s investigation into Auckland Council was ongoing.[2]
Changes to the approved proposal
39. The written approval requires the memorial to be constructed in accordance with a number of specified plans. MCH staff have engaged with council staff regarding relatively minor anticipated design changes to the structure including shortening of the ‘ice wall’ so that it no longer extends under the drip line of the pōhutukawa tree and a change from concrete to stone for the inscription panels on the same wall. More recently, in discussions with the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive of MCH, the council was informed that MCH was considering design changes (which may include or consist of those above) following discussions with other parties to the Ombudsman’s investigation into MCH.
40. Any request for changes to the specified plans would need to be made by MCH and considered by the council, in both its regulatory capacity under the resource consent and non-regulatory capacity under the landowner approval. Consequently, any decision to extend time would be for construction of the memorial in accordance with the specified plans only.
Changes in circumstances since the date the landowner approval was given
Ombudsman investigations
41. In October 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to both MCH and Auckland Council to advise that he was investigating a complaint from parties concerned with the memorial.
Investigation into MCH
42. The Ombudsman prioritised the investigation into MCH and released his opinion in March 2022. Key extracts of the Ombudsman’s opinion are produced below:
1. I have found that the lack of consultation by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage/Manatū Taonga (the Ministry) before forming a preference in August 2018 for Dove-Myer Robinson Park/Taurarua as the site for the National Erebus Memorial was unreasonable. Specifically, my view is that the Ministry should have consulted the wider local community and all Tāmaki Makaurau iwi comprising the mana whenua before forming a preference for any site in Auckland.
[…]
6. While I am critical of the lack of community involvement prior to the Ministry preferring Dove Myer Robinson Park, I do not consider that its own preference for that site can be said to be wrong. What the lack of consultation has done is deny an opportunity for wider community and Māori involvement in considering a range of possible locations for the national memorial. A sense of grievance over this continues to exist among some members of the local community.
[…]
8. In considering an appropriate recommendation I have had regard to a range of factors. There is a considerable sense of grievance amongst some members of the community which might reasonably be seen as tainting the memorial if no further steps are taken to resolve this before construction begins. The Ministry and Ministers have to balance this against several other factors, including the support for the site which does exist. My recommendation, which it is hoped is constructive in this complex context, is that before a decision is made to begin construction on this site the Ministry undertakes reasonable steps to attempt to resolve the sense of grievance that the failure to consult more widely has created
43. In light of the Ombudsman’s comment regarding the considerable “sense of grievance” that could be seen as “tainting the memorial” and his recommendation that MCH take reasonable steps to attempt to resolve the sense of grievance, the council sought information from MCH about the outcome of recent consultation/engagement with the community and families in response to the Ombudsman’s investigation.
44. MCH has informed the council that it has taken the following steps to address issues and concerns raised since November 2020:
· MCH engaged an external firm to assist with the design and facilitation of a process to help address the recommendation set out in the Ombudsman’s final opinion. That firm made several attempts to involve the complainant group in preliminary mediation conferences for them to ask any questions about the process, discuss the scope of the issues to be addressed and to share their perspectives about the dispute. However, for various reasons the group was reluctant to engage and ultimately declined to participate in any such discussions. In these circumstances the external firm did not consider a formal process involving the group as originally envisaged by MCH could realistically take place;
· MCH then decided to embark on an approach involving more direct engagement with the complainant group. This engagement has been structured around some core themes designed to achieve the aim of addressing the Ombudsman’s recommendation:
a. To continue ways to address the sense of grievance the site selection process created.
b. To work together with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust and Dame Naida Glavish to see if some of the cultural issues Dame Naida raises can be addressed.
c. To continue to engage with family members known to be opposed to the memorial at the site and the wider family grouping to see if there is a way to encourage open dialogue and provide resolution.
d. To consider options for the future management of the site, including potential arrangements that might address the care of the notable pōhutukawa and Memorial.
e. To clarify and put in place an operations and communications plan going forward.
· This engagement has included a number of face-to-face hui held at the memorial site, phone calls and emails, and constructive communication with members of the complainant group and others with an interest.
· Various positive steps have arisen from this engagement that include:
a. Further explanation and understanding of the concerns raised by Dame Naida Glavish concerning the notable Pōhutukawa tree nearby, which have been the subject of further discussion with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust.
b. Further open discussions with the group on their concerns regarding the site selection processes, cultural concerns, te Tiriti matters related to the number of iwi with an interest in the memorial, degree of families’ support, impact on family groups, memorial design and impact on the environment, health and well-being of the notable pōhutukawa and surrounds, and the role of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust.
c. Agreement by MCH and the group that tikanga would determine the way in which engagement would occur and agreed between them respectful communication at hui and an agreement that discussions would remain out of the media.
· MCH has made it clear to the group that there is a need to resolve things as much as possible but also a need to move forward balancing the interests of everyone and that informed, important decisions needed to be made, taking all views on board;
· On 2 November, MCH wrote to the complainant group to formally communicate its acknowledgement and regret at the sense of grievance they feel about the National Erebus Memorial project. MCH also indicated to the group that, in light of the constructive direct engagement, MCH do not intend to revisit the attempts previously made at establishing a formal facilitated process; and
· MCH remains committed to engaging openly with the group as it considers next steps.
45. MCH has not yet made a decision on whether it will recommence construction. MCH has advised:
[…] a final decision on the timing and recommencement of construction is yet to be made by the Chief Executive of Manatū Taonga. Fortnightly update discussions between Manatū Taonga, the main contractor and Project manager indicate that early January 2023 is a possible date to recommence construction following the festive break.
If a decision is made to recommence construction, once construction proper begins, planned timings indicated to Manatū Taonga is that the Memorial will take approximately eight months to complete construction. As noted above, the main contract is currently under suspension until 6 December 2022.
Investigation into Auckland Council
46. The Ombudsman's investigation into Auckland Council initially related to the consultation undertaken to inform the local board’s landowner approval decision and the recommendation (by an Auckland Council planner) that the resource consent application not be notified. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate decisions of a local board or a resource consent determined by independent commissioners, but he does have jurisdiction to investigate staff actions.
47. In March 2022, the Ombudsman advised that following further engagement with the complainants he was seeking the council’s response to additional issues including specific issues with the consultation, building consent and whether the council staff had an inappropriate stance with respect to the memorial. The Ombudsman wrote to the council again in September 2022 seeking a further response about the status of the local board and more information about mana whenua consultation.
48. The Ombudsman is yet to release his opinion into Auckland Council.
49. Given the investigation remains ongoing and raises process issues running up to the landowner approval decision, the Waitematā Local Board requested that MCH delay irreversible works pending the council’s receipt of the Ombudsman’s final opinion. MCH advised it does not agree to await the Ombudsman’s Auckland Council opinion before undertaking works.
Community views
50. As noted above, there has been no formal community consultation since October 2019.
51. An occupation of the site, coupled with COVID-19 restrictions, caused delay to the intended commencement of construction from March 2021.
52. A petition of Margaret Brough: Protect Mataharehare was presented to Parliament on 2 June 2021 seeking “[t]hat the House of Representatives urge the Government to reconsider the location of the proposed National Erebus Memorial, and note that 12,193 people have signed a petition to prevent it being located at Dove Myer Robinson Park”. At the time of writing, the Margaret Brough petition on the change.org website had 23,267 signatures.
53. A rāhui was placed on the site by kaumatua opposed to the memorial. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has provided the following information on the rāhui:
As previously advised to Manatū Taonga we do not recognise the claimed rāhui placed by others at Taurarua. Only the tangata whenua (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei) with the approval of the leadership, cultural experts, and Taumata Kaumātua can place a rāhui on our whenua. This has not occurred.
54. As the project sponsor, MCH are in regular contact with almost 300 family members, representing 144 Erebus families. MCH have confirmed that the majority of feedback received from Erebus families that they are in contact with has been in support of the project.
55. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has remained supportive of the memorial. Most recently, on 22 July 2022, the Chairperson of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust, Marama Royal wrote to Prime Minister Ardern stating “As the tangata whenua we continue to support the Erebus Memorial and are proud to be the host iwi at Taurarua”.
56. A letter in support of the memorial, signed by over 500 supporters including family members of passengers and crew and ice phase personnel has been provided by MCH and is attached as Attachment G. Names have been redacted by MCH to protect individuals’ privacy.
Bank stability
57. On 7 July 2021 the Parnell Community Committee wrote to the then Chairperson of the Waitematā Local Board raising concerns regarding risks relating to land stability and erosion at Dove-Myer Robinson Park identified in the 2021 Tonkin & Taylor report titled “Regional Assessment of Areas Susceptible to Coastal Instability and Erosion” (RAASCIE report). The letter stated that these risks were not identified or discussed when the resource consent application for the memorial was dealt with or when the local board gave landowner approval.
58. The RAASCIE report was published in 2021 and is an update of an earlier report produced in 2006 predicting coastal erosion for the Auckland region. The 2021 report builds on earlier findings in respect of coastal erosion hazards. The FAQs set out on the homepage for the report acknowledge, in respect of how the information contained in the report will affect the use and development of private property, that:
This is a regional scale study. The reports and modelling results apply to broad areas and may be superseded by site specific assessments by qualified professionals who undertake more localized assessments than presented in this study.
59. The FAQs address how the findings in the report could be used in relation to land use consents and building consents. The study was undertaken on a regional scale, and provides a high-level analysis, and should not be relied upon as a detailed assessment of natural hazards at specific sites.
60. Advice received from the council’s geotechnical expert is that the lines on the maps contained in the report do not show the future position of the coast. Rather, they show a reasonably conservative assessment of the area that might become unstable because off a smaller area of coastal erosion. This report is to be used when assessing future development and providing advice as to which locations should have further site-specific studies undertaken. These site-specific studies can then identify if there is actual risk at the site, and if there is a risk, provide information that can be used to protect the structure from that risk. The report does not imply that development seaward of the lines shown on the maps is not permitted.
61. As part of the consenting process for the memorial geotechnical investigation was undertaken, and a report prepared by ENGEO, a geotechnical consultant for MCH. This report concluded that from a geotechnical perspective the location and concept design of the memorial structure was suitable. This conclusion has been reviewed by, and is supported by the council’s geotechnical specialists. A copy of the ENGEO report is attached as Attachment F.
62. More recently, following the landslip that occurred adjacent to the Parnell Baths, concerns have been raised regarding the bank’s stability. These slips are commonly up to a few metres deep and would not impact memorial foundations which are set well back from the cliff face.
Pōhutukawa tree – Te Hā
63. Since landowner approval has been granted, concerns have continued to be raised regarding the impact of the memorial on the nearby Pōhutukawa tree.
64. The council and independent arborists consider that the memorial poses no risk to the tree or its roots. A qualified arborist will be on site during construction to supervise all earthworks in the vicinity of the tree.
65. In the longer term it is possible the crown and roots of the tree will grow beyond their current extent. In this instance, the same outcome as with Dutch War Memorial will be realised, whereby a fixed structure and tree will co-exist.
Memorial tree
66. At the time that landowner approval was granted the local board were unaware that informal approval was given for the planting of a ‘memorial tree’ within the works site area in 2017. The tree has since died but had it survived the establishment phase, the tree would in consultation with the family have been lifted and potentially replanted either in the glade area post construction or moved to another location within the park. Permissions for this would have been considered by the local board. These planting options remain open with a replacement tree even if the memorial project progresses but would for practical reasons, best be actioned on construction completion.
Options
67. Three options have been identified for consideration:
1. Grant MCH's request to extend the landowner approval for one year to 7 December 2023.
2. Decline MCH's request for an extension.
3. Delay a decision on MCH's request for an extension for an initial period of three months while the local board obtains further information, and has a reasonable opportunity to consider that information, including:
o confirmation from MCH that it considers it has taken reasonable steps to resolve the sense of grievance that the failure to consult more widely created and intends to recommence construction;
o any amended design plans from MCH;
o the Ombudsman's report in response to complaints into the process by the council; and
o updated officer advice regarding the options available to the local board in light of the above.
Granting the request for a time extension
68. Granting the extension has the advantage of providing certainty and enables construction of the National Erebus Memorial (should MCH decide to recommence works) to begin without delay or additional costs. Some site establishment works have occurred and the reasons for the delay have been largely outside of MCH’s control.
69. Although the Ombudsman’s report identified that the lack of consultation by MCH before forming a preference for Dove-Myer Robinson Park as the site of the memorial was unreasonable, he did not consider that MCH’s preference for that site could be said to be wrong. The concern was that the process had created a considerable sense of grievance amongst some members of the community.
70. MCH has informed the council that it has taken steps to resolve the “sense of grievance”. These steps do not appear to have resolved the issue entirely and there is a risk that those who continue to hold a sense of grievance will be disappointed with an extension of the landowner approval. Ultimately, however, resolution of the “sense of grievance” is the responsibility of MCH as the entity that created the grievance. It is relevant that MCH itself has not yet decided whether and when to commence construction of the memorial. If the extension is granted it would be open for the local board to request MCH’s continued engagement with the complainant group.
71. The Ombudsman also considered that despite this sense of grievance it was fair to record that “there is also considerable support for it – from the mana whenua representatives, from many who participated in the WLB’s consultation process and from a large number of Erebus families whose views are known.” A decision to grant the extension would likely be supported by these groups.
72. The Ombudsman's investigation into Auckland Council is more pertinent. That investigation considers the process, including consultation, leading up to the landowner approval decision. A decision to extend the request at this point would be made before the local board has the benefit of reviewing the Ombudsman’s final opinion.
Declining the request
73. As outlined above, site establishment works have taken place and MCH has incurred significant onsite and offsite costs in relation to the memorial. In these circumstances, there are reputational risks associated with a decision to decline the extension. Public or private entities that engage with the council to obtain landowner approval for various activities may have less confidence in the finality or durability of the council decisions and may be less likely to seek to locate activities or structures of benefit within Auckland.
74. There are also legal risks. The Chief Executive of MCH has informed the local board that “should the period of the landowner approval not be extended, [MCH] will be considering all … options to protect the Ministry’s interests, and the interests of those in support of the Memorial project, including taking legal action if necessary.”
75. Not extending the timeframe for landowner approval will also be a significant disappointment to those Erebus families and others who support the construction of the memorial. A decision not to extend the timeframe for landowner approval would be supported by those members of the community who have opposed the location of the memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park
Delaying a decision on the request
76. As outlined above, there are a number of matters in respect of the memorial that remain uncertain:
· The Chief Executive of MCH is yet to take a final decision on the timing and recommencement of construction.
· MCH has signaled an intent to make adjustments to the design of the memorial but amended plans have not been made available to the local board.
· The Ombudsman’s investigation into Auckland Council remains outstanding.
77. While the written approval for the landowner approval expires on 7 December 2022, an extension does not need to be provided before that date. Extension decisions are often made by staff (under delegation) after the expiry of a landowner approval.
78. It would be unusual for an extension to be given in circumstances where the applicant remains unsure as to when construction will recommence. This information is not yet available as at the time of preparing this report the Chief Executive of MCH was still considering timing and recommencement of construction.
79. The local board is being asked to extend the landowner approval in circumstances where the applicant has expressed a desire to make design changes to the memorial. In the circumstances where no proposed changes to plans have been provided to the local board, the extension is only in respect of the pre-agreed design. Any changes to that design will need to be subject to separate approval and potentially consultation with interested parties.
80. The Ombudsman’s investigation into Auckland Council concerns elements of the process leading up to the local board’s decision to grant the landowner approval process. It is possible that the Ombudsman will identify an issue with the council’s process in approving the memorial that the council and, potentially, MCH will want to consider before works commence.
81. Against this background, the local board may prefer to wait for confirmation of MCH’s decision to proceed with construction of the memorial, confirmation of whether adjustments will be made to the design and the findings of the Ombudsman into Auckland Council before making any decision in relation to whether to extend the time for the landowner approval. The local board can then obtain further advice on its options once it has further relevant information.
82. If a decision is taken to delay a decision on the approval, then the local board could inform MCH that it is not to commence works pending the local board’s further decision on the extension of the approval. MCH has yet to decide whether it will recommence construction and its contract is suspended until 6 December 2022. Construction works from 7 December 2022 would be in breach of condition 23.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
83. Carbon will be generated through the construction process. The levels have not been quantified but compared to the carbon generated through visitation to Dove-Myer Robinson over the longer term, these are regarded as minor.
84. Increased park visitation across Auckland’s network is seen as a positive outcome for the city by way of delivering health, well-being, community and ecological through stewardship outcomes. The challenge for parks planning in all cases is therefore ensuring greater park visitation is achieved through active and public transport options.
85. In terms of the National Erebus Memorial, Dove-Myer Robinson Park with its central city location and proximity to downtown bus routes, Britomart rail links, ferry terminal and dedicated cycle paths along Tamaki Drive all mean that visitors will have a number of public and active transport options which generally come with lower emission levels than, for instance, a private car.
86. In terms of addressing carbon emissions over the long term, the board approved location for the memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park is therefore considered appropriate.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
87. Auckland Council departments have worked closely to provide the advice contained in this report.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
88. In November 2020, the Waitematā Local Board granted landowner approval for the build of the National Erebus Memorial at Dove Myer Robinson Park (Resolution WTM/2020/296).
89. The local board is now being asked to consider a time extension to this landowner approval decision.
90. In the October 2019 consultation, those who live locally generally felt that the memorial was not right for the site. People felt the area should remain an open grassed lawn and considered the memorial not to be a good fit with the existing park features.
91. The proposed memorial will change the landscape of the park and people’s experiences, whether they be positive or negative, with these effects being largely limited to a defined area of the park.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
92. MCH began consultation with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in November 2018, and wider mana whenua consultation was completed as part of the resource consent process. MCH sent the proposal to 13 mana whenua groups (other than Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei) for feedback. One response was received from Ngāti Whanaunga however no further correspondence has been received since August 2019.
93. Dove-Myer Robinson Park – Taurarua Pā is a significant site within the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei rohe. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei support and acknowledge that this is a nationally important project.
94. A media statement by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in March 2021 (refer to Attachment H) acknowledges their support for the project and also for the use of the proposed site. This support is referenced as “a natural continuation of the manaakitanga that we have extended to our manuhiri since the foundation of Auckland in 1840.”
95. On 22 July 2022, Chairperson Marama Royal of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust wrote to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (refer to Attachment I) stating that “as the tangata whenua we continue to support the Erebus Memorial and are proud to be the host iwi at Taurarua”
96. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei recognise the site is a treasured piece of whenua which will complement and honour the memorial. The design acknowledges and strengthens these connections to the elements. Specifically, three key values have been identified and ingrained in the design:
· whānaungatanga (relationship, kinship, sense of family connection);
· kaitiakitanga (guardianship); and
· manaakitanga (hospitality).
97. The quality of the whenua is maintained with limited ground surface modifications, with the memorial build being referred to by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in the following terms:
The tupuna Pohutukawa will not be destroyed or affected – this will be retained and protected. We made sure that the location of the memorial would not damage the environment or be culturally inappropriate. As mana whenua we will ensure that the works are completed sensitively and are culturally sound. There will be further cultural narrative added to the site to ensure all whānau and visitors to the site understand the centuries of connection Māori and particularly, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, have to this whenua.
98. Work on the memorial will be undertaken in accordance with a cultural monitoring plan (refer to Attachment J) and an archaeological management plan (refer to Attachment K). The archaeological management plan outlines procedures to be followed including archaeological monitoring of earthworks and provides protocols in the event of the exposure of archaeological remains including koiwi tangata (human remains) or taonga (Māori artefacts).
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
99. The construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed memorial and associated features will be covered by MCH. There will be no financial cost to the local board for the National Erebus Memorial and associated infrastructure. A maintenance agreement will be confirmed prior to the completion of the memorial to ensure the maintenance costs are covered by MCH.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
100. The following table identifies risks associated with the three options; approving the landowner approval time extension request now, declining this request now, or making a decision once the Ombudsman’s investigation report has been released.
Option 1 – Approve the landowner approval time extension requested |
||
Risk description |
Mitigation |
Risk rating post mitigation |
If an extension is granted, those who signed the petition, and indicated they would have a more negative experience in the council consultation, may be dissatisfied with the decision. The sense of grievance amongst some members of the community could also continue and potentially escalate. A memorial that aims to bring people together in loss could have the opposite effect at a local level. |
Throughout the process, the council has consulted with relevant specialists to ensure alignment and protection of park values and outcomes. As requested by the local board, the views of the public were sought on the proposal in 2019 and the feedback was considered as part of the initial decision.
|
As with any new feature being introduced to a park, there will be differing views on how people feel it impacts upon amenity values.
|
If the time extension is granted, there will be temporary risks with the construction of the memorial. |
With potential for further protests, all works will need to be completed with significant consideration to the health and safety of contractors, protestors, the public park users and the police. Without further progress through mediation a security and police presence will be required.
|
The contractors must be vigilant and considerate to surrounding park users and the park setting. The risks associated with further protest and disruption are high. |
Option 2 – Decline the landowner approval time extension requested |
||
Risk description |
Mitigation |
Risk rating post mitigation |
If landowner approval is not extended, the families of the Erebus victims would have to wait longer for a memorial in another location. MCH, which has invested considerable time and expense thus far, will have to restart the site selection and design process. Such a decision may be subject to legal challenge by MCH. |
Staff could work with MCH to find an alternative location for a national memorial. |
This is unlikely to be satisfactory to MCH. Finding a high-quality Auckland site that provides a peaceful park-like setting, and that is befitting of a national memorial that accommodates the views of local community, will be challenging. Risk remains. |
Option 3 – Consider the landowner approval time extension request on completion of the Ombudsman’s investigation |
||
Risk description |
Mitigation |
Risk rating post mitigation |
The local board will need to consider the matter again once the Ombudsman’s report is released adding delay and uncertainty. |
Communications would be sent out to all parties and stakeholders to inform them of the situation. |
The delay is likely to be disappointing for MCH and other supporters of the Memorial. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
101. Staff will take steps to implement the decision via a written letter to MCH.
102. Communications will be sent out to key stakeholders to inform them of the decision.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Landowner approval letter - December 2020 |
29 |
b⇩ |
MCH letter to Auckland Council - November 2022 |
35 |
c⇩ |
Landowner approval report - November 2020 |
47 |
d⇨ |
Application form, plans and supporting documents (Under Separate Cover) |
|
e⇩ |
Consultation summary - October 2019 |
63 |
f⇩ |
ENGEO geotechnical report |
73 |
g⇩ |
Letter from Erebus families to MCH - October 2022 |
107 |
h⇩ |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei media statement - March 2021 |
113 |
i⇩ |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei letter of support to Prime Minister - July 2022 |
115 |
j⇩ |
Cultural monitoring plan |
119 |
k⇩ |
Archaeological management plan |
121 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
David Barker - Parks & Places Team Leader Darren Cunningham - Senior Land Use Advisor |
Authorisers |
Mace Ward - Executive Manager, Strategic Programmes & Relationships Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
22 November 2022 |
|
Local board appointments and delegations for the 2022-2025 electoral term
File No.: CP2022/15512
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To make internal appointments and delegations to manage the workload and enable the discharge of duties and responsibilities in a timely manner.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Local boards are responsible for a wide range of council decisions. As per their legislative role, most of these decisions relate to non-regulatory responsibilities of the council allocated to local boards.
3. In the first term of Auckland Council, all 21 local boards (and the Governing Body) made a general delegation to the Chief Executive of all their responsibilities, duties and powers subject to the exclusions, restrictions and clarifications set out in the Chief Executive’s Delegations Register. The exercise of responsibilities, duties and powers delegated from local boards is subject to the Local Board Delegation Protocols (Protocols). The Protocols require a range of decisions to be reported to the local board and require that certain decisions made by staff be subject to consultation with the local board, through a nominated local board member (or portfolio holder).
4. Local boards have also been delegated some decisions relating to regulatory processes from the Governing Body. These include giving input into the resource consent process and making objections to liquor licence applications. Some of these decisions are subject to statutory timeframes so having individual members take the lead on such matters ensures the local board can participate effectively in these processes.
5. To enable effective and efficient decision-making, it is appropriate that individual members undertake the following duties and responsibilities:
a) Provision of local board views and feedback during staff consultation on general landowner approvals
b) Provision of local board views and feedback during staff consultation on activities that are subject to regulatory approval e.g film applications and events
c) Provision of formal feedback on resource consent-related matters, specifically input into resource consent notification decisions and provision of local board views, if any, on publicly notified resource consents; includes providing views, if required, on any council decisions relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020
d) Preparation of and submission of objections, if any, to liquor licence applications and authority to speak at relevant hearings, if required
e) Representation at meetings of joint committees, working groups and other bodies which the local board is a party of or invited to.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) kopou / appoint a nominated contact, and an alternate, for staff consultations over landowner approval applications (excluding applications for filming and events)
b) kopou / appoint a nominated contact, and an alternate, for staff consultation on applications for filming, events and other activities on local parks and local facilities that also require regulatory approval;
c) tuhi ā-taipiopito / note that Screen Auckland will be consulting the nominated contact only on high or major impact film shoot permit applications and/or which have been specified by the local board in its August 2022 resolutions (WTM/2022/147)
d) kopou / appoint a lead, and an alternate, for liquor licence matters and delegate authority to that member, including any alternate, to prepare and provide objections, if any, and speak to any local board views at any hearings on applications for liquor licences
e) kopou / appoint a lead, and an alternate, on resource consent matters and delegate authority to that member, including any alternate, to:
(i) provide the local board views, if any, on whether a resource consent should proceed as a non-notified, limited notified or fully notified application
(ii) prepare and provide local board’s views, if any, on notified resource consents and speak to those views at any hearings if required
(iii) provide the local board’s views on matters relating to or generated by the COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 while this legislation remains in force
f) kopou / appoint a representative, and an alternate, to meetings of the LGNZ Auckland Zone and to take the lead on matters relating to this forum
g) tautapa / delegate authority to the chairperson to work with other local board chairpersons to select shared representatives to council working groups, working parties and other internal bodies, where there is a limited number of local board representatives to be selected from amongst all 21 or clusters of local boards
h) kohuki / consider any other appointments and delegations that may be appropriate, to manage the workload and responsibilities of the local board.
Horopaki
Context
6. To enable the effective and efficient conduct of a local board’s business, the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) provides that a local board may delegate to a committee, subcommittee, or member of the local board, or to an officer of council, any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers, except for the exceptions listed in clause 36D, schedule 7 of the Act. The responsibilities that cannot be delegated include the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in the local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans and bylaws of Auckland Council.
7. It is standard practice for local boards to delegate responsibilities for specific tasks and duties to individual members, to enable those tasks and duties to be discharged in a timely manner.
8. Local boards have also made general delegations to the Chief Executive which enable staff to make a range of other decisions on behalf of the local board. Some decisions delegated to the Chief Executive are conditional on consultation with the local board, so this report includes appointments of representatives with whom staff can consult and seek local board views from.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
9. Local boards have been allocated decision-making responsibility for various non-regulatory activities including the use of and activities within local parks and local community and recreation facilities. Considering and determining requests by the public and other third parties for the use of these parks and facilities is therefore within the allocated responsibilities of Local Boards. Auckland Council refers to these decisions as “landowner consents” or “landowner approvals”.
10. Through the general delegation to the Chief Executive, all local boards have delegated landowner approval decisions to staff subject to consultation with the local board. This enables this customer-facing process to be administered efficiently.
11. The Protocols provide that the nominated local board member can request staff (who are undertaking the consultation) to refer the landowner approval applications to a local board business meeting for a decision. This approach is typically exercised sparingly and in relation to controversial issues of particular interest to the Local Board or local community. Referring the matter to the local board for decision adds a considerable amount of time and resource to the process as it requires staff to follow the reporting timeframes for business meetings and slows down council’s response to the customer.
12. Separately Auckland Council takes regulatory decisions in relation to applications made under its Bylaws and the Resource Management Act 1991. Regulatory decisions sit with the Governing Body and are often delegated to staff or to independent commissioners. Before taking decisions, the Governing Body must consider the views and preferences expressed by a local board where the decisions affect the local board area.
13. This report recommends the appointment of local board members to take the lead on providing these approvals and views.
General landowner approvals
14. The role of the local board’s nominated lead for general landowner approvals is to be the point of consultation for staff. The lead’s responsibility is to:
· receive information about the proposed activity which requires landowner approval
· provide views, if any, about the impact of the proposal on the local park and the local community
· maintain a focus on governance matters noting that staff who maintain the park and undertake operational duties will be identifying the relevant operational issues
· ensure that reasons are given to support the views based on relevant and not irrelevant considerations
· consult other members of the local board, if appropriate, and collate their feedback, if any, to give to staff
· provide views, if any, in a timely manner (staff recommend nominated leads strive to provide feedback within 5 days, if possible) and,
· provide regular updates to the local board on landowner approval applications received as appropriate.
15. The exercise of council’s general powers to make landowner decisions is not unconstrained. Whether taken by staff or at the full local board level, decision-makers must ensure decisions are made in accordance with statutory and common and public law principles.
Filming
16. Screen Auckland (part of Tātaki Auckland Unlimited) is the agency in charge of permitting applications for filming in the Auckland region. They also facilitate the request for landowner approvals relating to film applications.
17. Due to recent growth in screen industry activity, Screen Auckland is now processing approximately 1000 permit applications per year. This number is predicted to continue to increase as the film industry recovers from COVID-19 restrictions.
18. Screen Auckland’s service level commitment is to process film applications within three to five working days. These timeframes reflect the nature of this industry and is line with the ‘film-friendly’ direction in the Auckland Film Protocols but it adds pressure to internal consultation processes.
19. The recommended timeframe, for consulting with local boards on filming applications, is two working days. These tight timeframes also mean that referring the matter to the full local board will most likely result in cancellation of the application as applicants will likely just opt for a different location. In this regard, to meet council’s service level commitments, the local boards are being encouraged not to refer film applications to the full local board for consideration.
20. The role of the local board’s film lead is to be the point of consultation for staff processing applications for film permits on local parks. The lead’s responsibility is to:
· receive information about filming applications on local parks
· provide views, if any, on how the activity may impact the local park and local communities
· maintain a focus on governance matters noting that operational staff will be identifying any operational issues
· ensure reasons are given to support the views and that these are based on relevant and not irrelevant considerations
· respond within two working days (staff will assume the local board does not have any feedback to give if there is no response received within this timeframe) and,
· provide updates to the local board on their nominated lead activities as appropriate.
21. At its 16 August 2022 meeting, the Waitematā Local Board agreed (WTM/2022/147) to participate in a 12-month pilot of a fast-track approach to filming approval consultation. During the pilot period, local boards who are participating have agreed to waive the requirement for staff consultation for low and medium impact film shoot permit applications. Decisions on these applications will be made by staff and the local board nominated contact (or portfolio holder) will be informed ahead of these activities taking place. The board will still be consulted for high and major impact filming activities.
Events
22. The Protocols require that a nominated local board lead is consulted, on behalf of the local board, on event applications that meet certain triggers. These triggers are:
· applications to hold events on council-owned land in the local board area that require regulatory approval and involve one or more of the following matters:
o complete or substantial closure of the public open space
o more than 500 people
o road closure
o liquor
o ticketed event.
23. The role of the local board’s events lead is to be the point of consultation for staff processing event permits on local parks. The lead’s responsibility is to:
· receive information about event application on a local park, when the above triggers are met
· provide views, if any, on how the event activity may impact the local park and local communities
· maintain a focus on governance matters noting that staff who maintain the park and undertake operational duties will be identifying any operational issues e.g. need for traffic management etc
· ensure reasons are given to support the views and that these are based on relevant and not irrelevant considerations
· respond in a timely manner (staff recommend nominated leads strive to provide feedback within 5 days, if possible)
· provide updates to the local board on their nominated lead activities as appropriate.
24. Staff are also required under the Protocols to notify the nominated local board member of areas relating to the event that may involve reputational, financial, performance or political risk and decisions to approve events on council owned land in the local board area. The nominated lead will be the primary point of contact for these communications.
Liquor licence matters
25. The District Licensing Committees consider and grant or renew applications for liquor licences and manager’s certificates. When a business applies for a new liquor licence (on-licence, off-licence, club licence, or special licence) or a renewal, these applications are publicly notified.
26. The Governing Body has delegated to local boards the power to object to liquor licensing applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (GB/2014/103).
27. Local boards have 15 working days from the date of a public notice of liquor licence applications (new or renewals) to provide an objection on the matter. The District Licensing Committee is required to convene a public hearing whenever an objection has been filed unless the application is withdrawn, the objector does not require a public hearing or it believes that the objection is vexatious and based on grounds outside the scope of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
28. As per the practice in previous terms, this report recommends delegating responsibility to an individual local board member to monitor public notices and lodge objections, if required, on time.
29. The nominated member’s authority extends to representing the local board at any public hearing that considers the local board’s objection. Where the nominated member is not available to attend a public hearing to speak to the local board’s objection, the alternate member or chairperson or other member agreed by the local board can represent the local board.
Input to resource consent matters
30. Decisions to grant resource consents are regulatory decisions of the council that sit with the Governing Body and are delegated to staff.
31. Governing Body has resolved that Local boards will be given the opportunity, within the statutory timeframes, to provide feedback, if any, on whether resource consent applications should be publicly notified (GB/2011/156).
32. Local Boards can also provide views on resource consent applications once they have been notified (and may speak to these views at hearings).
33. Resource consent processes are subject to statutory timeframes. To ensure the local board can participate effectively in this process, it is recommended that the local board appoint and authorise an individual member to take the lead in developing and providing feedback when applications are received.
34. Local boards, in previous terms, have identified a list of issues that automatically trigger their feedback on resource consent matters. When these issues or ‘triggers’ present themselves in a resource consent application, staff will email the nominated lead copies of applications for feedback. Local board leads are encouraged to provide comments on the matter within 3 working days.
35. Considerations by the lead, on behalf of the local board, should include how or if the proposed activity may adversely affect people in the local board area.
36. If the local board desires, the nominated lead for resource consent matters can also be the member in charge of assisting the local board in developing its feedback on other planning matters such as plan changes and notices of requirement. These matters cannot be delegated so feedback, if any, must be decided on by the full board.
Auckland Zone/LGNZ
37. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is an incorporated society (New Zealand Local Government Association Inc) which represents the national interests of councils around New Zealand and leads best practice in the local government sector.
38. The objectives of LGNZ include promoting and advocating matters affecting the national interests of local government. LGNZ holds regular dialogue with government, parliamentarians and government agencies and provides thought leadership and research on matters of interest to local authorities.
39. LGNZ members are organized in geographically based zones and sectors generally. In 2019, LGNZ Rules were amended to remove Auckland from Zone 1 with an expectation that Auckland Council, with its 21 local boards, will operate as its own zone group (Auckland Zone).
40. In the previous term, Auckland Zone held quarterly meetings with the LGNZ President and Chief Executive. These meetings were co-chaired by the councillor and local board member who are appointed to the Local Government New Zealand National Council. Each local board appointed a representative to attend meetings of the Auckland Zone and take the lead on all matters relating thereto.
Delegation to chairperson – selection of shared representatives
41. From time to time during the term, local boards may be invited to appoint a limited number of representatives to working parties, advisory groups, and other groupings that the Governing Body may set up. The selection of a small number of people to represent many local boards requires local boards to work together.
42. In the previous term, chairpersons were critical to reaching these joint decisions. Chairpersons can work as a selection committee (utilising their monthly Chairs’ Forum) to discuss and agree jointly on shared representatives for all local boards as and when required. In the previous term, this was also process authorised by local boards for the selection of the single local board representative to the Local Government New Zealand National Council and a representative to the Establishment Unit Board for the light rail project.
43. As representatives of their local boards, chairpersons can also work together in clusters to select representatives from different parts of the region, where this is required.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
44. This report recommends the appointment of nominated local board members to ensure that council can undertake its operational and statutory duties in a timely manner, while receiving local board input and decision-making in matters that are of local importance.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
45. This report seeks to appoint nominated local board members to perform specific functions.
46. Any local board member who is appointed as a nominated board member should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
47. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
48. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
49. If local boards choose not to appoint a nominated board member for landowner approvals, film applications and events, staff will need to seek feedback from the chairperson. This could potentially lead to a busy workload for the local board chairperson, in addition to their existing duties.
50. If local boards choose not to delegate to provide views on notified applications, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views prior to submission closing dates and miss the opportunity to have their feedback presented and heard at a hearing.
51. If local boards choose not to delegate to provide their views on liquor licences, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views prior to closings dates for submissions not coinciding with political meetings.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
52. Nominated local board members providing feedback will engage with staff acting in accordance with the Local Board Delegation Protocols.
53. Training for local board members will be offered on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the preparation of effective feedback for applications notified as part of a Resource Management Act 1991 process.
54. Nominated local board members (and alternates) who are delegated the responsibility of preparing and providing objections and speaking to the local board’s objection at District Licensing Committee Hearings should sign-up to receive alcohol notices. This will ensure that they hear about new applications as soon as they are open for comment.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Caroline Teh – Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Appointments to external organisations
File No.: CP2022/15516
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To appoint elected members to external organisations and agree the process for appointing the single local board representative to the Local Government New Zealand National Council.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. This report provides detail about these various categories of appointments to external organisations to inform appointments by the local board.
4. Attachment A to this report provides details of the external organisations that have existing arrangements with the local board or for which a relationship is prescribed in policy, such as business associations running Business Improvement District (BID) programmes. Local boards are being asked to make appointments to these organisations at this time and to consider any further appointments as part of their local board engagement plan and strategy for the term.
5. Local boards are also collectively required to appoint a single representative (to represent all 21 local boards) to the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) National Council, to fill one of three seats provided for Auckland Council. This report recommends a process for making a joint appointment.
6. Staff recommend that local boards consider appointing a lead and an alternate for various organisations for the 2022-2025 triennium. The function of alternate representative is to act as a backup to and to perform the appointee duties, including attendance at meetings, in the appointee’s absence.
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) kopou / appoint a representative and alternate to each of the external organisations listed in Appendix A for the 2022-2025 triennium.
b) tautapa / delegate authority to the chairperson to work with other local board chairpersons to form a selection panel to appoint a local board representative to the LGNZ National Council as soon as possible.
Horopaki
Context
7. Participation in community organisations is an established part of an elected member's role and having a relationship with community organisations and interest groups is an important part of the local board role.
8. Several external organisations provide for the formal participation of representatives of the Auckland Council in their affairs. These can include arrangements via:
· a trust deed that provides for a council representative on an organisation’s board, committee, or other function
· provisions in law, policy or resource consent that require council representative arrangements. For example, a regulation providing for a community liaison committee or a resource consent requiring the formation of a committee with elected member representation
· other partnerships or associations entered into by the council which provide for elected member representation.
9. These arrangements often include other duties depending on the organisation, the nature of that organisation’s work and/or the relationship with the council.
Council organisations (COs) and other formal arrangements
10. Council organisations (COs) are companies or entities in which Council has the right to appoint 1 or more of the trustees, directors, or managers (however described) of the company or entity, but Council has less than 50% control. An ‘entity’ includes any partnership, trust, arrangement for the sharing of profits, union of interest, co-operation, joint venture, or other similar arrangement; but does not include a committee or joint committee of a local authority.
Representatives to business associations with Business Improvement District (BID) programmes
11. Business associations are independent organisations that are governed by their own constitutions but often work closely with the council because of the roles they play and interest in local business communities (town and commercial centres).
12. Some business associations participate in Auckland Council’s BID programme – which sets a framework to provide BID-operating business associations (BIDs) with BID targeted rate funding, so those business associations can act for the benefit of the specified business area. Business associations that operate a BID programme are also required to work with Auckland Council to ensure there is accountability for the BID targeted rates collected by the council.
13. Auckland Council’s BID Policy 2022 sets the framework for governance, accountability, and management of the BID programmes. The BID Policy outlines the role of the local boards and the local board representative in relation to BIDs. It recognises that within Auckland Council, local boards are the primary relationship lead with BIDs.
14. Local boards have allocated decision-making responsibilities relating to BID programmes, including, but not limited to:
· advising on BID programme strategic direction (with the business association) and providing feedback to the business association regarding its annual BID programme presentation to the local board
· approving establishment of new BID programme and boundary area within the parameters set by the Auckland Council BID policy
· approval of any changes or amendments to an existing BID programme boundary area
· recommending to the Governing Body BID programme targeted rate grant amounts and proposed changes to a BID targeted rate mechanism.
15. To manage the relationship with BIDs and ensure adequate information sharing between local boards and these entities, the BID Policy provide that local boards will appoint a local board to represent the local board and liaise (with the BID) on their behalf.
16. The local board representative role supports the governance-to-governance relationship between the two organisations and is not operationally focused. Only the local board representative, or the alternate representative if the appointed representative is not available, may represent the local board at BID executive committee and General Meetings, but this does not prohibit BIDs from engaging with other local board members. Depending on the relationship, between the parties, the involvement of local board representatives on business associations may go further to include:
· an invitation that the local board representative be appointed to the business association executive committee with speaking rights
· bestowal of voting rights by the business association on the local board’s representative. The bestowal of voting rights is not recommended. This is to avoid any conflicts of interests (real or perceived), or disputes between the local board and the BID. However, provided the BID and the local board representative are comfortable that risks can be managed, the BID Policy does not prevent this.
Other business associations not running BID programmes
17. Often other business associations who are not running BID programmes find that having a dedicated liaison is helpful. This is especially useful if the business association intends to join the BID programme in the future. In that regard, local boards are encouraged to appoint a liaison representative, and an alternate if desired, for all business associations in its area.
18. The list of business associations relevant to this local board is included in Attachment A.
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) National Council
19. The LGNZ Rules were amended in 2019 to remove Auckland Council from Zone 1 and to provide for Auckland’s representation at the National Council. Given its sheer size and shared governance structure, Auckland will now operate as its own LGNZ ‘zone’ and of its three seats on the LGNZ National Council, one is earmarked for a representative that is appointed by the 21 local boards. The other seats are filled by the Mayor of Auckland (or his alternate) and a representative to be appointed by the Governing Body.
20. The LGNZ rules require appointments to the National Council to be made within eight weeks of the triennial local government elections.
21. In 2019, local boards agreed to delegate authority to the local board chairpersons and the 21 chairpersons formed a selection panel to appoint a single representative of the local boards to the LGNZ National Council. This process enabled a representative to be appointed within the necessary time and was an efficient and appropriate process for making shared decisions.
22. Staff are recommending a similar process for this term, whereby local boards delegate to chairpersons the power to form a selection panel and for the selection panel to collectively to make the LGNZ National Council representative selection at their meeting in early December 2022.
Appointments for the purpose of managing relationships and communications
23. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 specifically provides that a local board must communicate with community organisations and special interest groups within its local board area (section 13(2)(c)). In the past few terms, some local boards appointed dedicated leads to manage these relationships and ensure good communication lines with specific organisations and interest groups. These members act as a liaison between the local board and these organisations or groups.
24. While appointing representatives is one way to maintain good relationships and open communication, it is important that this is not done in isolation from the work of the local board during the term. In that regard, staff consider that a conversation about the local boards engagement plan for the term can best inform decisions on appointments that are made purely for the purpose of engagement and communications. This would ensure there is strategic value in these appointments and that there is a clear distinction from other appointments being recommended in this report.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
25. The appointments outlined in this report are not all similar and the responsibilities and duties of an elected member will vary depending on the type of appointment and organisation. Key considerations for appointment decisions should include:
Ensuring appointees have the capacity and skills to undertake the responsibilities
26. This report attempts to outline the differences between the various appointments so that potential nominees can assess if they are the right fit. Some of the roles require members to represent the interests of the Council or perform governance functions. Others may require a lot of time commitment for meetings.
27. A great deal of appointments require attendance of members at either monthly or quarterly meetings of these external organisations.
28. Elected members are encouraged to consider taking on responsibilities only if they can commit to the time and effort that is required.
29. Any other additional considerations will be included in the list in Appendix A.
Managing conflicts of interests
31. Conflicts of interest can sometimes arise in relation to such appointments, for example where the appointment involves a legal duty to act in the organisation’s best interest (e.g. as a director or trustee). A conflict may also arise where the appointed representatives become heavily involved and very invested in the affairs and decisions relating to that external organisation. In these situations, a conflict could arise when the local board is making certain types of decision in relation to the other organisation.
32. In order to reduce the risk of conflicts, elected members should not take part in the management of these organisations. Unless there is a specific arrangement otherwise, the role as an appointee should be confined to attending meetings, voting at annual or general meetings and acting as a conduit of information.
33. From 20 November 2022 new amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 come into force and require elected members to make a pecuniary interest return within 120 days of coming into office and before the last day of February in subsequent years, which includes declaring all appointments that a member has by virtue of being an elected member. Having an interest does not necessarily mean there is a conflict, but it is important to be mindful of any perceptions of conflict if elected members are actively involved with community groups, even in their official capacity.
Accountability
34. Appointed representatives are strongly encouraged to make regular reports to the local board on their activities and as appropriate, progress made by that organisation on key issues that is relevant to the local board and council.
Official capacity
35. Elected
representatives are delegated representation roles in their capacity as elected
local board members. Should they cease to become an elected member, their
appointment would be automatically repealed.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
36. This decision is procedural in nature and is not expected to result in any increase to greenhouse gas emissions nor will it be adversely impacted by the predicted effects of climate change.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
37. Auckland Council staff support local boards in programmes and partnerships involving business associations and other external organisations that may be covered in this report.
38. Staff in the Governance Division provide support to members who are involved with the LGNZ National Council.
39. Other than that, these appointment decisions facilitate positive relationships with key partners and are not expected to have any significant adverse impact on the council group.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
40. Local boards are generally committed to nurturing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders. This report and recommendations align with what local boards want.
41. There may be an interest in making more appointments or arrangements of this nature for the purpose of managing relationships and ensuring key community groups have dedicated liaisons that make their engagement with the local board easier. Staff are supportive of this approach, however, in order to ensure these arrangements are meaningful and useful, the local board is strongly encouraged to consider making any additional appointments in the context of a discussion about its engagement strategy for the term.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
42. This is a procedural decision that is not considered to have specific implications for Māori. Where relevant, any specific arrangements for Māori co-governance and co-management entities will be addressed in a dedicated report.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
43. The decision to appoint elected members to outside organisations is procedural in nature so does not have any financial implications.
44. Where financial decisions relating to these external organisations are taken, the implications of those decisions and these appointments, where appropriate and relevant, will be assessed accordingly.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
45. There are some reputational risks that may arise if elected members appointed to external organisations do not meet the expectations for their role. These include attendance at meetings and making themselves available or accessible to the groups to which they are appointed. To manage these risks, elected members are encouraged to carefully consider these roles and requirements and only take these commitments on if they can honour them.
46. To mitigate the risk of actual and perceived conflicts when can undermine decisions of the council, elected members are required to include the appointments made in this report in their annual declarations.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
47. Once appointed, staff will prepare correspondence from the chairperson to these external organisations introducing the new local board and informing them of the appointed representatives for their organisation.
48. Following the delegation of authority to the chairperson, provided all local boards agree to this recommendation, staff will bring the matter of the LGNZ National Council appointment to the next meeting of local board chairpersons for a decision.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
External organisations list |
151 |
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Caroline Teh – Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
22 November 2022 |
|
Local board governance work management for the 2022-2025 triennium
File No.: CP2022/15521
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To outline the options for efficiently and effectively managing the governance work of the Waitematā Local Board for 2022-2025 triennium.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. At the end of each triennium the Local Board Services (LBS) department delivers a review of local board work practices, including the organisational support they require and how well they support the boards in their governance role. The 2019-2022 triennium review gathered feedback from local board members, and staff from LBS and other council departments and Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs).
3. In response to the review, this report outlines a recommended baseline working practice for local boards to manage their governance workload as follows:
· maintain a key focus on annual work programmes and their implementation through quarterly reporting and regular workshops with the whole local board, with decisions made at business meetings
· appoint nominated local board members who will be consulted on landowner consents and events, and who will provide feedback on liquor licences and resource consents
· appoint nominated local board members to external organisations.
4. These practices support the local board to undertake their governance role in an efficient and effective way, reflect the priority work of the local board and help the organisation focus its resources. Some of these practices require a decision of the local board, such as specific appointments of local board members, and separate reports cover these recommendations and associated advice.
5. Local boards are also able to identify topic area leads who would act as a champion with the local board on specific topic areas. Leads would focus on work programme activities/ projects within their topic areas and understanding relevant community needs and preferences enabling other members to focus their time on other parts of the local board’s workload.
6. The review feedback suggests the following advantages for having a full board involved in direction-setting discussions on issues, rather than identifying topic area leads:
· staff are confident that the direction is the view of the whole board rather than one member
· knowledge and information is retained by the full local board rather than one member
· discussions with staff are less likely to enter into management or operational level detail
· it avoids inefficient duplication, when conversations are held between staff and a lead, and then repeated with the full local board.
7. The review of local board work practices identified advantages and risks associated with this mechanism. The review concluded that use of topic leads is not supported throughout the organisation as there are a number of potential risks that are not outweighed by the potential benefits.
8. The feedback from the review highlighted that if a local board does appoint topic area leads, the risks should be mitigated by providing a clear scope for that role and ensuring it does not lead to inefficiency or adversely affect staff receiving clear direction from the full local board.
Recommendation/s That the Waitematā Local Board: a) endorse the following approach to effectively and efficiently manage the governance work of the local board for the 2022-2025 triennium: i) maintain a key focus on annual work programmes and their implementation through quarterly reporting and regular workshops with the whole local board, with decisions made at business meetings ii) appoint nominated local board members who will be consulted on landowner consents and events, and who will provide feedback on liquor licences and resource consents iii) appoint nominated local board members to external organisations. b) note that portfolios are an optional mechanism that can play a part of sharing the workload across board members, that leads should act as a champion with the local board on specific topic areas, focus on work programme activities/ projects within their topic areas and understand relevant community needs and preferences enabling other members to focus their time on other parts of the local board’s workload. c) consider whether the board will utilise the optional mechanism of portfolios to share workload and if this approach is endorsed appoint members to portfolios as outlined in option 3 based on the proposed Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes/themes.
|
Horopaki
Context
9. The governance role of an elected member is to:
· set direction and policy
· set priorities
· make significant decisions
· test advice
· monitor performance and risk
· connect with and represent the community
· be accountable to the public.
10. At the end of each triennium the Local Board Services (LBS) department undertakes a review of the work practices of, and organisational support provided for, local boards and how this supports them in their governance role. Previous reviews have noted the progress the organisation has made in supporting the governance role of local boards over the past twelve years. Improved support and delivery from the organisation have enabled local board members’ time to be used in a more effective and efficient manner as the governance model has matured.
11. During the 2019-2022 triennium review, feedback was gathered from local board members, staff from LBS, other council departments and council-controlled organisations (CCOs) who work with local boards.
12. Key themes from local board members related to having topic area leads. Both positives and negatives were identified.
13. Key themes from staff were that clear direction is needed from the full local board and local board members operate at the governance level. Staff identified both positive and negatives aspects of having topic area leads.
14. The findings from the review have informed the content of this report.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Work practices supporting the governance role of local boards (recommended approach)
15. There are established work practices in place which support the governance role of local boards as follows:
· Local boards adopt an annual work programme each June for implementation by the council organisation in the next financial year (July-June). Local boards maintain a key focus on these annual work programmes and their implementation through quarterly reporting and regular workshops with the whole local board, with decisions made at business meetings.
· Local boards appoint a nominated local board member who will be consulted with by staff who are carrying out their staff delegations for landowner consents and events. Local boards can also appoint a nominated local board member to provide feedback and attend hearings on liquor licences and notified resource consents to ensure that local board views are taken into account in these timebound processes. These appointments are made via a separate report.
· Local boards appoint nominated local board members to external organisations (via separate report) to exercise their role in the external organisation as per the relevant constitution on behalf of the local board.
16. Together these practices constitute the recommended approach for managing the governance work of the local board for the 2022-2025 triennium, reflect the priority work of the local board and are the focus of the organisation’s staff and resources.
17. This approach allows all members to have an overview and collective understanding of work programme matters, and for the whole local board to be able to provide direction to staff and track performance and delivery throughout the financial year. It also enables collective discussions that utilise individual member’s skills and knowledge and ensures elected member and staff time are used effectively and efficiently.
18. Transparency to the public is ensured by local board decisions occurring through the formal business meeting process with associated standing orders.
Optional additional practice: Portfolios
19. It is the responsibility of the local board as a whole - not just the portfolio holder – to provide direction to staff at workshops and to make formal decisions at business meetings.
20. Portfolios are an optional mechanism that can play a part in sharing the workload across board members. Holders would act as a champion of the local board on specific topic areas, focus on work programme activities/ projects within their topic areas and understanding relevant community needs and preferences enabling other members to focus their time on other parts of the local board’s work programme.
21. The review of local board work practices identified advantages and risks associated with this mechanism. The review concluded that use of portfolios is not supported throughout the organisation as there are a number of potential risks that are not outweighed by the potential benefits.
22. The feedback from the review highlighted that if a local board does appoint portfolio holders, risks should be mitigated by providing a clear scope for that role and ensuring it does not lead to inefficiency or adversely affect staff receiving clear direction from the full local board.
23. While portfolios are not recommended as a mechanism for sharing the workload, it is recognised that some boards will continue to utilise a form of portfolio. Staff have prepared some recommendations and options on implementing portfolios if the board chooses to do so.
Role of Portfolio Holder
24. The role of the portfolio holder would be to:
· act as a champion for the topic area in full local board conversations
· focus on work programme activities/ projects within their topic area
· at the direction of the local board, maintain relationships with key stakeholders and understand relevant community needs and preferences
· lead the development of local board feedback on regional policies, plans and strategies relevant to the topic area and report back to the full local board for approval
· at the direction of the local board, undertake any feedback or decision-making roles as directed or delegated (which is required when decision-making is required)
· report back to the local board at workshops, and publicly via board member reports at business meetings, on any activities undertaken as the topic area lead.
· recognise that topic area leads are not decision-making roles, unless the local board resolves a specific delegation to a topic area lead(s) to make decisions on behalf of the local board
25. Portfolio holders may also:
· be appointed as the nominated local board member to provide feedback on behalf of the local board on relevant matters (e.g. landowner consents) and appointed to related external organisations
· undertake learning and development opportunities and attend conferences (using their individual development budget provided as part of the Kura Kāwana development programme) relevant to the topic area
· highlight relevant issues and emerging priorities during local board plan and work programme development
· act as a key contact for community groups and members of the public on the topic area.
26. Portfolios would enable individual local board members to use existing or build new knowledge and expertise in the topic area and enable other members to focus their time on other parts of the governance workload.
Risks to consider when implementing portfolio holders
27. Should the local board identify portfolio holders, there are the following risks to consider:
· a member may provide direction or views which do not reflect those of the full local board
· staff may seek direction from a portfolio holder instead of the full local board, or seek direction from a portfolio holder prior to the full local board, resulting in duplication of work
· key knowledge and information on a topic may be retained with the portfolio holder and not shared with the whole local board
· a portfolio holder may enter into discussions at the management or operational level if meeting regularly with staff without a clear governance purpose for the discussion.
28. These risks can be addressed by:
· using the workshop process as the mechanism for all local board members to receive updates and provide governance direction on approved work programme projects
· clarifying the limited resources available to any portfolio holder.
29. Staff resourcing is focussed on work programme development and delivery, along with advice to support workshops and business meetings. Portfolio holders can be supported by staff to undertake the following responsibilities:
· when issues arise at a full local board workshop, the portfolio holder can be directed to meet with staff on that issue and explore solutions; staff would report back to the full local board for direction, and the portfolio holder can assist with explanation and support during that discussion
· develop local board feedback on regional policies, plans and strategies relevant to the topic area, for full local board approval
· respond to constituent enquiries relevant to the topic area
· report back to the local board at workshops, and publicly via board member reports at business meetings, on the activities undertaken as the portfolio holder.
30. If a local board does want to appoint portfolio holders, it may wish to consider identifying alternates. The role of the alternate would be to support the portfolio holder in their responsibilities and undertake any roles the lead has been formally appointed by the whole board when the lead is unavailable. Having an alternate means that the information, knowledge, skills and workload can be shared by more than one member, but it could also lead to confusion between the two roles where the alternate acts as a co-lead.
Waitematā Portfolio Options:
31. If the local board decides to develop portfolios in addition to the recommended baseline working approach the following options outline possible topic areas for consideration.
Option 1 – Portfolio aligns with the local board work programme (Not recommended)
32. This option aligns with the approved work programme structure for the local board and would include the following topics:
- Parks and Community Facilities
- Infrastructure and Environment
- Active Communities
- Connected Communities
- External Partnerships
- Emergency Management
- Regional Services and Strategy
Pros |
Cons |
· Aligns with the work programme format and department structure
|
· Excludes key portfolios such as planning and heritage · No clear fit for the delegation resource consent and liquor licensing delegation. · The Parks and Community Facilities work programme is a significant portfolio compared to other work programmes · Does not include Transport or Auckland Unlimited · There have been recent changes to division and department structures that could change the alignment of this option
|
Option 2: - Portfolios based on significant areas of interest
33. This option identifies portfolios that relate to significant areas of interest for the Waitematā Local Board area and based on the previous term including:
- Māori outcomes
- Arts, Culture and Events
- Community Development
- Environment and Infrastructure
- Parks, Sport and Recreation
- Local Economic Development
- Transport
- Planning and Heritage
Pros |
Cons |
· Groups the role into clear topics · This option splits out the Parks and Community Facilities work programme across two topic areas – Community Development and Parks, Sport and Recreation making it more manageable · Continuation of the previous term portfolios which provides a level of consistency and certainty for the organisation · Includes a portfolio on planning and heritage, which aligns with the timebound delegation of inputting into resource consent notification and providing formal views on liquor licensing · Some alignment to Local Board Plan 2020 Outcomes |
· Portfolios don’t align with department structures · Portfolios don’t align with Local Board Plan outcomes · There are eight topic areas and seven local board members
|
Option 3: - Portfolios based on Local Board Plan 2023 Outcomes/ Themes (Recommended)
34. Option 3 is based on the advised direction for the Local Board Plan 2023 structure and would include the following themes:
35. Our Community includes Community participation, Community infrastructure, Council buildings and Open Spaces. The board could consider splitting this theme.
36. Our Places theme includes Growth and development, Transport and accessibility, Specific area planning. The board could consider splitting this theme.
37. The proposed portfolios aligned to Local Board Plan 2023 themes are below with suggestions of what these topic areas would focus on over the next 3 years:
People and diversity |
· Māori · Children and young people · Older people · Communities of greatest need · Arts · Option – Liquor Licenses |
Natural Environment |
· Environment · Urban Ngahere · Water quality · Climate action |
Community - participation (with services and facilities) |
· Services and Facilities – libraries, leisure centres, pools, community centres · Sports and recreation · Civil defence and Emergency · More focus on “Delivering differently for our communities” |
Community - parks and open spaces |
· Park development plans · Omnibus Local Parks Management Plan (beginning 2023) · Park renewals and assets |
Places - Planning and development |
· Resource consents · Town centre and spatial plans · NPS-UD · Heritage |
Places - Transport and connectivity |
· Auckland Transport · Local Board Transport Capital Fund · Public Transport and Active Modes · Greenways · Wayfinding |
Local economy |
· Tataki Auckland Unlimited · External Partnerships team · Event permits, Film permits · Placemaking and activations · Option – Liquor Licenses |
Pros |
Cons |
· This option focuses the role of the topic lead on agreed outcomes · Is aligned to Auckland Plan themes · Work programmes are aligned to Local Board Plan outcomes · Suggested scope for each portfolio would enable leads to focus on the strategic level such as a focus on development plans and spatial plans
|
· There are five themes in the recommended Local Board Plan 2023 structure. The board may need to consider splitting two of the themes as suggested above. · Portfolios don’t align with department structures
|
38. If a local board’s preference is to appoint portfolio holders, this will require a local board decision via a resolution to this report.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
39. This report is procedural in nature so does not have direct climate impacts. However, a key focus for the council in the current term will be how it responds to the climate emergency and this may be a consideration for how local boards manage their governance work.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
40. Feedback was gathered from staff from the LBS department, and other departments and CCOs who work with local boards, about practices to manage the local board governance work through the 2019-2022 triennium review.
41. The practices used by a local board to manage their governance work can impact on the efficiency of staff engagement with members. Some variation in practices is required to reflect local differences, but overall large differences in work practices is challenging and consistency is beneficial.
42. In light of this, Local Board Services has provided consistent advice and recommendations on work practices to all local boards to consider when making decisions on how they will manage their governance work for the 2022-2025 triennium.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
43. The practices used by a local board to manage their governance work can impact efficiency and effectiveness of engagement with communities and the opportunities that members have to provide local leadership beyond the formal decision-making process.
44. The topic of managing the governance work of the local board was discussed at a workshop on 18 October 2022, as part of the Waitematā Local Board induction programme for the 2022-2025 triennium.
45. The local board indicated its support for applying the additional practice of portfolios as a way of managing the local board governance work.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
46. This decision is procedural in nature so does not have immediate impacts on Māori.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
47. This decision is procedural in nature so does not have any financial implications.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
48. The risks and mitigations of having topic area leads are outlined in the ‘Analysis and Advice’ section of this report.
49. Risks relating to any specific decision required for the work practices that form the recommended approach are outlined in the respective separate reports relating to those decisions.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
50. Staff from the Local Board Services department will work with staff from other departments and CCOs to ensure the practices of the local board are implemented.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Gabriel Ford - Democracy Advisor Caroline Teh - Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authoriser |
Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Arrangements for making urgent decisions
File No.: CP2022/15508
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To endorse a decision-making arrangement for use by the local board when urgent decisions are required but it is not practicable to convene a meeting.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Local boards hold decision-making meetings as regularly as they consider appropriate to discharge their responsibilities. A monthly (ordinary) meeting schedule helps staff schedule reports and decisions during the term and ensures elected members' attendance. When a need for an urgent decision arises outside of this schedule, the law allows for extraordinary or emergency meetings.
3. Extraordinary meetings require the chief executive to provide each local board member with three working days’ notice (or if the meeting is called by resolution, within a lesser period of notice as specified in the resolution, being not less than 24 hours). Emergency meetings require the person calling the meeting (or a person acting on their behalf) to provide 24 hours of notice to local board members and the chief executive. Extraordinary or emergency meetings are often not practicable to organise, and the short notice period may result in failure to achieve a quorum. In these circumstances, an arrangement for decision-making without a meeting is necessary to enable the local board to deal efficiently with urgent matters.
4. In the last few terms, all 21 local boards adopted an urgent decision-making arrangement which consisted of a conditional delegation to the chairperson and deputy chairperson to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board when it cannot meet to make them. The exercise of this delegation has previously been subject to authorisation, to confirm that the decision requested is urgent and that it is not practicable to call an extraordinary or emergency meeting.
5. Staff recommend that this process is adopted in the current term for use as and when required.
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board, if the local board is unable to meet
b) confirm that the Local Area Manager, chairperson, and deputy chairperson (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the use of the local board’s urgent decision mechanism by approving the request for an urgent decision in writing
c) note that all urgent decisions made, including written advice which supported these decisions, will be included on the agenda of the next ordinary meeting of the local board.
Horopaki
Context
6. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides that a local authority must hold the meetings it needs for the good government of its area.
7. The LGA also provides that local boards may delegate to committees, other subordinate decision-making bodies, staff, or members of the local board any of its responsibilities and powers for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of local board business.
8. The LGA clarifies that some local board decisions are not able to be delegated, including the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans and bylaws of Auckland Council (clause 36D, schedule 7 LGA).
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Urgent Decisions delegation
9. The recommended arrangement is one that local boards have had in place over the past few terms. This arrangement has generally worked well to enable responsiveness to situations requiring decisions that arise over the Christmas/New Year holiday period, emergency decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and other unforeseen circumstances. This mechanism has enabled timely submissions to central government consultations, something that is usually subject to very constrained timeframes.
10. The urgent decision-making arrangements involve a delegation to the chairperson and deputy chairperson (subject to the authorisation process set out below), to make urgent decisions required before the next meeting if it is not practicable to hold an extraordinary or emergency meeting.
Authorisation
11. The delegation to make urgent decisions is subject to authorisation. The authorisers will approve the use of the urgent decision mechanism if they are satisfied that:
a) the decision is required urgently, i.e., before the next planned meeting of the local board, and
b) it is not practicable in the circumstances to call an extraordinary or emergency meeting of the local board.
12. The authorisers will include the chairperson, deputy chairperson and the Local Area Manager (or their nominee). Their considerations should include the significance of the decision, including whether this is likely to be controversial or not, and the ability to meet statutory and logistical requirements for an extraordinary or emergency meeting in the particular circumstances.
Request for urgent decision
13. Requests for an urgent decision should outline:
a) the decisions or resolutions sought
b) the nature of the issue
c) the reason for urgency.
Decision-making requirements
14. Elected members exercising the urgent decision delegation must make their decision in accordance with the decision-making principles and requirements in the LGA and Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and they must determine the best way to fulfil the requirements laid out in that legislation. These requirements include:
· identifying and assessing all reasonably practicable options for achieving the decision’s purpose and assessing those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages (s 77 LGA)
· if it is a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, considering the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga (s 77(1)(c) LGA)
· considering the views and preferences of people likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision (s 78 LGA).
15. Elected members require quality advice to inform good decisions. Where the request for an urgent decision has come from staff, staff should provide their advice in the Auckland Council report format. It may not always be possible for staff to produce comprehensive reports within constrained timeframes, so in such circumstances they should endeavour to provide sufficient information in an appropriate format, such as a memorandum.
Public accountability
16. Urgent decisions made under delegated authority should be published on the agenda of the next ordinary meeting of the local board. The information to be published must include the urgent decision and all relevant information provided to the decision-makers, provided it is not confidential.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
17. This decision is procedural in nature and is not affected by climate impacts nor will it result in any changes to greenhouse gas emissions.
18. The urgent decision mechanism enables urgent decisions to be made in a timely manner and this makes it a useful tool for responding to any climate change-related emergency.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
19. The urgent decision-making mechanism proposed in this report enables the council group to respond to situations requiring urgent decisions in a timely manner when it is not practical to call the full local board together.
20. These decisions include, for example, local board input to council submissions that are provided whenever there is a central government consultation. The timeframes for these submissions can be very constrained and it is crucial that local board input is provided sooner rather than later, so that it can be considered by the Governing Body (or its committees) who adopt the submission on behalf of Auckland Council.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
21. This report outlines the local board urgent decision-making arrangement that can be used when it is not practical to call the full local board together.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
22. This report concerns a procedural matter and is not considered to have any specific implications for Māori.
23. When making urgent decisions under the delegation, decision makers will need to consider the impact of each decision on Māori, their land and other taonga, as appropriate.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
24. There are no financial implications arising from the procedural decision sought through this report.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
25. The authorisation step provides an opportunity to assess and confirm the urgency and to decide if it is practicable to have an extraordinary or emergency meeting. This step is intended to help ensure the delegation to the chairperson and deputy chairperson is used in appropriate circumstances.
26. The chairperson and deputy chairperson are strongly encouraged to seek views from other local board members when making urgent decisions to ensure the urgent decision reflects those views to the extent possible.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
27. If the local board adopts the urgent decision-making mechanism proposed in this report, this will provide a process that will be used as and when required.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Adoption of a business meeting schedule
File No.: CP2022/15520
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To adopt the Waitematā Local Board meeting schedule for the 2022-2025 electoral term.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules. In particular, clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Sections 46, 46A and 47 in Part 7 of LGOIMA require that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting, and that local board meetings are open to the public.
3. Adopting a meeting schedule helps with meeting these requirements. It also allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures that local board members have clarity about their commitments.
4. A draft meeting schedule for the 2022-2025 electoral term has been developed and is included below for adoption by the local board.
5. Frequency: One business meeting per month (excluding January) is sufficient for formal business to be considered. There are some instances for which the local board may need to have additional meetings for important decisions such as local board plans, local board agreements or to provide input into regional strategies, policies and plans. Local board meeting schedules will be updated with any additional meetings once those details are confirmed. Outside of its scheduled meetings, local boards can call extraordinary and/or emergency meetings as and when required.
6. Timing: The standard practice in previous terms is to hold the monthly ordinary meeting in the final half of the month (weeks three or four) which enables local boards to prepare for any workshop items for these meetings in the first half of the month.
7. Other matters: Commencing the business meeting during business hours will enable meetings to be productive, maximise access to staff and ensures best use of resources. Having the meetings in a set location ensures consistency and ability to use technology that is built into council facilities as required. This can include the use of screens, speakers and Wi-Fi connections that enable remote attendance.
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) adopt the meeting schedule outlined below for the 2022-2025 electoral term:
DATE |
TIME |
VENUE |
Tuesday 22 November 2022 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 6 December 2022 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 14 February 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 21 March 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 18 April 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 16 May 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 20 June 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 18 July 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 15 August 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 19 September 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 17 October 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 21 November 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 12 December 2023 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 20 February 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 19 March 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 16 April 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 21 May 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 18 June 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 23 July 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 20 August 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 17 September 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 15 October 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 19 November 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 10 December 2024 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 18 February 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 18 March 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 15 April 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 20 May 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 17 June 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 15 July 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 19 August 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
Tuesday 16 September 2025 |
1pm |
Waitematā Local Board Office |
b) note the dates and times for business meetings to make decisions on local board plans and the Annual Budget are yet to be scheduled.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Gabriel Ford - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager |
Waitematā Local Board 22 November 2022 |
|
Item 8.2 Attachment a Gael Baldock Deputation Material Page 175