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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 26 September 2023

9.30am

The Leslie Comrie Board Room
Level One Franklin: The Centre
12 Massey Ave
Pukekohe

and via Microsoft Teams videoconference

 

Franklin Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Angela Fulljames

 

Deputy Chairperson

Alan Cole

 

Members

Malcolm Bell JP

 

 

Sharlene Druyven

 

 

Gary Holmes

 

 

Amanda Hopkins

 

 

Andrew Kay

 

 

Amanda Kinzett

 

 

Logan Soole

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Denise Gunn

Democracy Advisor

 

18 September 2023

 

Contact Telephone: 021 981 028

Email: denise.gunn@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

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 - CLM Community Sport         5

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                6

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     6

11        Franklin Local Board Annual Report 2022/2023                                                                                9

12        Franklin Rural Halls Funding for 2023/2024    27

13        A Sustainable Youth Voice for the Franklin Local Board                                                         73

14        New Telecommunications Licence at Pukekohe Hill Reserve                                       81

15        Franklin community provision investigation 2023                                                                      89

16        Funding Auckland's Storm Recovery and Resilence                                                           103

17        Approval for 23 new public road names and a new private road name at 60A Dyke Road, Papakura                                                            111

18        Update on the Rural Advisory Panel              127

19        Potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land           129

20        Biodiversity Credit System – central government discussion document                 161

21        Local board feedback on Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa  Moana Marine Protection Bill                          167

22        Governance Forward Work calendar September 2023                                                169

23        Franklin Local Board workshop records       173

24        Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

The meeting will open with karakia and the Chair will welcome everyone present.

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

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 Franklin Local Board:

a)          confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 12 September 2023, as true and correct.

 

 

 

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


 

8.1       Deputation - CLM Community Sport

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To enable the Franklin Local Board to formally receive a deputation from CLM Community Sport representatives.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Bernadette Tovio, General Manager, and Craig Carter, CEO, of CLM Community Sport, have requested the opportunity to address the Franklin Local Board at its September 2023 business meeting via deputation, to update the board on the year’s activities.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      thank Bernadette Tovio, General Manager and Craig Carter, CEO, of CLM Community Sport, for their presentation on the year’s activities.

 

 

 

 

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 three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

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

 

 

10        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.”

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Franklin Local Board Annual Report 2022/2023

File No.: CP2023/12390

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board adoption of the 2022/2023 Annual Report for the Franklin Local Board, prior to it being adopted by the Governing Body on 28 September 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Annual Report 2022/2023 is being prepared and needs to be adopted by the Governing Body by 28 September 2023. As part of the overall report package, individual reports for each local board are prepared.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      adopt the draft 2022/2023 Franklin Local Board Annual Report as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      note that any proposed changes after the adoption will be clearly communicated and agreed with the Chair before the report is submitted for adoption by the Governing Body on 28 September 2023.

 

Horopaki

Context

3.       In accordance with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the Local Government Act 2002, each local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its Local Board Agreement. This includes reporting on the performance measures for local activities and the overall funding impact statement for the local board.

4.       In addition to the compliance purpose, local board annual reports are an opportunity to tell the wider performance story with a strong local flavour, including how the local board is working towards the outcomes of their local board plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

5.       The annual report contains the following sections:

Section

Description

Mihi

The mihi is an introduction specific to each local board area and is presented in Te Reo Māori and English.

About this report

An overview of what is covered in this document.

Message from the chairperson

An overall message introducing the report, highlighting achievements and challenges, including both financial and non-financial performance.

Local board members

A group photo of the local board members.

Our area – projects and improvements

A visual layout of the local board area summarising key demographic information and showing key projects and facilities in the area.

Performance report

Provides performance measure results for each activity, providing explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved. Includes the activity highlights and challenges.

Our performance explained

Highlights of the local board’s work programme which contributed to a performance outcome

Local flavour

A profile of either an outstanding resident, grant, project or facility that benefits the local community.

Funding impact statement

Financial performance results compared to long-term plan and annual plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

6.       The council’s climate change disclosures are covered in volume four of the annual report and sections within the summary annual report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

7.       Council departments and council-controlled organisations comments and views have been considered and included in the annual report in relation to activities they are responsible for delivering on behalf of local boards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

8.       Local board feedback will be included where possible. Any changes to the content of the final annual report will be discussed with the chairperson.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

9.       The annual report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 over the past 12 months. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

10.     The annual report provides a retrospective view on both the financial and service performance in each local board area for the financial year 2022/2023.

11.     There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

12.     The annual report is a legislatively required document. It is audited by Audit New Zealand who assess if the report represents information fairly and consistently, and that the financial statements comply with accounting standard PBE FRS-43: Summary Financial Statements. Failure to demonstrate this could result in a qualified audit opinion.

13.     The annual report is a key communication to residents. It is important to tell a clear and balanced performance story, in plain English and in a form that is accessible, to ensure that council meets its obligations to be open with the public it serves.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

14.     The next steps for the draft 2022/2023 Annual Report for the local board are:

·       Audit NZ review during August and September 2023

·       report to the Governing Body for adoption on 28 September 2023

·       release to stock exchanges and publication online on 29 September 2023

·       physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October 2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Franklin Local Board Annual Report 2022/2023

13

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Faithe Smith - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Mark Purdie - Manager Local Board Financial Advisory

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Franklin Rural Halls Funding for 2023/2024

File No.: CP2023/12478

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve funding for 19 Franklin rural hall committees for 2023/2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Nineteen community rural hall committees receive annual funding to deliver services at community places across the Franklin Local Board area.

3.       The Asset Based Services (ABS) operational (OPEX) budget approved for the 19 rural halls in Franklin for 2023/2024 is $198,104.

4.       In August 2020, the local board resolved to base future funding on five-year operational plans, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Rural Halls Future Directions report.  The five-year operational plans are optional for nine community-owned halls.

5.       A phased approach is being used for the development of the five-year operational plans, using four tranches.

6.       Staff have worked with 10 hall committees in tranches one, two and three to develop five-year operational plans. This work included physical works cost projections, operational costs and the inclusion of the committees’ future vision and objectives.

7.       At the 8 August 2023 workshop, the local board considered funding options, existing funding reserves and hall hire revenue for halls in tranches one, two and three.

8.       The local board indicated support for recommended option three with the addition of an upper limit for funding reserves, which would result in zero payment for those halls above the upper limit.

9.       The board is now asked to formalise this direction.

10.     With the local board’s approval, a Community Centre Management Agreement or service agreement will be issued to the hall committees in tranche three. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)   receive five-year operational plans from the following Franklin rural halls in tranche three (Attachments A, B and C) and agree that these plans, along with tranche one and two five-year plans already received by the board, will be used as the basis for funding decisions in 2023/2024:

·        Matakawau Hall

·        Pollok Hall

·        Glenbrook Beach Hall

b)   endorse the proposal to fund Franklin rural hall committees managing council owned halls    69 per cent of expenses identified in five-year operational plans where hall committees have existing reserves of over $35,000, and zero payment where hall committees have existing reserves over $50,000.

c)   approve funding for ten council-owned halls with five-year operational plans:

Hall name

$ Funding 2023/2024

Glenbrook War Memorial

0

Karaka War Memorial

16,491

Te Toro

10,419

Waiau Pa

0

Waipipi

25,100

Āwhitu Central

24,000

Hūnua Hall

38,000

Paparimu

21,390

Pukekohe East

0

Matakawau

0

 

d)   approve funding for nine community-owned halls:

Hall name

$ Funding 2023/2024

Ararimu

8,426

Buckland

15,000

Glenbrook Beach

7,232

Grahams Beach Settlers

5,008

Mauku

5,724

Pollok

3,976

Pukeoware

8,427

Puni

3,226

Ramarama

5,923

 

e)   approve a Community Centre Management Agreement for Matakawau Hall committee.

f)    approve a service agreement for Pollok, Glenbrook Beach and Ararimu Hall committees.

Horopaki

Context

11.     There are 31 rural halls in the Franklin Local Board area, 23 of which are operated by community hall committees. The remainder are managed by the Auckland Council Venue Hire team.

12.     Of the 23 halls, 19 receive an annual Asset Based Service (ABS) operational grant (OPEX) to manage and maintain the halls. The other four hall committees do not receive annual funding and council maintains the halls.

13.     The annual grant for hall committees has historically been based on legacy targeted rates levied on each of the 19 rural hall areas, with a portion reserved to fund the management of these halls – including activities such as rubbish collection, capacity building for community groups and the annual rural halls hui.

14.     In 2018, the Franklin Local Board directed staff to work towards achieving funding equity for the 19 Franklin rural halls receiving annual funding.

Rural Halls Future Directions

15.     Following the useful insights from the 2019 Community Voices in Community Places report and roadmap, which includes information on what works well and what could be improved for community groups in community places, staff commissioned a report focusing specifically on council’s rural halls.

16.     This work focuses on how rural halls are managed and operated, funded, and how they meet current and future needs in the context of growth and future priorities. It also considers the needs and aspirations of changing communities.

17.     The report provides:

·     insights on operational requirements to support locally relevant and successful rural halls

·     the ability for staff to provide quality advice around funding and support required for these venues to operate successfully and sustainably; and

·     information for local board planning.

18.     The Rural Halls Future Directions report recommends that each hall receiving annual funding from council requires a three to five-year operational plan to enable funding to be based on actual costs rather than a legacy funding model.

19.     In line with these recommendations, the Franklin Local Board approved the recommendations in the report (Resolution number FR/2020/81) to develop a five-year operational hall plan for all 19 halls using a phased approach across four financial years from 2020 to 2024.

20.     Subsequently to this decision, the board directed that the five-year operational plans would be optional for the nine community-owned halls.

21.     The plans were required to take into consideration the following factors:

·        maintenance/physical works and operating cost projections

·        current annual council funding

·        current funding reserves

·        hall hire revenue

·        committee vision and objectives.

 

22.     Following this decision, a phased timetable in four tranches was developed to roll out the development of the five-year operational plans for the 19 rural halls.

Table 1: phased development of five-year operational plansChart, treemap chart

Description automatically generated

23.     Each five-year operational plan includes the hall committee’s vision and objectives together with a summary of information in asset management plans setting out projected costs for maintenance, renewals, capital works and operating costs over the next five years.

24.     The five-year operational plans inform local board funding for the next five years for council owned halls.

25.     For community owned halls, the local board has opted to base future funding on their average operating costs.  Capital and renewals costs are not included as the halls are not council assets.

26.     Operational plans were developed for the five halls in tranche one in 2020/2021, and four halls in tranche two in 2021/2022.  The operational plan for Matakawau Hall in tranche two was deferred due to the ill health hall committee members and was completed in tranche three.

27.     Two community-owned halls from tranche three opted to develop operational plans in 2022/2023: Pollok Hall and Glenbrook Beach Hall.

28.     These plans have been used as the basis for funding recommendations for 2023/2024 (attachments A and B).

29.     The funding recommendation for 2023/2024 for the community owned Ararimu Hall from tranche three will be based on their operating costs, as they chose not to develop a five-year operational plan.

30.     To evaluate operating costs for community-owned halls, the average operating cost was calculated from six year’s annual accounts, including operational expenditure such as power, mowing, cleaning, and insurance, as shown in the following example for Ararimu Hall.

Table 2: Example of average operating costs calculation

OPEX Group

FY17

FY18

FY19

FY20

FY21

FY22

 Average

Utilities

 $2,740

 $2,927

 $3,547

 $2,755

 $2,642

 $3,055

 

Occupancy

 $3,739

 $5,694

 $8,590

 $4,783

 $4,959

 $5,125

 

TOTAL OPEX

 $6,479

 $8,621

 12,138

 $7,538

 $7,601

 $8,181

 $8,426

 

31.     The six community-owned halls in tranche four will also have the option to develop five-year operational plans in 2023/2024 for funding implementation in 2024/2025.

32.     The total approved ABS OPEX operational funding for the 19 committee-managed rural halls in Franklin for 2023/2024 is $198,104.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Full funding

33.     Full funding allocations have been developed for the 19 halls for 2023/2024, with the following considerations:

·        the advice in the five-year operational plans for 10 council-owned halls from tranches one, two and three relating to asset management plans

·        average operational costs for three community-owned halls in tranche three (Ararimu, Glenbrook Beach and Pollok)

·        legacy funding for six community-owned halls in tranche four (noting that they will be given the opportunity to develop five-year operational plans in 2023/2024 to direct future funding based on average operational costs).

 

Table 3: recommended full funding for 19 halls

Hall (tranche one with five-year plans in place)

Funding 2023/2024 based on year three of five-year plans

Glenbrook War Memorial

$27,300

Karaka

$23,900

Te Toro

$15,100

Waiau Pa

$24,600

Waipipi

$25,100

TOTAL

$116,000

Hall (tranche two with five-year plans in place)

Funding 2023/2024 based on year two of five-year plans

Āwhitu Central

$24,000

Hunua

$38,000

Paparimu

$31,000

Pukekohe East

$17,000

TOTAL

$110,000

Hall (tranche three plus Matakawau Hall)

Funding 2023/2024

Ararimu

$8,426

Glenbrook Beach

$7,232

Pollok

$3,976

Matakawau

$23,000

TOTAL

$42,634

Hall (tranche four)

Funding 2023/2024 (legacy funding)

Buckland*

$15,000

Grahams Beach Settlers

$5,008

Mauku

$5,724

Pukeoware

$8,427

Puni

$3,226

Ramarama

$5,923

TOTAL

$43,308

GRAND TOTAL (all 19 halls)

$311,942

*See information on Buckland Hall below.

34.     The above funding proposal provides a budget shortfall as follows:

Table 4: total funding and budget shortfall

Total funding proposal for 19 hall committees for 2023/2024

Budget 2023/2024

Budget shortfall 2023/2024

$311,942

$198,104

$113,838

 

Scenario planning for funding thresholds

35.     The local board agreed to the following criteria for funding the rural halls:

·    keep overall funding on or within budget

·    promote equity by providing maximum funding for hall committees whose halls require the most work

·    reducing or stopping funding for those with high funding reserves.

36.     In 2020/2021, two options were put forward to fund the halls in tranche one:

·    option one was to fully fund all halls with five-year operational plans.

·    option two was to part fund the halls with reserves of $35,000 or above.

37.     The local board directed that option two, to part fund 50 per cent the halls with reserves of $35,000 or above be applied to fund the halls in tranche one.

38.     The local board indicated it would revisit the $35,000 threshold and the 50 per cent funding annually, which it has done annually since 2020/2021.

39.     To help with this review, options for different thresholds and funding levels were provided to the local board at a workshop on 8 August 2023.

40.     At the 8 August 2023 workshop, direction was given by the local board to cap the amount of funding reserves held by hall committees at $50,000.

41.     Hall committees with funding reserves over $50,000 will receive zero payment. This will ensure that hall committees with large funding reserves are aware that they will not be funded until those reserves are significantly reduced.

42.     The $35,000 threshold would be retained, with a percentage paid to those hall committees with funding reserves over that amount but below the funding cap.

43.     Four options are provided for 2023/2024. These provide local board members with visibility on the effect a range of options has on the funding for individual halls and how the options perform against the criteria.

44.     In the four options, tranche four halls are funded at the agreed legacy funding for 2023/2024, totalling $43,308, and will be given the option to develop five-year operational plans for future funding.

 

Table 5: funding options

Option 2023/2024

Total funding 2023/2024

Pros

Cons

Option one

Retain the $35,000 threshold (status quo) and part fund the halls at 28 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $50,00 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that threshold.

$169,642

·   Three hall committees with perceived greatest need will receive maximum funding as included in their five-year operational plan (Waipipi, Āwhitu and Hūnua).

·   Those halls with large funding reserves (Glenbrook, Waiau Pa, Pukekohe East and Matakawau) will be expected to use their reserves and receive a zero payment.

·    Halls with need still receive 28 percent of funding (Te Toro, Paparimu).

·   Funding to two halls in need (Te Toro, Paparimu) is greatly reduced from the maximum.

·   There is a budget underspend of $28,462.

·   The surplus funding would be better used to fund hall committees rather than offered for savings if not allocated.

Option two

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 35 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $50,00 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that threshold.

 

 

 

 

$174,542

·   Three hall committees with perceived greatest need will receive maximum funding.

·   Those halls with large funding reserves (Glenbrook, Waiau Pa, Pukekohe East and Matakawau) receive zero funding and expected to use their reserves.

·   Halls with need receive 35 per cent of maximum funding, which is more funding than option one (Te Toro, Paparimu).

·    There is a budget underspend of $23,562, which is less than option one but still significant.

·    The surplus funding would be better used to fund hall committees rather than offered for savings if not allocated.

Option three (recommended)

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 69 per cent.

 

Set an upper limit of $50,000 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that limit.

$198,342

·   Three hall committees with perceived greatest need will receive maximum funding.

·   Those halls with large funding reserves (Glenbrook, Waiau Pa, Pukekohe East and Matakawau) receive zero funding, signaling the expected use of funding reserves.

·   There is a small overspend of $238, meaning that all funding is allocated to the halls for their benefit.

·   The overspend can be absorbed from existing budgets at year end.

·    Karaka Hall would receive a higher payment than options one and two but is not perceived to be a hall of greatest need.

Option Four

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 50 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $39,000 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that limit.

$157,592

·   Three hall committees with greatest need will receive maximum funding.

·   Those halls with large funding reserves (Glenbrook, Waiau Pa, Pukekohe East and Matakawau) receive zero funding and would be expected to use their funding reserves.

·   Two additional halls - Karaka and Paparimu - receive zero funding due to their bank balance being over $39,000, giving a clear signal that halls with significant funding reserves need to use them.

·    There is a significant budget underspend of $40,512.

·    The surplus funding would be better used to fund hall committees rather than offered for savings if not allocated.

·    Paparimu Hall is perceived as a hall with need but will receive zero funding due to their reserves being over $39,000.  This may impact on work scheduled in the asset management plan.

 


 

Table 6: Assessment against criteria 

Option 2023/2024

Total funding 2023/2024

Close to or within budget

Promotes funding equity

Encourages use of high funding reserves

Option one

Retain the $35,000 threshold (status quo) and part fund the halls at 28 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $50,00 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that threshold.

 

$169,642

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Option two

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 35 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $50,00 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that threshold.

$174,542

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Option three (recommended)

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 69 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $50,000 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that limit.

$198,342

High

High

Moderate

Option four

Retain the $35,000 threshold for funding reserves and part fund the halls at 50 per cent.

Set an upper limit of $39,000 and do not fund halls with funding reserves over that limit.

$157,592

Low

Moderate

High

 

45.     Staff recommend option three as it aligns closest with the local board’s criteria.

46.     A full breakdown of the funding for individual halls under each option is provided as Attachment D.

Other considerations

47.     Buckland Community Centre (a community owned hall on community owned land) was closed by the hall committee in March 2020 due to seismic issues identified at the hall from an initial seismic assessment.

48.     The hall is in tranche four of the funding review process.

49.     In 2021/2022, the local board funded a Detailed Seismic Assessment for the hall at a cost of $8,500. The building has been stickered by council as an earthquake prone building.

50.     Council has advised that a decision to reopen the hall should be made by the hall committee, not council.

51.     In August 2022, members of the Buckland community attended a public meeting, and a new hall committee was formed. Its status as an incorporated society was subsequently reinstated.

52.     Under the new committee, the hall reopened for hire on ANZAC Day, 25 April 2023, following extensive work by committee members including cleaning, repainting, and renovating the hall.

53.     The new committee has evaluated options and timing for remedial work to increase the hall’s seismic rating and upgrade parts of the hall. They have an agreed work plan in place.

54.     At the 8 August 2023 workshop, the local board gave direction for the annual funding payment of $15,000 to be restored in 2023/2024 in light of the hall reopening and continued work of the new committee.  This will be funded from within the $198,104 budget for 2023/2024.

55.     As the hall is now available for hire, the committee can fulfil the requirements of a council agreement, namely to:

·    make the hall available to the community at reasonable rates of hire, utilising an effective booking system.

·    maintain the hall and its grounds in a clean, tidy and safe state.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

56.     Maintaining a network of rural halls across the Franklin Local Board area reduces residents’ need to travel elsewhere for events and services run out of the halls, reducing carbon emissions associated with travelling.

57.     A sustainability framework is under development which will help Connected Communities contribute to targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

58.     The five pou of the framework are Māori outcomes; food security; waste minimisation; resilience and low carbon impact.

59.     At present, the urban centres are participating in the framework and the rural halls will be included in the future.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60.     The Community Facilities team has indicated that they support the principle of funding halls based on actual costs.

61.     Funding for rural halls is administered by the Community Delivery team, who have been kept up to date with the process to develop five-year operational plans.

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

Local impacts and local board views

62.     Most Franklin rural hall committees have indicated support for the development of five-year operational plans, using physical works and operational costs as the basis for funding.

63.     The committees advise that a written plan provides structure and purpose to help with managing and maintaining the halls. They have been fully involved in the development of the draft and final versions of the plans.

64.     The feedback received from the 8 August 2023 workshop on the funding options with the local board has been incorporated into this report.

65.     Funding equity for rural halls supports delivery of the following Franklin Local Board Plan 2020/2023 outcomes:

·    Outcome one: Our strengths generate local opportunity and prosperity

·    Outcome three: Fit for purpose places and facilities

·    Outcome six: A sense of belonging and strong community participation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66.     Māori make up 15 per cent of the Franklin population. The availability of public venues for hire for local events provide opportunities for increased Māori participation and promotion of Māori culture within events and activations.

67.     Connecting more deeply with Māori identity helps develop knowledge and sensitivity to create the venues needed in Franklin.

68.     Promoting a sustainable funding model promotes access to the rural halls for all members of the local board community, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69.     The approved ABS operational funding for the 19 rural halls that receive funding for 2023/2024 is $198,104.

70.     Recommended option three gives a budget shortfall of $238. This amount is not financially material and does not require the local board to reprioritise budget to fund the shortfall. This can be absorbed at year end from existing budgets with minimal financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

71.     Staff are progressing this work to take long-term steps in the mitigation of the risk presented by legacy funding of rural halls. The previous funding model was not based on actual costs or projections.

72.     There is a primary risk associated with this funding model in the reduction or removal of funding for some halls. This risk is mitigated as long-term funding will be informed by actual cost projections. Many halls have funding reserves from previous years and receive income from hire revenue.

73.     A subsequent risk is hall committees that receive less funding could decide to return the management and maintenance of the halls to council, due to unsustainable funding levels.  Should this occur, additional resources will be required for council to manage and maintain the halls and work will need to be undertaken with the Community Facilities team.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74.     If the recommended option is approved by the local board, a Community Centre Management Agreement will be issued to each of the ten hall committees with five-year operational plans, and annual funding will be administered.

75.     The remaining community-owned halls will receive either an annual service agreement or funding agreement.

76.     Work will commence on tranche four to develop average operating costs for the remaining six community-owned halls, and a five-year operational plan if required (as it is optional for these hall committees).

77.     Funding for Franklin rural halls will continue to be approved on an annual basis by the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Pollok Hall Five Year Operational Plan

39

b

Draft Glenbrook Beach Hall Five Year Operational Plan

49

c

Draft Matakawau Hall Five Year Operational Plan

59

d

Detailed funding for individual halls under options 1 - 4

69

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jane Cain - Place & Partner Specialist

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Connected Communities

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 










Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 











Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 











Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A Sustainable Youth Voice for the Franklin Local Board

File No.: CP2023/12819

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       For the Franklin Local Board to receive the report titled “A Sustainable Youth Voice for Franklin” (Attachment A).

2.       To approve the “Franklin Youth Voice” approach as the future model for youth voice engagement in Franklin, and associated funding for implementation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The Franklin Local Board adopted a youth board approach to youth civic engagement in December 2011. This led to the establishment of the Franklin Youth Advisory Board (FYAB) in 2012. However, the existing youth board model is limited by the large geographical size of Franklin.

4.     During the 2023/2024 Local Board Work Programme development, the board expressed an interest in enhancing youth participation. Recognising the challenges posed by the size of the local board area, the board requested the development of advice on more effective approach.

5.       In April 2023, the youth voice and development consultancy, InCommon, was contracted to develop a sustainable youth engagement model. This initiative, funded by the Regional Youth Empowerment Team, involved workshops and collaboration with community organisations and youth-led groups, and resulted in the "Sustainable Youth Voice for Franklin" report (Attachment A).

6.       The report proposes the "Franklin Youth Voice" approach that is based on sustainable youth voice principles, including inclusivity, meaningful engagement, voluntary participation, and strong support systems.

7.       It is designed to establish youth voice groups in key local board areas, drawing insights from the 2023 Annual Plan Consultation and global youth voice models. The approach comprises three interconnected methods, partnering with existing community organisations and youth-led groups to ensure comprehensive representation of diverse youth perspectives and experiences throughout Franklin.

8.       Three funding options to implement the approach have been developed, ranging from fully funded to funding only the setup of the youth voice approach. Staff recommend fully funding the approach (option 1) to ensure the highest impact and most favourable youth engagement outcomes are achieved.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      receive the report “A Sustainable Youth Voice for Franklin” (Attachment A)

b)      approve the “Franklin Youth Voice” approach as the future model for youth voice engagement in Franklin


 

c)       approve funding allocations for the new youth voice approach for 2023/2024 as follows:

i)       $15,000: Work Programme 113 Youth: Franklin youth participation

ii)       $15,000: Work Programme 3984 Local crime prevention fund, safety initiatives investment – Franklin.

Horopaki

Context

9.       In December 2011, the Franklin Local Board adopted a youth board approach to youth civic engagement.

10.     The establishment of Franklin Youth Advisory Board (FYAB) in 2012 marked a significant step in representing youth voices from across the Franklin Local Board and gathering valuable input for the local board and the regional Youth Advisory Panel.

11.     As part of the development of the 2023/2024 Local Board Work Programme, the board expressed interest in investigating improved youth voice options.

12.     The local board recognised there were limitations to a single youth voice group due to the vast geographical size of the Franklin Local Board, and that a more effective approach to youth engagement was required.

13.     In April 2023, InCommon, a youth voice and development consultancy, was contracted to explore and develop a more sustainable youth voice model. This was funded by the Regional Youth Empowerment Team.

14.     InCommon facilitated workshops, meetings, and community engagement, in collaboration with youth voice groups such as FYAB, Takutai Trust, Te Ara Rangatahi, and Youthtown to develop the “Sustainable Youth Voice Approach for Franklin” report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     Eight principles for a sustainable youth voice approach were developed based on industry research, the workshop findings, and community engagement. These principles informed the "Franklin Youth Voice" approach proposed in the report:

·    Inclusivity: Engage young people from diverse backgrounds, ensuring all voices are respected and valued in a safe and culturally sensitive environment.

·    Meaningful engagement: Connect youth to issues they care about, understanding their concerns and setting clear goals for their involvement.

·    Voluntary participation: Allow young people to choose their level of engagement freely, without pressure.

·    Robust support systems: Provide resources, guidance, and prioritise safety to support youth participation.

·    Transparency: The youth design supports transparent integration of youth perspectives.

·    Strengthens adult-youth partnerships: Collaborate with youth, sharing power and respecting their autonomy, while being mindful of power dynamics and cultural aspects.

·    Valuing of young people’s contributions: Respect and consider youth perspectives, being open, informed, and asking relevant questions.

·    Youth empowerment to help rangatahi unleash their full potential.

16.     The approach aims to establish youth voice groups in key areas across the local board, fostering active youth participation in decision-making processes, and draws on insights from the 2023 Annual Plan Consultation and international youth voice models, reflecting alignment with local youth preferences.

17.     It consists of three distinct yet interconnected approaches, collaborating with existing youth organisations and communities to ensure the diverse perspectives and experiences of youth from across Franklin are fully represented.

Beachlands, Maraetai, Whitford and Clevedon Youth Council

18.     Initiating a youth council for individuals aged from 10 or 12 to 24 residing in Beachlands, Maraetai, Whitford, and Clevedon. A distinct subcommittee will be formed for Clevedon due to geographical considerations. This council will comprise 10 to 12 members and meet monthly at either the Log Cabin or a designated youth space.

19.     The youth council’s purpose is to advocate for youth, enhance youth facilities, community beautification, and foster communication with the local board.

20.     The council will be guided by Takutai Trust, which will provide support for efficient meetings and mentorship on various roles, such as meeting facilitation, goal setting, idea presentation, and budget management.

21.     An integral aspect of the youth council's strategy is to establish a connection with the local board and engage with local schools through social media. Takutai Trust will play a vital role in this process by facilitating the relationship between the youth council and the local board and ensuring that young people's ideas are heard and considered in decision-making.

22.     Takutai Trust will facilitate the youth council at a cost of $10,000 to cover coordinators, meeting logistics, and skill development for youth members.

FYAB – Central Franklin Youth Council

23.     The current Central Franklin Youth Council, operated by FYAB, is committed to amplifying the voices of young people within Franklin. Building on their successful engagement of 500 youth in the 2023 Annual Plan Consultation, their aspiration is to continue to develop their skills, networks, and collaborations within the proposed “Franklin Youth Voice” approach.

24.     FYAB will realign its approach to focus on youth who live, work, and transit through Pukekohe Central. They will continue to support the Pohutukawa Coast/Takutai Trust and Waiuku groups as they are established.

25.     To facilitate this process, Auckland Youth Voices (AYV) will extend tailored assistance, overseeing transparent financial management via Xero. The empowerment-focused facilitation offered by AYV would require an annual cost of $4,000, supplemented by a $1,000 administrative fee.

Waiuku Youth Hui and Youth Fund

26.     The youth community in Waiuku will advocate for improved amenities (sports centres, upgraded pools, basketball courts, Wi-Fi), augmented activities (events, night markets, entertainment venues), infrastructural enhancements (roads, charging points), employment prospects, and accessible internet connectivity. In response, a youth hui and youth fund has been designed.

27.     The initial stages of the Waiuku youth voice approach are awaiting further development and the refinement of funding specifics. It is advisable to embark on a youth-led design phase to blueprint a youth hui and fund. This process involves thoughtful budget allocation and comprehensive support cost considerations.

28.     An effective approach to connect with youth is at Waiuku College during school hours. Utilising a diverse engagement strategy that includes social media, posters, and community venues is essential. The primary objective is to foster positive relationships, encourage community involvement, develop skills, support well-being, nurture leadership, strengthen cultural belonging, and foster social entrepreneurial growth.

29.     A dedicated fund will be established to grant resources for youth-initiated projects in Waiuku. These encompass a spectrum of activities, ranging from events to community outreach efforts.

30.     Collaborative partnerships with social service organisations, including Te Ara Rangatahi, Te Taki Tu Charitable Trust, Tuwhera Trust, and Marama Hou Ministries, will be essential to operationalise the youth voice approach. These partnerships will provide access to additional funding and resources that are necessary to stimulate and sustain youth engagement in local government processes and foster a deeper understanding of civic participation.

Funding Options

31.     Three funding options have been developed to deliver the Franklin Youth Voice Concept Map. They were created in collaboration with key stakeholders, acknowledging diverse youth perspectives and experiences across Franklin.

Table One: Funding Options

Criteria

Option 1

$30,000

Recommended

Option 2

$22,500

Option 3

$15,000

Description

This option supports all three youth voice approaches in the concept map to be delivered with comprehensive youth engagement and support.

This option would partially fund the three youth voice approaches, but its scope lacks engagement.

This option would only cover the setup of the three youth voice approaches. It is the current budget allocated to Work Programme 113 Franklin youth participation for 2023/2024.

Youth voice implementation

Effective - the youth voice approach would be implemented as per co-created designs with rangatahi and supporting organisations

Moderate – it would take longer for groups to establish, leading to reduced momentum

Limited – the setup of the youth voice approach would be covered, but facilitation, mentoring, and support resources would be lacking.

Youth support

High – community organisations would be supported to ensure well-facilitated meetings, pastoral care, mentoring, and coaching

Medium – there would be limited facilitation and support for participant well-being

Low – there would be a lack of sustainable support from community organisations or youth-led groups

Youth hui

Recurrent – regular youth council meetings

Intermittentfewer meetings per year

Infrequent – limited meetings without skilled facilitation

Impacts and risks

- Prioritise essential projects aligned with Franklin Local Board’s youth engagement goals

- Utilise local connections for broader youth engagement and inclusivity in surrounding areas

- Tailor youth voice strategies to local youth, fostering civic participation.

- Reduced engagement, planning time and action from all youth voice groups

- Intermittent meetings could lead to decreased unity and purpose, causing higher turnover or fewer participants

- Reduced Waiuku’s Youth fund, resulting in less support for youth initiatives and decreased progress on their priorities

- Limited sustainability due to staffing limitations, impacting youth voice and development efforts

- Reduced collaboration with iwi social services and Māori organisations.

- Limited capacity may affect pastoral care for youth in the Waiuku and Franklin East groups needing evening support

Implementation

32. Staff support the recommended option 1 for the highest impact and most favourable youth engagement outcomes, in alignment with sustainable youth voice principles.

33. Staff propose funding the recommended option through these local board work programme lines:

·    $15,000: Work Programme 113 Youth: Franklin youth participation; and

·    $15,000: Work Programme 3984 Local crime prevention fund, safety initiatives investment – Franklin. This fund presents a unique opportunity to invest in young people and support initiatives fostering positive youth engagement. Please note that this is a one-off Central Government fund.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34.     Auckland Council and the local board’s focus on climate action will raise young people’s awareness and knowledge around environmental issues. The "Franklin Youth Voice" approach provides opportunities for young people to have input into environmental policies and procedures via its relationship with the local board.

35.     This approach also encourages dialogue around climate-related concerns and solutions, reinforcing the importance of addressing climate change at the local level.

36.     The “Franklin Youth Voice” approach is structured to facilitate local engagement with young people in their respective communities, reducing the need for extensive travel.

37.     Funding option 1 presents a significant potential in enabling young people to engage in positive environmental projects, addressing issues they consider critical. Both youth councils, along with the Waiuku Youth hui and Youth Fund, hold the promise of involving more young people in local environmental restoration efforts. The infusion of fresh perspectives and innovative ideas from youth participation can lead to creative and effective solutions for environmental challenges.

38.     Youth engagement also contributes to fostering a culture of sustainable development, ensuring that future generations are actively dedicated to preserving the environment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39.     The "Franklin Youth Voice" approach enables strong participation from young people across a broad range of council activities e.g., consultation of Auckland Transport’s Katoa, Ka Ora Speed Management Plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40.     The Franklin Local Board recognised that the FYAB established in 2012 was limited by the single youth voice group model due to the vast geographical size of the Franklin district, and that a more effective approach to youth engagement was required.

41.     The “Sustainable Youth Voice for Franklin” report and “Franklin Youth Voice” approach draws insights from the 2023 Annual Plan Consultation and reflects a collaborative effort with local youth voice groups, including Takutai Trust, FYAB, Te Ara Rangatahi and Youthtown. It is informed by the perspectives of young people across Franklin.

42.     A workshop on 12 September 2023 was conducted to present the proposed “Franklin Youth Voice” approach and funding options to the local board for feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43.     The current FYAB model does not incorporate rangatahi Māori voices. The co-design methodology has been instrumental in developing the “Franklin Youth Voice” approach.

44.     Strong connections to local iwi, marae, and a significant population of rangatahi Māori highlight the importance of involving rangatahi voices into shaping the future.

45.     Collaboration with iwi social services and kaupapa Māori organisations offers rangatahi opportunities to connect with their culture.

46.     Initiatives such as the Waiuku Youth Hui and Youth Fund play a vital role, enabling rangatahi to participate in civic decision-making through community service. These efforts align with traditional Māori approaches like Urunga (traditional Māori leadership development) and Whai Wāhitanga (enabling young people to find their place), fostering a sense of belonging and cultural identity.

47.     Organisations such as Te Ara Rangatahi and Takutai Trust are committed to enhancing rangatahi engagement with their heritage, while FYAB aims to strengthen relationships with iwi through kaupapa Māori organisations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48.     Local Board Work Programme 3984 Local crime prevention fund, safety initiatives investment – Franklin constitutes a one-off Central Government funding.

49.     Beyond 2024/2025, the local board will need to consider increasing funding for the Franklin youth participation work programme to sustain this initiative over the long term. This will require a trade-off within their local board work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50.     Implementing a new youth voice model could result in a slow transition. This adjustment to a new approach could potentially extend the implementation timeline.

51.     Additionally, there exists a reputational risk to council associated with this significant shift. Stakeholders and the community may require time to understand and adapt to the benefits of the change.

52.     To address these challenges, staff will provide regular updates to the local board and key stakeholders, ensuring all parties are kept informed about the rationale behind the change and the anticipated benefits.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53.     Pending approval of the “Franklin Youth Voice" approach and funding, staff will coordinate with the identified key agencies, administer funding, and facilitate implementation.

54.     Updates to the local board will be provided through the quarterly reporting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

A Sustainable Youth Voice for Franklin Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Coral Timmins - Strategic Broker

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Connected Communities

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

New Telecommunications Licence at Pukekohe Hill Reserve

File No.: CP2023/11194

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

 

1.       To seek approval to enter a new commercial license for the continued use of telecommunications equipment at Pukekohe Hill Reserve, 327 Anzac Road, Pukekohe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Pukekohe Hill Reserve is held by Auckland Council and is classified as a recreation reserve therefore is subject the Reserves Act 1977.

3.       A license has been in place since 4 October 2004.

4.       Eke Panuku seek approval to grant a new commercial license to enable the continuation to operate telecommunications equipment with a term of 5 years to the Licensees – Securi-Com Limited and Stratanet Limited.

5.       The permitted use of the license will not change, and no additional equipment is being installed.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      approve a new commercial licence between Auckland Council (Licensor), Securi-Com Limited (Licensee) and Stratanet Limited (Licensee) at Pukekohe Hill Reserve, 327 Anzac Road, Pukekohe with the following terms:

i)       Commencement Date: 1 September 2023

ii)       Term: 5 Years

iii)      Final Expiry Date: 30 August 2028

iv)      For the purpose of operating and maintaining equipment for telecommunications purposes

 

Horopaki

Context  

6.       The land is legally described as Lot 2 DP 35757 comprised in Record of Title NA77A/30, is held by Auckland Council in fee simple.

7.       The land is classified as a recreation reserve and subject to section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977, therefore requires approval from Franklin Local Board to grant a new license.

8.       There is no approved management plan in place for the recreation reserve - Pukekohe Hill Reserve.

9.       Telecommunications equipment has been onsite since 4 October 2004.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     The current license between Compass Communications, Securi-Com Limited and Auckland Council commenced on 4 October 2004, and finally expired on 3 October 2019. The license is currently holding over on a month-to-month basis under the same terms and conditions.

11.     In July 2023 Compass Communications informed Eke Panuku of the sale of their assets to Stratanet Limited.

12.     Securi-Com Limited and Stratanet Limited have made a formal application to Eke Panuku for a new commercial license to enable the continuation to operate telecommunications equipment which is currently installed.

13.     In order to document the sale of the assets and the change in ownership a new license is required.

14.     The new license will be between Auckland Council (Licensor), Securi-Com Limited (Licensee) and Stratanet Limited (Licensee). 

15.     The licensed area is 50 square metres more or less.

16.     There exists a building of approximately 20 metres squared and an aerial mast on the licensed area.

17.     The permitted use of the site will not change and will remain for the purpose of operating and maintaining equipment for telecommunications purposes.

18.     The rent is being reviewed as part of ongoing negotiations with the Licensees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     There will be no direct climate impact by granting a new license as no additional equipment is being installed on the site.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     Eke Panuku support the continued use of telecommunications equipment at Pukekohe Hill Reserve, a positive working relationship with the Licensees has been ongoing for several years.

21.     The existing agreements have been in place since 2004 and equipment has been operating on site for almost 20 years with no issues recorded.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22.     A workshop was attended with Franklin Local Board on Tuesday 8 August 2023 to discuss the new commercial license; feedback received was positive.

23.     The telecommunications equipment services the Pukekohe area and provides network coverage for residents.

24.     More specifically the telecommunications equipment provides the necessary coverage used by emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) and civil defence emergency management.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25.     There are no impacts on iwi groups by granting the new commercial license.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26.     The annual rent is being reviewed as part of the new license negotiations. Eke Panuku have requested a market valuation by a registered valuer and await the outcome of the report.

27.     Some time has passed since the rent was reviewed; therefore, this will likely create a positive financial impact and generate more revenue than previously.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     There is a reputational risk to council if the continued use of the site for telecommunications purposes is not approved. The equipment is used by the emergency services and civil defence emergency management.

29.     Should the new commercial license not be granted the telecommunications equipment may have to be moved to another site, new site options may be less desirable to the community.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.     Eke Panuku will await the outcome of the market valuation.

31.     Eke Panuku will continue negotiations with the Licensees and finalise the new license.

32.     Eke Panuku will implement the agreed rental rate and execute the new license.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

License Area

85

b

Telecommunications Equipment

87

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rosalyn Cowe - Alternative Assets Property Manager

Authoriser

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Franklin community provision investigation 2023

File No.: CP2023/13175

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To investigate community and open spaces in the Franklin Local Board area and recommended key moves to address current and projected future gaps in provision.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff investigated current and future needs for community and open spaces in accordance with council policies, including the Community Facility Network Plan 2015 and the Open Space Provision Policy 2016.

3.       Staff recommend seven key moves to better deliver investment in community service and space. These key moves respond to priority actions in the updated Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022.

4.       Staff also recommend four key moves to deliver a sustainable quality open space network that can respond to anticipated growth and provide the community with access to a range of recreation, social, cultural and environmental experiences.

5.       Fast population growth and changing demographics over the next 30 years will impact demand for community services and open space. It requires targeted investment.

6.       There is a risk that the actual rate of growth may differ from current projections. To mitigate this risk, staff will monitor population growth for the study area as new population information becomes available.

7.       The next step is to include the key moves and associated priority actions in relevant plans, such as the draft Franklin Local Board Plan 2024, the draft Long-term Plan 2024-34, and the updated Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan 2022, for the relevant decision-makers to consider their delivery.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      whakaae / accept the findings of Auckland Council’s Franklin community provision investigation 2023 as follows.

i)       There are existing gaps in:

·    community centre space provision in the Waiuku sub-division

·    neighbourhood park provision in the Pukekohe and Waiuku sub-division.

ii)       By 2031, there is a projected gap in community centre and leisure space provision in the Pukekohe sub-division.

iii)      By 2041, there is a projected gap in leisure space provision in the Wairoa sub-division.

iv)      By 2051, there are projected gaps in the provision of:

·    arts and culture, library, community centre, aquatic and leisure space in the Drury area

·    nine indoor court spaces across the Franklin Local Board area

·    118 open spaces totalling 75.5 hectares across the Franklin Local Board area.

v)      Some community spaces such as rural libraries, rural halls and Jubilee Pool are likely to be duplication, and could be considered for optimisation in the future.

b)      whakaae / accept the key moves recommended by Auckland Council’s Franklin community provision investigation 2023 as follows.

Community service and space

i)       Key move 1: Develop an indicative business case for a new multi-use community facility and an aquatic and leisure facility in the Drury area to meet the needs of the future population by 2028 and to secure the land to site the facilities ahead of development.

ii)       Key move 2: Monitor capacity in Pukekohe Library to ensure that it can serve future population.

iii)      Key move 3: Investigate rural library provision:

·    in the short term, investigate options to serve Maraetai residents through Beachlands Library

·    in the long term, monitor visits to rural libraries and potentially investigate alternative delivery methods.

iv)      Key move 4: Investigate options to deliver community services through Waiuku Library to address the existing gap in community centre provision.

v)      Key move 5: Investigate whether venue for hire services (i.e. rural halls) are required and/or could be delivered in other types of community spaces to optimise utilisation.

vi)      Key move 6: Develop an indicative business case for two to four new indoor courts in the Pukekohe area by 2027.

vii)     Key move 7: Negotiate with relevant schools for better community access to courts.

Open space

viii)    Key move 1: Provide equitable access to open space across the Franklin Local Board area by increasing the capacity of the open space network and improving the quality of the open space network.

ix)      Key move 2: Enhance and broaden open space visitor experiences by improving the quality and accessibility of open spaces to cater for a range of user needs; increasing socialisation and active recreation opportunities.

x)      Key move 3: Treasure the natural and cultural environment of open spaces by protecting and enhancing their ecological features and values, including wildlife habitat and biodiversity; promoting and enhancing the cultural heritage of open spaces.

xi)      Key move 4: Enhance or develop walking, cycling, and green corridor connections by increasing and enhancing connections between open spaces and improving awareness of connections.

 

Horopaki

Context

Staff investigated Franklin community needs in 2022/23

8.       This report summarises the results of an investigation into community facilities and open space in the Franklin Local Board area.

9.    The detailed investigation report is attached (see Attachment A).

10.     Undertaking an integrated investigation of community needs for community and open spaces was supported by the Franklin Local Board at a workshop in December 2022.

11.     The investigation spans arts and culture, libraries, community centres, venues for hire, aquatic and leisure spaces and open spaces.

12.     These community spaces and open spaces deliver ‘Belonging and Participating’ outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050.

13.     They contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can connect, socialise, learn and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities.

14.     The investigation responds to six priority area-based actions in the updated Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022:

·     Action 37: Investigate the need for provision of library facilities and/or explore alternate service delivery models in the Beachlands/Drury area

·     Action 144: Investigate options for Franklin and Jubilee pools to make services fit for purpose and respond to the needs of the growing population

·     Action 35: Investigate arts and culture needs in the Franklin Local Board area

·     Action 38: Investigate the provision of rural halls in Franklin to determine the future direction of these facilities and to meet community needs

·     Action 147: Investigate the need for a new multipurpose space in Paerata and consider the need for additional indoor courts to support population growth

·     Action 156: Drury community services (Investment Priority Area).

15.     It has also been devised to support the implementation of the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013 and the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 in Franklin.

We undertook four main streams of research as part of the investigation

16.     Staff conducted four streams of research as part of the investigation (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Four streams of research

17.     Staff drew on a wide range of public datasets for demographic breakdowns (Statistics New Zealand), population projections (Auckland Council), previous engagement, local surveys and sport and recreation participation rates (Sport New Zealand).

18.     A geospatial analysis of current open space provision in Franklin was also undertaken against the metrics in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 and based on the residential zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (Updated 12 May 2023).

19.     Data was extracted from Auckland Council’s Geographic Information Systems and the Department of Conservation’s Public Conservation Land open dataset.

20.     No new research was commissioned and no additional public engagement was conducted.

Our research showed key differences between Franklin and the rest of Auckland

21.     2018 Census data provides insight into the 74,838 people, or 25,359 households in Franklin.

22.     There are key differences between Aucklanders living in Franklin and the rest of the population (shown in blue) as illustrated in Table 1.

23.     The population is older, with high rates of New Zealand Europeans and larger family sizes.

24.     There are higher rates of home ownership and medium household income, but lower rates of employment and educational achievement.

Table 1: Overview of the Franklin population

Population

Icon

Description automatically generated

Growing population

2018: 74,838 residents

Forecasted to grow by 114% in the next 30 years

Age distribution

Icon

Description automatically generated

Elder population base

Median age: 40.5 (34.8)

Ethnic composition

Icon

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Higher European population

Predominant ethnic groups are:

NZ European (82%) (54%)

Māori (15%) (12%)

Asian (9%) (28%)

Place of birth

Icon

Description automatically generated

The majority born in New Zealand

78% born in New Zealand (52%)

Median household income

Icon

Description automatically generated

Higher median household income

$98,400 per annum ($93,900)

Employment

Icon

Description automatically generated

Lower employment rate

56% of residents in full or part-time paid employment (66%)

Number of children

Family with boy with solid fill

More children

18% have three or more dependent children

(7%)

Home ownership

Icon

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Higher rate of home ownership

72% of households live in privately owned housing or housing held in a family trust (59%)

Education

Icon

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Lower education achievements

51% of residents with a Level 3 Certificate or higher (68%)

Religion

 

Study Cartoon clipart - Bible, Blue, Text, transparent clip art

More religious

The majority (52%) of residents are not religious

(43%)

 

Travel

Icon

Description automatically generated

More car-based

80% of residents travel to work driving, or as a passenger, in a private or company vehicle (74%)

 

Industry

Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Icon - Industry Icon Blue Png - Free  Transparent PNG Download - PNGkey

 

 

 

More likely to work in manufacturing

20% of those employed work in manufacturing (10%)

Source: Census 2018, Statistics New Zealand


 

25.     Auckland Council’s Quality of Life Survey (2022) provides further community insights:

·     Clubs and incorporated societies are more common modes of participation and social engagement in Franklin

·     Franklin residents reported a greater ‘sense of community’ compared to the rest of Auckland

·     Franklin residents are slightly less physically active compared to Aucklanders elsewhere

·     Popular forms of exercise include walking and jogging/running

·     Franklin residents believe that arts and culture are important to community resilience and well-being

·     Franklin residents are more likely to participate in visual arts, performing arts, craft and object arts.

Franklin is projected to experience high levels of growth over the next 30 years

26.     Franklin’s population is projected to grow to 160,671 by 2051 (see Figure 2).

27.     This represents a 114 per cent growth rate.

28.     It is the highest projected growth rate across the Auckland region.

Figure 2: Projected population growth in the Franklin Local Board area

Source: Long-term Plan Growth Assumptions, Scenario I, Version 11.6 (i11), Auckland Council

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

There is an opportunity to consider targeted investment in Franklin in response to growth

29.     Franklin’s population growth and changing demographics over the next 30 years will drive demand for new services and create opportunities to increase participation.

30.     This presents an opportunity to consider targeted investment in community facilities and open space to meet the changing needs of the community now and in the future (See Table 2).


 

Table 2: Opportunity statement: Community investment in Franklin

Description

·     Targeted investment in community facilities and open space to meet the changing needs of the Franklin community now and in the future

Trigger

·     Franklin Local Board support for an integrated investigation of community needs for community and open spaces

·     Responding to six priority actions listed in the updated Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022

Scope

·     Franklin Local Board Area

·     Arts and culture, library, community centre, venue for hire, aquatic and leisure spaces and open spaces

·     Provision levels in accordance with the Community Facilities Network Plan 2015 and Open Space Provision Policy 2016

Impact

·     ‘Participation and Belonging’ outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050

·     ‘Māori Identity and Well-being’ outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050

·     Benefits for all population groups, including young people, lower socio-economic groups and vulnerable populations

 

Franklin residents want fit-for-purpose facilities

31.     Franklin residents emphasise the need for easier access to community and open spaces and good maintenance of these spaces (see Figure 3).

32.     They also want community space provision to meet kids' needs (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Franklin communities’ aspirations

A diagram of a diagram

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Source: Public submissions on the Auckland Long-term Plan 2021 and Franklin Local Board Plan 2022

A gap analysis shows provision gaps in community services and spaces now and in the future

33.     Franklin residents currently have access to 53 community facilities in the local board area.

34.     There are 16 additional community spaces in neighbouring local board areas that they can also access.

35.     A detailed list of all 69 community spaces is contained on Page 47 of Attachment A.

36.     Staff undertook a gap analysis to see if these facilities met the provision guidelines in the Community Facilities Network Plan 2015.

37.     This policy document guides council’s investment in community facilities and specifies provision levels for each type of community space (see Pages 67-77 of Attachment A for the detailed provision metrics).

38.     Analysis of current provision against this policy highlighted a current gap in community centre space provision in the Waiuku sub-division (see Pages 72-73 of Attachment A).

39.     Gaps in other community spaces are also expected to emerge as the population increases.

40.     By 2031, there is a likely gap in community centre and leisure space provision in the Pukekohe sub-division if population growth occurs as currently projected.

41.     By 2041, there is a projected gap in leisure space provision in the Wairoa sub-division.

42.     By 2051, there are projected gaps in the provision of:

·     arts and culture, library, community centre, aquatic and leisure space in the Drury area

·     nine indoor court spaces across the Franklin Local Board area.

43.     Some community spaces such as rural libraries, rural halls and Jubilee Pool are likely to be duplication to existing provision and could be considered for optimisation in the future given their poor performance and limited contribution to the network capacity.

Staff recommend seven key moves to progressively fill these gaps

44.     The Community Facilities Network Plan 2015 is focused on having the right facility, in the right place, at the right time.

45.     Staff recommend seven key moves that will address current and project gaps in provision and ensure that development coincides with actual population growth:

·     Key move 1: Develop an indicative business case for a new multi-use community facility and an aquatic and leisure facility in the Drury area by 2028 to meet the needs of the future population and secure the land to site the facilities ahead of development.

·     Key move 2: Monitor capacity in Pukekohe Library to ensure that it can serve future population growth.

·     Key move 3: Investigate rural library provision:

-      in the short term, investigate options to serve Maraetai residents through Beachlands Library

-      in the long term, monitor visits to rural libraries and investigate alternative delivery methods.

·     Key move 4: Investigate options to deliver community services through Waiuku Library to address the existing gap in community centre provision.

·     Key move 5: Investigate whether venue for hire services (i.e. rural halls) are required and/or could be delivered in other types of community spaces to optimise utilisation.

·     Key move 6: Develop an indicative business case for two to four new indoor courts in the Pukekohe area by 2027.

·     Key move 7: Negotiate with relevant schools for better community access to courts.

46.     These key moves were developed and refined in workshops with the Franklin Local Board and through discussions with operational staff.

47.     This approach helped create buy-in as well as ensure that the key moves could be implemented.

48.     The adoption of these key moves means that the next stages, including business case development and delivery, are included in future work and capital expenditure programmes.

49.     These key moves are also tied to population growth. They can be brought forward if growth occurs faster than projected, or pushed out if growth slows.

Staff also identified current and future gaps in the open space network

50.     The current Franklin open space network consists of around 295 local council-owned or administered open spaces totalling approximately 890 hectares, comprising:

·     261 neighbourhood parks

·     20 suburb parks

·     four civic spaces

·     11 cemeteries (two of which are inactive).

51.     Additionally, 48 pieces of land owned or administered by the Department of Conservation as public conservation land and eight regional parks sit within the Franklin.

52.     The open space network is illustrated on page 84 of Attachment A.

53.     Staff undertook a geospatial gaps analysis of the current open space network in Franklin to determine whether it met the metrics in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 (see Page 120 of Attachment A).

54.     This policy document establishes metrics for the provision of open space. These metrics primarily guide the type, size and location of open space across Auckland.

55.     The gap analysis identified current gaps in neighbourhood park provision in Pukekohe and Waiuku. These gaps will be exacerbated by growth and intensification.

56.     The gap analysis also identified 20 existing open spaces of less than 1000m², and 45 open spaces of between 1000m² and 3000m². These spaces are inconsistent with the provision metrics in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016.

57.     The provision metrics for pocket parks are 1000-1500m², and for neighbourhood parks 3000-5000m².

58.     The size of these open spaces is important to help ensure that they can provide neighbouring residents with the range of recreational opportunities and experiences expected of the relevant park type.

59.     Staff also undertook a high-level assessment of growth areas identified in the Auckland Plan 2050: Development Strategy, Drury-Ōpaheke Structure Plan 2017, the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019, and adopted plan changes.

60.     The purpose of this analysis was to identify future open space requirements.

61.     When staff applied the metrics in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016, 118 indicative new open spaces totalling 75.5 hectares were identified.

62.     This includes filling the existing provision gaps in Pukekohe and Waiuku.

Staff recommend four key moves to address open spaces

63.     Staff recommend four key moves to improve the Franklin open space network:

·    Key move 1. Provide equitable access to open space across the Franklin Local Board area by increasing the capacity of the open space network and improving its quality.

·    Key move 2. Enhance and broaden open space visitor experiences by improving the quality and accessibility of open spaces to cater for a range of user needs and increasing socialisation and active recreation opportunities.

·    Key move 3. Treasure the natural and cultural environment of open spaces by protecting and enhancing their ecological features and values, including wildlife habitat and biodiversity and promoting and enhancing the cultural heritage of open spaces.

·    Key move 4. Enhance or develop walking, cycling, and green corridor connections by increasing and enhancing connections between open spaces and improving awareness of connections.

64.     These key moves were developed based on a review of local board documents and plans, the findings of the open space provision investigation, Franklin Local Board advice and feedback through workshops with the board, and through discussions with operational staff.

65.     The investigation also proposes prioritised actions to help implement the four key moves, including:

·    undertake a detailed assessment to identify potential land acquisitions required to fill current open space provision gaps

·    investigate and design play spaces that provide inclusive and stimulating play environments for all age groups

·    work with mana whenua to apply and adapt Te Aranga design principles when developing parks

·    implement adopted paths and trail plans proactively as Franklin develops.

66.     The key moves can be progressively implemented as parks are developed/redeveloped and by allocating funding from budgets managed by the Franklin Local Board.

 

Staff have assessed a range of factors that could influence the recommended key moves

67.     Staff have considered a range of factors that could influence or impact the recommended key moves. These are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Analysis of external factors

Opportunities

·       There could be opportunities to move the investigation forward as part of the work to undertake a regional arts and culture services needs assessment (Action 88 of the updated Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan 2022) and a review of the council’s aquatic network (Action 9 of the updated Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan 2022).

·       There will be opportunities to acquire open space as development occurs across Franklin and to ensure that delivery coincides with residents moving into the sub-divisions.

Threats

·       The main threats relate to population growth. If growth does not occur as projected, the delivery timeframes will change.

Constraints

·       Auckland Council budget constraints could impact the development of community and open spaces.

·       Development contributions can only be used to acquire community and open spaces to meet the needs of growth.

·       Acquisitions to meet other needs, including filling existing provision gaps, will have to be fully or partially funded from other sources, or delivered by other means.

Limitations

·       There are two key assumptions and limitations associated with the data used to inform the investigation:

it has been assumed that the data used was accurate on the date it was received

the investigation is based on available resources accessible to the council staff, for example, the council’s Facility Network Mapping Tool SCOUT, GIS and asset/ facility condition assessment completed by quantity surveyors.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

68.     The recommended key moves ensure a sustainable approach to the provision of community services. They leverage existing service and space provision by schools and private providers and entail improving existing facilities.

69.     The open space key moves address residential intensification and growth by rationalising the existing open space network to maximise recreational and environmental benefits now and in the future.

70.     Potential actions include daylighting streams in existing open spaces and the use of water sensitive design and strategic tree planting in new or upgraded open spaces.

71.     The provision of green open space helps buffer peak stormwater flows, purify water and air, and contributes to lessening urban heat. 

72.     Auckland Council’s investment in walking and cycling infrastructure as well as in public transport foster opportunities to reduce reliance on private vehicle travel to access community services, facilities and open spaces.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

73.     The investigation was developed in consultation with relevant council departments including Regional Services and Strategy, Active Communities, Parks and Community Facilities and Local Board Services.

74.     Their views are reflected in the findings of the investigation and the key moves.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

75.     The Franklin community provision investigation responds to communities’ needs for fit-for-purpose and integrated community and open spaces as reflected in public submissions on the Auckland Long-term Plan 2021 and Franklin Local Board Plan 2022.

Local board views

76.     In 2022, staff presented a proposal to bundle the six actions from the updated Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022 to form a single piece of advice on how best to support future community needs for community spaces, services and open spaces and preliminary findings from community profiles and social research.

77.     Staff ran workshops with the Franklin Local Board in December 2022 and June 2023 to present and sense check early findings. This led to a re-classification of some community centres and venues for hire. 

78.     Franklin Local Board is the fastest growing local board area in Auckland.

79.     Planning and prioritising future investment in community and open spaces will ensure Auckland Council, together with partners, deliver well-functioning neighbourhoods and support the community’s four well-beings as required under the Local Government Act 2002. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

80.     The 2018 Census found that 18 per cent of Franklin’s residents are of Māori descent and 15 per cent identify as Māori.

81.     The provision of community services and spaces and open spaces contribute to ‘Māori Identity and Well-being’ outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050 - primarily ‘Direction 1: Advance Māori well-being’, including:

·    Focus Area 1 – Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whānau

·    Focus Area 6 - Celebrate Māori culture and support te reo Māori to flourish

·    Focus Area 7 - Reflect mana whenua mātauranga and Māori design principles throughout Auckland.

82.     When implemented, there will be increased opportunities for Māori residents to participate in community, cultural and sport and recreation activities.

83.     The recommended key moves also support action on issues identified in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025, including:

·    Tamariki and Rangatahi Development - Māori are enabled to nurture tamariki and rangatahi to develop to their full potential in a culturally appropriate way

·    Sites of Significance - Mana Whenua are enabled to maintain and protect sites of significance to reaffirm connections to the whenua and preserve for future generations

·    Distinctive Identity - Māori retain a sense of place and identity, and the wider community understands the value of diversity and embraces our unique culture

·    Te Reo Māori - Te Reo Māori is recognised as a taonga and an integral part of Māori cultural expression within Tāmaki Makaurau

·    Water Quality - The mauri of our waterways is restored, maintained, and preserved for future generations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

84.     The recommended key moves support planning and prioritising future investment in community and open spaces to ensure Franklin residents continue to have access to quality services.

85.     They reflect a financially prudent approach to investment, and encompass rationalisation of the estate, network and service improvements and growth-related new investment.

86.     Delivery the key moves - for example, developing indicative business cases, investigations and monitoring, can be carried out using existing departmental resources. Delivery is dependent on resource prioritisation.


 

87.     The local board has decision-making over the number and location of new community facilities and parks, within budget parameters agreed by the Governing Body. Proposed investment in new community spaces and open spaces that respond to growth are funded through rates and development contributions and will be included in the draft Long-term Plan 2024-34 for consideration by the Governing Body in the coming months.

88.     The local board has a range of funding tools at its disposal to improve services delivery. Tools include optimisation, using existing budgets and targeted rates.

89.     The findings and recommendations of this investigation do not impact existing and planned projects in the local board area.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

90.     This investigation is based on Auckland Council’s latest population projections.

91.     There is a risk that the actual rate of growth may differ from projections.

92.     This can be mitigated by ongoing monitoring of Franklin’s population growth.

IF

THEN

MITIGATION

Actual population growth differs from the modelled growth

The provision analysis based on the population threshold will be impacted

The findings, recommendations and proposed delivery timeframes may not accurately reflect the needs of the Franklin population

Future provision assessments will use the most up-to-date population projections to ensure that their findings and recommendations remain current

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

93.     If adopted, the local board can include the key moves and associated priority actions in the draft Local Board Plan 2024 for consultation with the community and feed into the local board’s work programme.

94.     Key moves related to community service and spaces will be included in the updated Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan 2022 for consideration by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in November 2023. Inclusion in the action plan will ensure actions are taken into account when prioritisation delivery.

95.     Proposed new infrastructure investment that respond to growth will be included in the draft Long-term Plan 2024-34 and associated infrastructure strategy for consideration by the Governing Body in the up-coming months.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Franklin Community Provision Investigation 2023 - Technical Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

     


 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Carol Wang - Policy Advisor

Ezra Barwell - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Funding Auckland's Storm Recovery and Resilence

File No.: CP2023/13333

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide local boards with an opportunity to provide input regarding the funding package that has been provisionally agreed with central government.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Seven months on from severe weather events in January and February 2023, many Aucklanders with impacted homes are still facing a challenging and uncertain future.

3.       Auckland Council has worked with central government to secure a funding package that would enable people in the region to move forward with certainty, as quickly as possible.

4.       The proposed funding package includes just under $2 billion of investment in storm recovery efforts for three key activities:

·        repairing storm damage to the transport network

·        Making Space for Water (the council’s flood mitigation programme) and other resilience projects

·        Category 3 property buyouts.

5.       If we do not accept the funding package, we will still need to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements but would not be in a position to buy out Category 3 homes.

6.       Public consultation is underway from 11-24 September.

7.       Local board feedback will be provided to the Governing Body along with public feedback ahead of its decision-making on 6 October 2023.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that input is being sought from local boards at the same time as public consultation due to the very tight timelines involved and the need to provide certainty for impacted Aucklanders

b)      whakarite / provide feedback on whether the local board supports Auckland Council agreeing to the funding package

c)       whakarite / provide feedback on features of the package that you would like to comment on

d)      whakarite / provide feedback on the design of the Category 3 buyout process.


 

Horopaki

Context

8.       Severe weather events in January and February 2023 have had a devastating and lasting impact on many communities and thousands of individuals across Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. Flooding and land slips have damaged or destroyed thousands of homes and up-ended lives and communities. Essential lifeline infrastructure and facilities have been impacted and are in urgent need of repair. This includes roads, bridges, stormwater systems and community facilities.

9.       Seven months on, many Aucklanders with impacted homes are still facing a challenging and uncertain future. We need to support these Aucklanders and improve the resilience of our infrastructure so that we are better prepared and can mitigate the impacts of severe weather events.

10.     Auckland Council has worked with central government to secure a funding package that would enable people in the region to move forward with certainty, as quickly as possible.

11.     To achieve all the outcomes of the package the government would provide just under $1.1 billion of new and reprioritised existing funding, with the council investing around $900 million. This is the same “locally-led, centrally-supported” approach that has been taken with other regions affected by the January and February storm events, just at a larger scale. It is different from the Christchurch earthquake recovery, where central government funded all the purchase of properties.

12.     As a locally-led effort, Auckland Council is expected to take the lead on the design and implementation of any package. This means we have a number of detailed decisions to make as part of our main decision whether to proceed with the co-funded package.

13.     Public consultation is taking place from 11-24 September. Details can be found at https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/recoveryfunding

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     The proposed funding package includes just under $2 billion of investment in storm recovery efforts for three key activities, as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed central government and Auckland Council contribution to recovery

 

Central government funding

Auckland Council funding

Total

Transport network recovery

$309 million

$81 million

$390 million

Making space for water and other resilience projects

$380 million

$440 million

$820 million

Category 3 home buy-outs

$387 million

$387 million

$774 million

Total

$1,076 million

$908 million

$1,984 million

 

 

 

 

 

Transport network recovery

15.     Auckland Council is projecting that $390 million will be needed to make repairs to roads and bridges that were damaged by the severe weather. This includes the Mill Flat Road bridge, access to Karekare and Piha, and a number of roads in the west, the north and on Aotea / Great Barrier Island that were significantly damaged. The funding would ensure that repairs can be undertaken with greater certainty.

Making Space for Water and other resilience projects

16.     A critical part of recovery is making sure we are better prepared for future severe weather. Improving resilience is essential to provide security for those who will continue to live in hazard-prone areas. This includes the flood risk management projects such as those that we have outlined in the Making Space for Water programme that we consulted on last month.

17.     This programme would allow us to create new ‘blue-green networks’ in areas with critical flood risks, and to rehabilitate streams so that they are more resilient to floods. We would be able to increase our stormwater maintenance and overland flow path management.

18.     This portion of the funding package could also be used for other resilience projects, such as community based geotechnical projects where risks can be mitigated. Importantly, the funding package would allow us to move more quickly with our efforts to build resilience.

Category 3 property buy-outs

19.     Homes in Category 3 are not safe to live in because the risk from future flooding or landslips is intolerably high. Options to reduce this risk at a property or community level are not available or affordable. Homes in these areas should not be rebuilt or remain on their current sites.

20.     Central government’s co-funding conditions for Category 3 properties are that they must be:

·        residential

·        impacted by the severe weather events of January and February 2023

·        subject to ongoing intolerable risk to life, and

·        without an economic way to mitigate the risk.

21.     The proposed funding package would provide up to $774 million to buy Category 3 homes and allow people affected by the January and February severe weather events to move on with their lives. The funding for this would be split evenly between Auckland Council and central government.

22.     The $774 million is based on current estimates of around 700 homes to be included in this category. If this maximum amount is exceeded, central government and the council have agreed to work together in good faith to decide next steps.

23.     Auckland Council would need to administer the buy-out process from start to finish, including the purchase and removal of homes, and the ongoing management of the land. We know that there would be extra costs that wouldn’t be fully co-funded through the proposed funding package, including the costs of demolishing buildings, and any costs arising from the ongoing management of the land. We will also need to consider how we best make use of the newly acquired land, for example public parks and blue-green networks.

24.     We need to make some decisions about how the buy-out process would work, including the price we pay for Category 3 houses, how this works with insurance, and any conditions (e.g. price caps or exclusions) that might need to be put in place. Given the complexity of the task, we are proposing to take an approach where we work towards decisions that are simple, fair, cost-effective, timely, and give certainty to affected Aucklanders.


 

Accepting the funding package

25.     If Auckland Council accepts the funding package:

·        We will receive additional government funding to accelerate our efforts to increase the resilience of our infrastructure.

·        We can get on with making improvements that would otherwise take decades to achieve.

·        We can offer a process forward for Category 3 property owners.

·        We will need to find extra revenue to meet the council funding commitment.

26.     If Auckland Council does not accept the funding package:

·        We won’t receive all the proposed funding from central government, although we could still anticipate receiving some of the transport funding in the normal way, and could apply to the National Resilience Plan for further funding without a guarantee of our applications being successful.

·        We will still need to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements and may need to take longer to do this using the available council funding methods.

·        We won’t be in a position to buy out Category 3 homes: some property owners would face severe hardship and people would remain at risk.

27.     Accepting the funding package would be a significant step in the recovery process. We acknowledge that recovery is not happening as quickly as affected communities would like. There is a difficult balance between moving quickly and moving accurately, especially with so many thousands of potentially affected homes needing individual technical assessments. It’s important that everyone can have confidence in the information and evidence available so that we can make robust, defensible and enduring decisions.

28.     We also need to balance the needs of impacted homeowners with the needs of the wider community and consider the affordability and hazard management impacts for all Aucklanders.

Methodology of Category 3 buy-outs

29.     If we go ahead with the funding package, the details of the purchase methodology for Category 3 properties would need to be determined, and would have a strong influence on how simple, fair, cost-effective and timely our process could be, and how much certainty we could offer affected homeowners.

30.     Some of the policy details we need to consider include:

·        How we define Category 3 residential properties. We need to consider whether we should make different provisions for holiday homes and rentals that are assessed as being in Category 3, compared to primary residences. We will not be purchasing non-residential properties.

·        How we set the buy-out price. If our starting point is to take a ‘fair value’ approach, we need to decide how we assess that. Using capital value (the valuation that helps us to assess rates bills) would be the quickest option but wouldn’t necessarily reflect the true market value of every individual house. Establishing market value would be a much slower option: it could delay the process and would add further administrative costs. We could adopt a hybrid approach that gets most of the money to homeowners sooner and allows the balance to be resolved through valuation. Other alternatives would be to offer a fixed sum to all Category 3 homeowners or establish a sliding scale of payment based on hardship.


 

·        The size of owner contributions. Like all investments, property ownership carries risks. Aucklanders, through Auckland Council, do not guarantee owners against loss. Auckland Council will need to consider whether to offer 100% of the value of the property, or a lesser amount, provided we can meet our objective of removing people from situations of intolerable risk. This could take the form of a cap on buy-out offers above a certain amount.

·        What we do about insurance settlements, and uninsured and underinsured properties. Government and council contributions are intended to ‘top up’ rather than replace any amounts received through private insurance or EQC (Earthquake Commission). We still need to decide how this would work in practice. We also need to determine a fair outcome both for homeowners and for the Aucklanders who will have to fund buy-outs. This will mean we need to consider if Aucklanders who had no insurance or limited insurance should receive more, less or the same as other Category 3 homeowners.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31.     The response that is being proposed in this funding package is a one-off, made necessary by the urgent and extraordinary scale of events.

32.     As climate change increases the risk of severe weather events, Auckland Council will not be in a position to continue to buy out other flood- and slip-affected homes. We are working to improve public awareness of hazards, so that Aucklanders are better able to manage their risks. We are also reviewing our approach to the planning and development of homes in areas with natural hazards, however the impact of this is confined largely to new development, and doesn’t address the legacy of thousands of homes that are already built in higher-risk areas.

33.     We are strongly advocating to central government to establish a national scheme to support recovery from future events, and to put in place better processes for managed retreat in advance of disaster.

34.     Both the Auckland Plan 2050 and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan advocate for greater resilience to severe storms and flood events. A key principle of the proposed Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is ‘Opportunities to build resilience and avoid future harm are sought proactively’.

35.     The funding received from central government for Making Space for Water and other resilience projects will enable Auckland Council to implement the initiatives within these plans in a way that both builds resilience to the impacts of climate change, and has a lower carbon impact than the solutions that have historically been utilised.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36.     The Recovery Office is working with Legal, Finance, the Chief Planning Office and the Mayoral Office to consider the approach set out by the Crown, the implications for council, and the appropriate parameters for council’s actions at each stage of the negotiations and potential implementation process. The Executive Leadership Team sub-group also spans the relevant parts of the council that are necessary to input and/or be involved in this process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37.     During August, local boards and local communities provided feedback on the draft Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, which will inform how government funding for infrastructure will be allocated. Staff are currently analysing the feedback to inform the final content of the Plan.

38.     This report provides the opportunity for local boards to give feedback specifically on the funding agreement that has been agreed in-principle with central government.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     The Recovery Office is engaging with mana whenua representatives to discuss the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan. Meetings are underway and will continue throughout September.  These meetings also provide opportunity to discuss the government funding package.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40.     Auckland’s recovery from the severe weather events of early 2023 is going to require significant investment, with or without central government co-funding. The proposed package increases the total investment into Auckland, with over $1 billion in new and reprioritised central government funding.

41.     Significant funding from Auckland Council would still be required to deliver on the activities described in this package.

42.     If we agree to proceed with the funding package, we would initially use borrowing to fund Auckland’s share of the proposal, until we can make more considered funding decisions in the next long-term plan. This is due to be consulted on in early 2024.

43.     Using borrowing in the short term would mean we could get the infrastructure repairs and the Category 3 buy-out process moving quickly.

44.     Based on initial timing projections the additional council debt required is likely to peak at $650 million. This would increase the debt-to-revenue ratio by 7 – 9 per cent over the next five to seven years, remaining within current debt limits.

45.     The council has a number of options to fund the proposed package in the long-term plan, including reducing or deferring other capital spending, sale of assets, service reductions, and rates. These decisions may also be impacted by the outcomes of the government’s water reform process.

46.     If the council were to proceed with the full proposed programme and fund it using only rates, then this would require an additional rates increase equivalent to 3.1 per cent of general rates, which could be phased in over two years. Any rates increase would be on top of other significant budget pressures the council is facing. Current indications suggest overall rates increases of over 10 per cent for 2024/2025 for residential ratepayers, if cost reductions or funding sources are not found.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47.     Risks and mitigations with the Crown offer process are identified in Table 2.

Table 2. Risks and mitigations with the Crown offer process

            Risk

Mitigations

More than 700 properties are identified as category 3.

Good faith commitment with the Crown to develop a joint response if this situation arises.

Eligibility criteria for the National Resilience Plan have not yet been defined, meaning there is a risk to accessing the pre-committed funding for resilience

Address within terms of the agreement

Significant additional funding required from Auckland Council

An existing risk that will need to be addressed in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, regardless of the Crown offer.

Terms of the Crown offer do not adequately provide for the complexity of the council processes needed to undertake buy outs.

Policy and legal analysis is underway to consider the implications of the terms of the agreement, to be reported to the Governing Body.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48.     Technical assessment of affected homes and remediation of damaged infrastructure will continue throughout the decision-making process.

49.     Public consultation is underway from 11-24 September.

50.     The Governing Body will meet on 6 October to consider input from local boards and feedback from public consultation and will decide whether to agree to the proposed funding package.

51.     If the package is agreed, the council will begin conversations with confirmed Category 3 home-owners at the end of October.

52.     From November, voluntary buy-outs for Category 3 properties will begin, as technical assessments are confirmed.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Megan Howell – Recovery Specialist

Authorisers

Mat Tucker – Group Recovery Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Approval for 23 new public road names and a new private road name at 60A Dyke Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2023/11792

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name 23 new public road and one private road being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 348 Linwood Road and 60A Dyke Road, Papakura (within the Franklin Local Board area).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (the guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for the local board’s approval.

3.       The developer and applicant, Karaka Village Development Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4.       The proposed road name options have been assessed against the guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been mostly met with the exception of the applicant’s preferred name for Road 6. The proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana Whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines.

5.       The proposed names for the new road at 348 Linwood Road and 60A Dyke Road, Papakura are:

 

Applicant’s Preference

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Road 1

Hampshire Lane

Charollais Road

Linceed Road

Road 2

Black Angus Boulevard

Red Angus Boulevard

Steer Street

Road 3

Plane Tree Avenue

Bovine Drive

Watercress Road

Road 4

Shorthorn Lane

Norfolk Horn Lane

Kale Street

Road 5

Ryeland Lane

Autumn Harvest Road

Fescue Lane

Road 6

Sal Street

Corral Street

Bumblebeef Crescent

Road 7

Tungou Street

Puketakauere Road

Waikirihinau Road

Road 8

Karaka Village Parade

Karaka Meadow Parade

Stud Street

Road 9

Wagyu Lane

Border Leicester Drive

Wheat Street

Road 10

Kobe Street

Ryegrass Road

Hay Barn Lane

Road 11

Suffolk Down Road

Dairy Meade Lane

Croppers Street

Road 12

Belted Galloway Lane

Poll Dorset Road

Pecowchu Road

Road 13

Shropshire Street

Willow Glen Lane

Oat Field Lane

Road 14

Murray Grey Lane

Belgian Blue Lane

Spring Pasture Street

Road 15

Dorset Down Drive

Chicory Road

Gumbooter Road

Road 16

Coopworth Street

East Friesian Street

Silage Pit Road

Road 17

Texel Street

Maize Street

Tanker Track Lane

Road 18

Rib Eye Road

Flank Road

Pork Chop Drive

Road 19

Whangamarie Rise

Te Paahurehure Rise

Orangahu Rise

Road 20

Maungakaraka Road

Marowhara Road

Taureau Road

Road 21

Porterhouse Drive

Tenderloin Road

T Bone Road

Road 22

Sirloin Street

Brisket Street

Cutlet Road

Road 23

Kentucky Blue Road

Powarth Street

Penny Royal Road

COAL 1

Wilshire Mews

Bushel Mews

Caraway Mews

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      approve the names as follows for the 23 new public roads and one private road created by way of subdivision undertaken by Karaka Village Development Limited at 348 Linwood Road and 60A Dyke Road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90106345, resource consent references SUB60408253, SUB60411132 of BUN60408139 and SUB60413962 of BUN60413960):

i)          Hampshire Lane (Road 1)

ii)         Black Angus Boulevard (Road 2)

iii)        Plane Tree Avenue (Road 3)

iv)        Shorthorn Lane (Road 4)

v)         Ryeland Lane (Road 5)

vi)        Corral Street (Road 6)

vii)       Tungou Street (Road 7)

viii)      Karaka Village Parade (Road 8)

ix)        Wagyu Lane (Road 9)

x)         Kobe Street (Road 10)

xi)        Suffolk Down Road (Road 11)

xii)       Belted Galloway Lane (Road 12)

xiii)      Shropshire Street (Road 13)

xiv)      Murray Grey Lane (Road 14)

xv)       Dorset Down Drive (Road 15)

xvi)      Coopworth Street (Road 16)

xvii)     Texel Street (Road 17)

xviii)     Rib Eye Road (Road 18)

xix)      Whangamarie Rise (Road 19)

xx)       Maungakaraka Road (Road 20)

xxi)      Porterhouse Drive (Road 21)

xxii)     Sirloin Street (Road 22)

xxiii)     Kentucky Blue Road (Road 23)

xxiv)    Wilshire Mews (COAL 1)

Horopaki

Context

6.       Resource consents SUB60411132 and SUB60408253 of BUN60408139 were issued on 06 December 2022 for a comprehensive subdivision of 348 Linwood Road and 60A Dykes Road to create 311 vacant residential lots and a number of superlots for future subdivision and developments. Most of the main roads within the subdivision development were approved by these consents.

7.       Resource consent SUB60413962 of BUN60413960 was issued on 14 April 2023 for the further subdivision of four of the superlots into 81 vacant residential lots and four COALs.

8.       Location and site plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

9.       In accordance with the standards, any road including private ways, COALs, and right of ways, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering. The roads that are or will be serving more than five lots have been identified in Attachment B.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     The guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region. The guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

11.     The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

·   a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area; or

·   a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

·   an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

12.     Themes: The proposed names generally fall into two themes. One reflecting the history of the site, being previously a dairy farm. The other reflecting the landscape features of the area.

Road Number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 1

Hampshire Lane (applicant’s preference)

Hampshire are a breed of sheep.

Charolais Road (alternative 1)

Charolais is a breed of sheep.

Linceed Road (alternative 2)

Linceed is a common rural crop.

Road 2

Black Angus Boulevard (applicant’s preference)

This road will be the main entrance to the subdivision off Linwood Road.  Black Angus cattle will be the likely breed that is retained in the paddocks throughout the village.

Red Angus Boulevard (alternative 1)

Red Angus is a type of cattle.

Steer Street

(alternative 2)

A steer being a male cattle raised for beef.

Road 3

Plane Tree Avenue

(applicant’s preference)

There is an existing row of mature plane trees along the old farm race, to the south of this road. These have been retained and will form part of the pedestrian path adjacent to this road. This road has been referred to as the Plane Tree Avenue throughout the master planning for the site.

Bovine Drive

(alternative 1)

Bovine being a domesticated cow.

Watercress Road

(alternative 2)

This road runs down towards a stream where you would find watercress.

Road 4

Shorthorn Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Shorthorn is a breed of cattle.

Norfolk Horn Lane

(alternative 1)

Norfolk Horn is a sheep breed.

Kale Street

(alternative 2)

Kale being a common crop in the area.

Road 5

Ryeland Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Ryland is a breed of sheep.

Autumn Harvest Road

(alternative 1)

Autumn Harvest being the time that winter crops are ready to be collected and eaten.

Fescue Lane

(alternative 2)

Fescue being a type of rural grass.

Road 6

Sal Street

(applicant’s preference)

Named after one of the developer’s mother.

Corral Street

(alternative 1)

A corral being a pen for livestock.

Bumblebeef Crescent

(alternative 2)

This is the name of the former owner grandson's calf club cow.

Road 7

Tungou Street

(applicant’s preference)

This name is suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. It is an old traditional name by which Te Paahurehure is also known for.

Puketakauere Road

(alternative 1)

The name is suggested by Ngati Tamaoho. It is the traditional name of Shark Island which sits to the northwest of the site.

Waikirihinau Road

(alternative 2)

The name is suggested by Ngati Tamaoho. It is an alternative name for Koopuahingahinga Island and Bottle Top Bay.

Road 8

Karaka Village Parade

(applicant’s preference)

This will be the main entrance into the first stage of the subdivision development and the main road to the northwest corner of the subdivision development. It identifies the area as Karaka Village. 

Karaka Meadow Parade

(alternative 1)

To the north of this road, there is a large area of rural land – a large open meadow.

Stud Street

(alternative 2)

A stud being when pedigree animals are breed.

Road 9

Wagyu Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Wagyu being a breed of cattle.

Border Leicester Drive

(alternative 1)

Border Leicester is a breed of sheep.

Wheat Street

(alternative 2)

Wheat is a commonly grown rural crop.

Road 10

Kobe Street

(applicant’s preference)

Kobe is also a breed of cattle.

Ryegrass Road

(alternative 1)

Ryegrass being a common grass type on most sheep and cattle farms.

Hay Barn Lane

(alternative 2)

This name refers to that old hay barn that was once located at the southern end of what is now this road.

Road 11

Suffolk Down Road

(applicant’s preference)

Suffolk Down is a breed of sheep.

Dairy Meade Lane

(alternative 1)

Dairy Meade is a breed of sheep.

Croppers Street

(alternative 2)

A cropper being someone who grows crops on rural land.

Road 12

Belted Galloway Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Belted Galloway is a breed of cattle.

Poll Dorset Road

(alternative 1)

Poll Dorset is a breed of sheep.

Pecowchu Road

(alternative 2)

This is the name of the former owner grandson's calf club cow.

Road 13

Shropshire Street

(applicant’s preference)

Shropshire is a breed of sheep.

Willow Glen Lane

(alternative 1)

The name reflects the former Willow Trees that were on this property.

Oat Field Lane

(alternative 2)

Oats being a common rural crop.

Road 14

Murray Grey Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Murray Grey is a breed of cattle.

 

Belgian Blue Lane

(alternative 1)

Belgian Blue is a breed of cattle.

 

Spring Pasture Street

(alternative 2)

Spring pasture (or spring growth) being what every farmer is looking forward to in the middle of winter.

Road 15

Dorset Down Drive

(applicant’s preference)

Dorset Down are a breed of sheep.

Chicory Road

(alternative 1)

Chicory being a common rural crop.

Gumbooter Road

(alternative 2)

Gumbooter is slang for dairy farmer.

Road 16

Coopworth Street

(applicant’s preference)

Coopworth are a breed of sheep.

East Friesian Street

(alternative 1)

East Friesian is a breed of cattle.

Silage Pit Road

(alternative 2)

This name refers to the old silage pit that was once at the middle of what is now this road.

Road 17

Texel Street

(applicant’s preference)

Texel is a breed of sheep.

Maize Street

(alternative 1)

Maize is a common rural crop fed to cattle.

Tanker Track Lane

(alternative 2)

This name refers to the old tanker track that was just to the west of where this road is now.

Road 18

Rib Eye Road

(applicant’s preference)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Flank Road

(alternative 1)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Pork Chop Drive

(alternative 2)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Road 19

Whangamarie Rise

(applicant’s preference)

This road runs east to west towards the Whangamarie Stream. 

Te Paahurehure Rise

(alternative 1)

This name is suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. It is the traditional name of the inlet that the Whangamarie Stream feeds into and has been chosen for this road because the road runs down towards the Whangamarie Stream.

 

 

Orangahu Rise

(alternative 2)

This name is suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. It is the traditional name of the headland which sits east of the Whangamarie Stream and Te Paahurehure Inlet.

Road 20

Maungakaraka Road

(applicant’s preference)

This road is the 'Green Street' (with wider berms and more trees).It runs from the local centre in the east to the rural paddocks in the west.  As you travel west on the road you will see Maungakaraka the volcanic crater discovered on the western side of the Whangamarie Stream.  This name is suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua.

Marowhara Road

(alternative 1)

This name is suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. It is the traditional name of the eastern point of Karaka (Marowhara Point) which faces opposite Te Kauri - Waiohua waahi nohoanga situated on the northern side of Te Paahurehure Inlet.

Taureau Road

(alternative 2)

French for 'bull’.

Road 21

Porterhouse Drive

(applicant’s preference)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Tenderloin Road

(alternative 1)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

T Bone Road

(alternative 2)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Road 22

Sirloin Street

(applicant’s preference)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

 

 

 

Brisket Street

(alternative 1)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Cutlet Road

(alternative 2)

This is a cut of meat.  The three roads in this area all have names suggested along this theme to differentiate them from the other rural themed parts of the subdivision.

Road 23

Kentucky Blue Road

(applicant’s preference)

Kentucky Blue is a breed of cattle.

 

Powarth Street

(alternative 1)

Powarth is a breed of sheep.

 

Penny Royal Road

(alternative 2)

Penny Royal is a type of plant.

COAL 1

Wilshire Mews

(applicant’s preference)

Wilshire are a breed of sheep.

Bushel Mews

(alternative 1)

A bushel is a unit of volume that is used for measuring agricultural produce. For example a bushel of wheat.

Caraway Mews

(alternative 2)

Caraway is a type of seed.

 

13.     Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. Most of the technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity, with the exception of applicant’s preferred name for Road 6. ‘Sal Street’ is named after one of the developers’ mother who is still alive. This name is therefore not considered to be in accordance with Principle 3.5 of the guidelines which requires the names of people who are still alive to be avoided, as community attitudes and opinions can change over time. The applicant has been advised to consider an alternative name. However, the developer is of the opinion that since ‘Sal Street’ is not named after his mother’s legal name, the risk of anyone recognising the linkage would be low. It is for the local board to decide upon the suitability of any names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation, or to indicate any additional information that might be provided to enable the local board to make that decision.

14.     Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

15.     Road Type:Lane’, ‘Boulevard’, ‘Road’, ‘Avenue’, ‘Street’, ‘Parade’, ‘Drive’, ‘Rise’ and ‘Mews’ are acceptable road types for the new roads and COAL, suiting the form and layout of the COAL and public roads.

16.     Consultation: Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17.     The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18.     The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the Council group. The views of council controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.     The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     To aid local board decision making, the guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate.   The guidelines identify the process that enables mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications and in this instance, the process has been adhered to.

21.     The applicant has contacted the representative of the mana whenua with an interest in the general area, requesting name suggestions. Both Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho have suggested names with WaikatoTainui confirming their support for names put forward by mana whenua.

22.     The proposed names consist of a combination of Māori names suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho and non-Māori names. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho have also confirmed that they do not oppose the names proposed.

23.     Notwithstanding the input of mana whenua iwi, it is noted that the developer has included those suggestions together under Roads 7, 19 and 20 only, and the names identified under those roads as alternatives might also be used on other roads. It is for the local board to determine upon the suitability of any names within this context and in accordance with the delegation.


 

24.     On 21 June 2023, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

·        Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

·        Ngāti Tamaoho

·        Te Ākitai Waiohua

·        Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

·        Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·        Ngāti Maru

·        Waikato-Tainui

25.     By the close of the consultation period, no additional responses, comments, or feedback were received.

26.     This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the Council.

28.     The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29.     There are no significant risks to Council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key component of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database.  LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Report Attachment A - Location Map

123

b

Report Attachment B - Site Plan

125

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator

A white background with black text

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Update on the Rural Advisory Panel

File No.: CP2023/13332

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for the nominated board representative to update the local board on matters being considered by Rural Advisory Panel matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Rural Advisory Panel advises the council on policies and plans specific to the rural sector. It also communicates shared rural sector interests to the council, and contributes to the rural outcomes of the Auckland Plan, and how rural areas are to be managed in the Unitary Plan

3.       The Franklin Local Board are advocates for the rural sector with the following points included in advocacy priorities in the Franklin Local Board Plan 2020:

·        Support and advocate for the development and promotion of rural south Auckland as the nation’s food bowl.

·        Public transport nodes and dedicated park and ride facilities at Drury and Paerata must be designed to service both the urban and surrounding rural communities they will service

·        Improve delivery of and access to existing arts, library and community services to rural settlements, youth, and our senior citizens e.g. by advocating for universal internet access and therefore access to internet-based services at all council venues

·        Continue to support our growers in the protection of elite soils from urban development encroachment

·        Partner with iwi, community, and private landowners to protect and restore local waterways through fencing, planting, mangrove removal and willow removal to help manage floods and create habitat for native biodiversity

·        Advocate for changes to the Unitary Plan and for the development of localised design standards, so that road and footpath design in rural and greenfield development areas accommodates local need i.e. so that neighbourhood roads provide adequately for car-dependant households and appropriate pathways can be created to enable rural communities to walk and cycle.

4.       The Franklin Local Board resolved (resolution number FR/2022/168) to appoint Alan Cole, with Logan Soole as alternate, to Auckland’s Rural Advisory Panel at its November 2022 business meeting.

5.       This report facilitates an update from the board’s representative on issues arising from the Rural Advisory Panel as a matter of interest to the local board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive a verbal or written update from the appointed representative on the Rural Advisory board, Alan Cole, on matters being considered by Rural Advisory Panel.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

File No.: CP2023/13470

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for the local board to provide any feedback on the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land came into force in October 2022. The Ministry for the Environment advise that stakeholders have raised two issues about the restrictions on uses and development that do not rely on the soil resource of the land. These are:

·        The lack of a clear consent pathway for construction of new infrastructure on highly productive land. This mostly relates to solar farms from entities than do not have the power to designate land.

·        The lack of a clear consent pathway for intensive indoor primary production (e.g. piggeries, poultry farms) and greenhouses (e.g. hydroponic) on highly productive land.

3.       The Ministry for the Environment are consulting on potential changes to the National Policy Statement that would make it easier for new infrastructure, intensive farming operations, and hydroponic greenhouses to locate on highly productive land.

4.       There is potential that the changes to the National Policy Statement could result in the loss of significant areas of highly productive land in Auckland. The necessity of these potential changes is not clear, and they could undermine the purpose of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.

5.       Any local board feedback will be included as part of an item to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 5 October 2023 on a potential council submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      provide any feedback to council staff on the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.

Horopaki

ContextBackground

6.       The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) came into force in October 2022. It directs the Auckland Council to introduce maps of highly productive land (HPL) into the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) within 3 years. In the interim there is a transitional definition of HPL. The areas of land meeting the transitional definition within the Franklin Local Board are shown in Appendix A. The NPS-HPL also adds a layer of policy to be considered by councils for proposals on HPL such as land use and development, subdivision, and rezonings.

Use and development of highly productive land

7.       The NPS-HPL requires council to avoid inappropriate land uses and development on HPL. All land use activities are considered inappropriate unless they are “Land-based primary production” activities, or they are explicitly included in a list of exceptions.

8.       The list of exceptions covers a range of matters including providing for supporting activities to land-based primary production, addressing risks to public health and safety, enhancing indigenous biodiversity, and providing public access. The full list of exceptions is included in Appendix B.

Issues behind potential changes to the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land

9.       The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) advise that stakeholders have raised two issues about the NPS-HPL’s restrictions on non-land-based uses and development. These are:

·        The lack of a clear consent pathway for construction of new specified infrastructure on HPL in clause 3.9(2)(j)(i).

·        The lack of a clear consent pathway for developing and relocating intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL.

10.     MfE are currently seeking feedback on potential amendments to the NPS-HPL that would provide a clear consenting pathway for these activities. MfE’s discussion document on the potential changes is included in Appendix 3.

New specified infrastructure on highly productive land

11.     Specified infrastructure is a defined term in the NPS-HPL and includes (but is not limited to) road and rail networks, wastewater, stormwater, water supply, and electricity generation/distribution. The wording of the NPS-HPL enables the ongoing maintenance, operation, upgrade or expansion of specified infrastructure, but it does not include the construction of new specified infrastructure. This creates a difficult consenting pathway for some new infrastructure on HPL.

12.     It is noted that most infrastructure in Auckland is provided by ‘requiring authorities’. These are entities that have the power under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to ‘designate’ land for infrastructure purposes. They essentially bypass the district plan and therefore they are minimally impacted by the wording of this part of the NPS-HPL.

13.     However, there are specified infrastructure providers that do not have designation powers under the RMA and therefore have no apparent consent pathway to develop new infrastructure on HPL. The main example of this is the renewable electricity generation sector where often solar farms and battery energy storage systems are being developed by entities that do not have designation powers.

14.     There is significant demand for additional renewable electricity in New Zealand and solar farms proposals are increasingly common. Solar farm developments often seek to develop on flat rural land because it is more economical, easier to source large blocks of land, and often receives high solar radiation. Auckland’s flat rural land is also where areas of HPL are located.

15.     MfE see a potential option to provide for activities such as solar farms on HPL is to amend the NPS-HPL by adding in the word “construction” to the exception for specified infrastructure.

Intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on highly productive land

16.     Intensive indoor primary production includes uses such as piggeries and poultry farms. Modern greenhouses mostly use artificial media to grow plants (eg hydroponics). As these activities do not rely on the soil resource of the land, they are not “land-based primary production”. Therefore, the NPS-HPL considers that these activities are inappropriate and directs that they be avoided on HPL.

17.     MfE advise that some primary industry stakeholders have argued that the NPS-HPL should specifically provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL because they have a functional and operational need to operate there (eg necessary to locate the activity close to markets, labour sources, supporting infrastructure etc).

18.     They also argue that there are limited alternative locations that would be economically viable for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses. This is because HPL is flat and therefore more cost-effective to develop. HPL is also often near labour markets, transport routes, nutrient solution management and discharge infrastructure.

19.     MfE see a potential option to provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL is to add these activities to the list of exceptions. This would provide a bespoke consenting pathway for developing and relocating intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

New specified infrastructure on highly productive land

20.     The main beneficiary of any change would likely be private entities (who are not requiring authorities) seeking to establish new infrastructure on HPL. This is most likely to be developers of solar farms and battery energy storage systems.

21.     The potential changes to make the NPS-HPL more enabling of new infrastructure on HPL are likely to affect Auckland more than other parts of New Zealand. Due to Auckland’s large population, the region is an attractive location for future solar farm ventures – as the electricity generated is close to the end users. This proximity reduces energy loss that occurs when electricity is transmitted over long distances and increases the resilience of electricity supply.

22.     There are currently three solar farm resource consent applications being processed in Auckland, with a number of other solar farm and battery energy storage system proposals at a pre-application stage. In total these proposals could cover around 2,000ha of land. Therefore, there is the potential that the changes to the NPS-HPL could result in the loss of significant areas of HPL in Auckland.

23.     Solar farm proposals often highlight that primary production uses can co-exist with the example of sheep grazing between the panels. However, the presence of a solar farm on HPL inherently reduces the potential range, intensity, and yield of land-based primary production activities.

24.     It is also noted that solar farms are just one of the renewable energy sources in New Zealand, so there may be other methods that can meet the country’s renewable energy goals without losing HPL. The inability of solar farms to establish on HPL is unlikely to threaten New Zealand’s renewable energy goals.

25.     In addition, while solar farms prefer rural locations with flat land, there are other options for solar energy. Solar panels can be located on hillier land, rooftops, industrial land, contaminated land, lower productivity rural land, and even offshore.

26.     The specific consultation questions that MfE seek feedback on in relation to specified infrastructure are:

·    Are you aware of any other issues that could impede the development of new specified infrastructure on HPL?

·    Do you think the NPS-HPL requires an amendment to provide for the construction of new specified infrastructure on HPL?

·    Do you think the proposed amendment to clause 3.9(2)(j)(i) – adding ‘construction’ – will resolve the issues?

·    Which option do you prefer? Why?

27.     The local board may wish to give feedback on these specific questions, or comment on the potential changes overall.

Intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL

28.     While there are not a high number of new developments for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses in Auckland, when developments do occur they can be large. For example, poultry farms tend to cover around 1ha in buildings and there is a current application lodged for around 2ha of buildings (made up of eight sheds). Small glasshouse developments start off at around 0.5ha but are generally larger than this. There are examples of glasshouses in Auckland that cover over 10ha and the largest is around 25ha.

29.     These types of activities argue that they have a functional and operational need to locate on HPL so they are close to markets, labour sources, and supporting infrastructure. However, these features apply to much of Auckland’s rural land. To demonstrate a functional and operational need for an activity to locate on HPL, the rationale would more logically revolve around the activity’s need/use of the soil of the site for primary production activities.

30.     The potential change by MfE could undermine the NPS-HPL by carving out an exception for activities that have no relationship to the soil of the site. If it becomes acceptable for large industrial scale buildings to locate on HPL it will make it difficult for the council when processing applications for non-land-based activities on HPL.

31.     It would also introduce new complexities to the administration of the NPS-HPL. For example, how would the council respond to a proposal for a factory producing synthetic meat or eggs? Hydroponic glasshouses, piggeries, poultry farms and a synthetic meat/egg factory are all activities that operate inside industrial scale buildings, do not rely on the soil resource of the site, and have a final output of food for human consumption. It would be very difficult for the council to make a distinction between these activities for consenting purposes.

32.     Auckland Council’s submission on the draft NPS-HPL in 2019 was supportive of the overall intent of the NPS to protect HPL for only land-based primary production. The council’s submission stated:

“It does not seem logical to protect the HPL soil resource from being paved over from urban expansion, but then allow it to be paved over for a horticulture operation that uses soilless media. Such an activity does not rely on the productive capacity of the soil and therefore does not need to be located on HPL.

The NPS-HPL should be protecting the full HPL resource including the soil. The purpose of the NPS-HPL is not to protect areas of flat land for large scale, industrial-type growing, but rather to protect the land resource which includes the soil.

33.     MfE acknowledge that there is limited evidence of the extent of this issue given the short time since the NPS-HPL came into effect. They also accept that the potential change is misaligned with the original intent of the NPS-HPL, which was for primary production that does not rely on soil to be excluded from being considered an appropriate use and development of HPL.

34.     The specific consultation questions that MfE seek feedback on in relation to intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses are:

·    Do you think the NPS-HPL requires an amendment to provide a consent pathway for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses to be developed on HPL? Why?

·    What do you think are the risks with amending the NPS-HPL to provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL?

·    Do you support option 1 (retaining the status quo)? Why?

·    Do you support option 2 (a pathway under clause 3.9)? Why?

·    Are there any other options we should consider?

35.     The local board may wish to give feedback on these specific questions, or comment on the potential changes overall.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36.     Council declared a climate emergency in Auckland, in June 2019.  The decision included a commitment for all council decision-makers to consider the climate implications of their decisions.

37.     Auckland’s Climate Plan (2020) includes a ‘food priority’ with a goal of “a low carbon, resilient, local food system that provides all Aucklanders with access to fresh and healthy food”. The plan recognises the importance of local food production and preserving productive soil. It states that “soils play a critical role in meeting our emissions targets as carbon is stored in soils. The more soil we lose, the less chance we have of meeting our emissions targets.”

38.     A priority action area in the plan is to “Protect our productive soils and move toward regenerative practices to increase food security and carbon sequestration”. This involves the following actions:

·    advocate for and implement regulation that protects Auckland’s productive soils for growing food and supports a change to more regenerative growing of food

·    advocate for the proposed National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.

39.     The potential changes to the NPS-HPL do not align with Auckland Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40.     Watercare and Auckland Transport are unaffected by the changes around specified infrastructure as they are requiring authorities with the power to designate land (including HPL) for infrastructure purposes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41.     The Franklin Local Board area contains over half (52 percent) of mainland[1] Auckland’s HPL with around 41,000ha. HPL makes up a third of the Franklin Local Board area.

42.     There are significant areas of HPL in Franklin focussed on the Pukekohe area. A map of the areas within the Franklin Local Board that meet the transitional definition of HPL is included in Appendix A.

43.     The draft Franklin Local Board Plan (2023) contains the following statements that are relevant to the consideration of these potential changes to the NPS-HPL:

“Elite soils in the wider Pukekohe area sustain a significant proportion of New Zealand’s vegetable growers and a wide range of high-quality successful artisan food producers.”

“Growers and farmers are supported to promote rural south Auckland as the nation’s food bowl and thrive as a centre for primary production.”

“Actively promote the Kai Franklin initiative as the platform for telling the Franklin food produce story.”

“Help rural business leverage new income opportunities such as agri-tourism.”

 

44.     The Franklin Local Board provided formal feedback to be incorporated into the council submission on the draft NPS-HPL in 2019. This feedback supported the concept of the NPS-HPL but sought a review mechanism, as farming and land use may change over time. The local board also suggested complimentary legislation accompany the NPS-HPL to acknowledge the ‘right to farm’.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.     The NPS-HPL contains specific clauses directing the council to actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) in giving effect to the NPS-HPL. In addition, specified Māori Land is included in the list of exceptions for use and development.

46.     MfE are not proposing any changes to these parts of the NPS-HPL.

47.     As part of a potential council submission, views from iwi are being sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48.     Any council submission will be funded from existing operational budgets. There are no financial implications of the local board providing its views on this matter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49.     The process for potential changes to the NPS-HPL is being run by MfE. There are no significant risks to the Franklin Local Board in providing feedback to be considered as part of a potential council submission on the NPS-HPL changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50.     Any local board feedback will be included as part of an item to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 5 October 2023 on a potential council submission. Formal resolutions from the local board will be appended to any council submission. Submissions to MfE on the potential changes to the NPS-HPL close on 31 October 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Areas of the Franklin Local Board meeting the transitional definition of Highly Productive Land

137

b

List of land use exceptions in Clause 3.9(2) of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

139

c

Ministry for the Environment discussion document on potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

141

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

A white background with black dots

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

A document with text on it

Description automatically generated

A paper with text on it

Description automatically generated

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

A page of a document

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Biodiversity Credit System – central government discussion document

File No.: CP2023/13589

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of central government’s discussion document entitled ‘Helping nature and people thrive – Exploring a biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand’, and its potential implications for Auckland Council should such a system be advanced.

2.       To provide an opportunity for Local Boards to offer any feedback to council staff to help inform the preparation of a council submission on the proposed Biodiversity Credit System.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       Central government (Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation) published a discussion document on 7 July 2023 (weblink: Biodiversity Credit System) which is exploring the potential for a ‘biodiversity credit system’ that could be developed for Aotearoa New Zealand. Central government is seeking feedback on the need for and possible design of a biodiversity credit system, and the potential roles of government and Māori in implementing it.

4.       Staff from Natural Environment Strategy (NES) are coordinating the development of a proposed Auckland Council submission. Staff are inviting feedback from local boards, mana whenua and the Rural Advisory Panel, to help shape the proposed Auckland Council submission which will be considered by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 5 October 2023.

5.       NES staff provided a webinar to overview the discussion document with approximately 40 local board members on 21 August 2023. Local board feedback to NES staff is due no later than 29 September 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide any feedback to council staff to help inform a council submission on the proposed Biodiversity Credit System by 29 September 2023

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The development of a national biodiversity credit system is intended to be used to increase funding opportunities from the private sector towards restoration efforts. This could be a catalyst to, or supplement, council activities, such as the regulatory implementation of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM).


 

7.       The government’s discussion document is very much an initial consultation to start the national conversation about a potential biodiversity credit system that could be developed for Aotearoa New Zealand. Consequently, the government’s discussion document is very exploratory in nature and does not set out a specific proposed system with clear scope, roles and implementation mechanisms to provide feedback on, rather it discusses a number of different approaches that could be taken to different aspects of designing and implementing such a system.

Main points covered in discussion document

8.       The discussion document explains:

a)      what biodiversity credits and a biodiversity credit system are with some international examples that are emerging

b)      what the benefits could be in the Aotearoa New Zealand context

c)      different approaches that could be taken to the scope and design of a system, and

d)      the distinct roles that government could play.

9.       The discussion document includes consultation questions that seek views on the different approaches and roles for a biodiversity credit system.

10.     Biodiversity credits are a way of attracting funding from the private sector, to invest in efforts by landowners to protect, maintain and enhance indigenous vegetation and habitats, including shrublands, grasslands, wetlands and natural and regenerating native forests. The credits are intended to recognise, in a transparent and consistent way, landholder projects or activities that protect, maintain and enhance indigenous biodiversity, or positive outcomes, e.g., a 1 % increase (or avoided decrease) in the indigenous biodiversity of a hectare.

11.     By purchasing credits, people and organisations can finance and claim credit for their contribution to ‘nature-positive’ actions and outcomes. This is an emerging approach that is gaining considerable interest internationally. In Aotearoa New Zealand, credits could relate to protecting, restoring, and enhancing nature on public and private land, including whenua Māori (Māori land).

12.     A biodiversity credit system could recognise efforts to protect, enhance and restore indigenous biodiversity in any habitat (on land, in freshwater, and / or coastal and marine environments) or only in some. Biodiversity credits could represent work on whole ecosystems or catchments or focus on endangered or taonga species or remnant habitats.

13.     The discussion document suggests seven principles that could apply to the design of a government supported biodiversity credit system. The principles would let people know what they can expect when they participate in a biodiversity credit system and what is expected of them. For example, the system should have clear rules for the claims investors can make to avoid ‘greenwashing,’ should reward nature-positive activities additional to business as usual, and the system should maximise positive impact on biodiversity (including uplifting mauri and mana of biodiversity).

14.     The discussion document also explains the components of a fully functioning system, including measurement, verification and reporting, legal recognition, potential ways credits can be traded and the roles of industry experts. It notes that regional and district councils could potentially play a role in providing expertise to landowners for biodiversity credit activities and / or projects.

15.     The Government is exploring the possible roles it could play to support the establishment of a biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand that would operate with both integrity and impact. It suggests the following two roles but notes that a blend of these options may be appropriate, which could evolve over time:

 

a)      market enablement: where it provides policies and guidance for the development and uptake of voluntary schemes in Aotearoa New Zealand, and potentially funding for system development as the market is established. An enablement role seeks to influence the outcomes and operation of the market, using non-regulatory tools such as good practice guidance and optional standards.

b)      market administration: where it establishes and manages a voluntary biodiversity scheme and is active in the ongoing management and administration. A market administration role includes setting a regulatory framework, with tools to direct the outcomes and the operation of the market.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Potential implications for Auckland Council

16.     Given the nature of the government’s discussion document, it is difficult to be certain about the potential implications of a biodiversity credit system for Auckland Council as no clear proposals have been made about its scope, design and implementation or different roles central government and councils will have within the system.

17.     There are potential benefits that a biodiversity credit system could have for funding protection, restoration, and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity on public and private land in the Auckland region. Depending on the scope and design of a biodiversity credit system (which will be developed following feedback on this initial consultation being undertaken by central government), it could be of relevance to initiatives undertaken locally seeking to achieve positive biodiversity and freshwater outcomes as they complement regulatory requirements (e.g. tree planting, stream restoration etc). However, as discussed in paragraph 13 above, one of the suggested principles for a biodiversity credit system is ‘it should reward nature-positive activities additional to business as usual’. For example, this suggests that funding derived from a credit should not serve to substitute funding provided to existing council programmes.

18.     As the discussion document is at an early, exploratory stage, it is not clear yet what role councils should play or how the council group including local boards might benefit. MfE stated in a recent presentation to the Te Uru Kahika Resource Managers Group on 31 August that it is very open to hearing suggestions from councils.

19.     Our feedback is likely to include a number of our own questions and different views from the council group about the system scope, design and implementation. In some instances, we may also be able to suggest different options for consideration by central government, e.g. in relation to the role councils could play:

a)      little or no involvement by council?

b)      some partnership with central government to help identify focus areas for achieving best biodiversity outcomes?

c)      council acts as a translator / navigator providing advice to landowners in the region about use of biodiversity credits and where to focus efforts?

20.     There are 23 questions asked in the discussion document. NES staff have identified the key questions that are more about the system design and overall approaches that could be taken, which we thought local boards may want to focus any feedback on. These can be found in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21.     Feedback from Kaipātiki Local Board is due no later than 29 September, to help inform the proposed council submission that will be presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 5 October 2023.

22.     As part of preparing the council submission, staff will consider and present the potential impacts on climate, Māori and local board views as well as the financial implications, risks and mitigations in the report to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. Due to this being an initial consultation to start the national conversation about a potential biodiversity credit system, central government’s discussion document is very exploratory in nature and does not set out a specific proposed system with clear scope, roles and implementation mechanisms to provide feedback on. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the potential impacts and implications at this stage, and this may become more evident in subsequent central government consultations when a more defined approach to the design and implementation of a biodiversity credit system has been developed and proposed.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key consultation questions

165

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Taran Livingston - Lead Analyst Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Dave Allen - Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A questionnaire with many questions

Description automatically generated with medium confidence


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Local board feedback on Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa  Moana Marine Protection Bill

File No.: CP2023/13592

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide Franklin Local Board’s feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission on the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill seeks to contribute to the restoration of the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. It proposes to do this by establishing two marine reserves, five seafloor protection areas, and 12 high protection areas in the Hauraki Gulf, and acknowledging customary rights within seafloor protection areas and high protection areas.

3.       This bill seeks to address the ongoing environmental decline of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (the Gulf) due to human activities, as described in consecutive “State of our Gulf” reports. Pressures from harvesting and utilization activities, land-based activities (such as pollution and sedimentation), and climate change have contributed to a decline in coastal and marine biodiversity. Those issues are manifesting in the increasing prevalence of ecosystem changes such as kina barrens, habitat loss, and localized fisheries depletion. New Zealand and international experts consider area-based marine protection to be one of the most effective methods for protecting marine life.

4.       At present the Gulf has 6 marine reserves and four cable protection zones (CPZs), which are recognised as Type 2 marine protected areas. The Bill creates two new marine reserves as extensions to existing marine reserves, 12 high protection areas (HPAs), and five seafloor protection areas (SPAs). Those areas will increase protection almost threefold from 6.7% to just over 18% of the Gulf (including the CPZs). Together they will create a more effective network of marine protection. This will result in positive biodiversity outcomes and contribute to the goal of restoring the overall health and mauri of the Gulf.

5.       The development of those marine protection areas was initiated in the 2017 Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari: Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (the Sea Change plan). This is a non-statutory marine spatial plan for the Gulf developed by an independently formed stakeholder working group.

6.       In response to the Sea Change plan, in 2021 the Government released Revitalising the Gulf: Government action on the Sea Change Plan (Revitalising the Gulf). The marine protection areas proposed in Revitalising the Gulf were based on those proposed in the Sea Change plan. A ministerial advisory committee provided independent advice on the proposals.

7.       In establishing those marine protection areas, the Government recognises rights and interests of Māori provided for by the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The HPAs and SPAs will not affect an applicant group’s ability to obtain recognition of protected customary rights or customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The HPAs and SPAs will also not affect the exercise of protected customary rights or rights held by a customary marine title group under that Act.

8.       The full content of the bill can be found at https://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2023/0282/latest/whole.html?search=ta_bill%40bill_H_bc%40bcur_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1

9.       Auckland Council has been given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Government’s Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill.

10.     The timeframe for member feedback and approval process for the submission is below:

·        Monday 4 September 2023 - consultation opens

·        Date TBC - Local Board members will receive a memo

·        Monday 18 September 2023 – Local Board Members’ briefing

·        Friday 29 September 2023 – feedback will be incorporated into council’s submission

·        Monday 16 October 2023 – feedback will be appended to council’s submission.

11.     The timeframe for providing feedback fall outside the board’s business meeting schedule. It is therefore recommended that the local board delegate authority to a Local Board Member to prepare and submit the feedback on behalf of the local board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      delegate the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson the responsibility of preparing local board feedback on Auckland Council’s submission on the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, noting that:

i)       feedback is required by Friday 29 September to be incorporated into council’s submission and feedback received by Monday 16 October will be appended to council’s submission;

ii)       proposed board feedback will be circulated to all members via email for comment and indicative approval prior to it being submitted; and

iii)      finalised board feedback will be placed on the next available business meeting agenda for retrospective endorsement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dave Allen – Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor, GM Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Louise Mason – Manager Local Board Services

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Governance Forward Work calendar September 2023

File No.: CP2023/11536

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Franklin Local Board with a governance forward work calendar (Hōtaka Kaupapa).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report contains the governance forward work programme, a schedule of items that will come before the Franklin Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months for consideration. The governance forward work programme for the local board is included in Attachment A.

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

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

·   clarifying what advice is required and when

·   clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar is updated every month, reported to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed.

5.       Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar (Hōtaka Kaupapa) dated September 2023 (Attachment A).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Franklin Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa governance forward work calendar September 2023

171

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Georgina Gilmour – Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

Franklin Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2023/11537

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for workshops held on 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 August 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Franklin Local Board holds weekly workshops to facilitate oversight of projects in their work programme or on matters that have significant local implications.

3.       The local board does not make decisions at these workshops. Workshops are not open to the public, but records are reported retrospectively.

4.       Workshop records for the Franklin Local Board are attached for 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 August 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 August 2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Franklin Local Board workshop record 1 August 2023

175

b

Franklin Local Board workshop record 8 August 2023

177

c

Franklin Local Board workshop record 15 August 2023

179

d

Franklin Local Board workshop record 22 August 2023

181

e

Franklin Local Board workshop record 29 August 2023

183

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Georgina Gilmour - Local Area Manager (Acting)

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A document with text and images

Description automatically generated

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A document with text and images

Description automatically generated

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

PDF Creator

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A document with text and images

Description automatically generated


Franklin Local Board

26 September 2023

 

 

A document with text and images

Description automatically generated 



[1] Mainland Auckland is the area covered by the District Plan section of the Auckland Unitary Plan. It excludes the areas covered by the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plans.