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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 19 March 2024

4.00pm

Council Chamber
Civic Building L2
1 Smythe Road
Henderson

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Chris Carter

 

Deputy Chairperson

Brooke Loader

 

Members

Brenda Brady, JP

 

 

Peter Chan, JP

 

 

Dan Collins

 

 

Dr Will Flavell

 

 

Oscar Kightley

 

 

Ingrid Papau

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Laura Hopkins

Democracy Advisor

 

14 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: 027 501 1350

Email: laura.hopkins@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

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: The New Settlers Family and Community Trust (NFACT)                         5

8.2     Deputation: Community Waitākere           6

8.3     Deputation: Continuing Crescendo’s Impact in the Community                           6

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                7

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     7

11        Ward Councillors' Update                                    9

12        Amendment to the 2022-2025 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule           11

13        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                                     15

14        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                                              31

15        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                              39

16        Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-2034       139

17        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                           205

18        Chair's Report - Chris Carter                           213

19        Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule)                217

20        Confirmation of Workshop Records              221

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

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

 

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.

 

Member

Organisation

Position

Chris Carter (Chair)

1.     St Lazarus Trust

2.     Waitākere Badminton Club

Member

Member

Peter Chan, JP

 

1.     Cantonese Opera Society of NZ

2.     Asian Leaders Forum

3.     NZ-Hong Kong Business Association

4.     NZ-China Business Association

5.     Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

Member

Member

Member

Member

Trustee

Dan Collins

1.     Rānui Action Project

Chair

Dr Will Flavell

 

1.     Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

2.     Te Atatū Tennis Club

3.     Waitākere Literacy Board

4.     Te Kura

Member

Board Member

Board Member

Member

Brooke Loader

(Deputy Chair)

1.     Waitākere Licensing Trust

2.     UDL Energy Complaints Scheme Advisory

3.     Neighbourhood Support

4.     Te Atatū Glendene Community Patrol

5.     Real Estate Authority New Zealand

Member

Member

Member

Volunteer

Member

Ingrid Papau

1.     Liberty Impact Community Trust

2.     #WeLoveTuvalu Community Trust

3.     Neighbourhood Support

4.     Liberty Church

5.     Rutherford Primary Board of Trustees

Board Member

Member

Street Contact

Member

Member

 

Member appointments

          Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council:

External organisation

Lead

Alternate

Massey Matters

Will Flavell

Peter Chan

Central Park Henderson Business Association

Chris Carter

Dan Collins

Heart of Te Atatū South

Brooke Loader

Brenda Brady

Ranui Advisory Group

Dan Collins

Brooke Loader

Te Atatū Peninsula Business Association

Ingrid Papau

Brenda Brady

Waitākere Ethnic Board

Peter Chan

Brooke Loader

Waitākere Healthlink

Chris Carter

Brenda Brady

Te Whau Pathway Trust

Ingrid Papau

Dan Collins

 

 

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 February 2024, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Henderson-Massey 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: The New Settlers Family and Community Trust (NFACT)

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a deputation from Dr Fahima Saeid - CEO of the New Settlers Family and Community Trust, (NFACT).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To introduce the New Settlers Family and Community Trust and discuss how the trust currently supports Afghan evacuees, exploited migrants and a large number of young people from the Afghan community.

3.       The government fund to support these community groups through the New Settlers Family and Community Trust will end in March 2024, however, most of the new families are not ready to be discharged from the service. The New Settlers Family and Community Trust will need further support to carry on some of the programmes to help this community group to successfully settled in the community.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Dr Fahima Saeid, CEO of the New Settlers Family and Community Trust, (NFACT) for her attendance.

 

 

 

8.2       Deputation: Community Waitākere

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a deputation from Kerry Allan (Chief Executive) on behalf of Community Waitākere.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To provide an overview of Community Waitākere’s strategic direction and work programme including highlights from our current work programme funded by the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

3.       An update on West Auckland Emergency Study which looked at community responses to the 2023 Flood and Cyclone Events. This was commissioned by Community Waitākere and supported by the West Auckland Together partners.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Kerry Allan from Community Waitākere for her attendance.

 

 

8.3       Deputation: Continuing Crescendo’s Impact in the Community

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a deputation from Cat Percy (CEO) and Lisa Carrington (Head of Fundraising & Marketing) on behalf of Crescendo.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To present Crescendo’s mahi engaging rangatahi in Henderson-Massey through music mentoring and wellbeing programmes. Crescendo’s new Pathways Programme provides vocational skills training to help transition rangatahi into paid apprenticeships within our studio to gain hands-on experience on live jobs, and/or links into other employment partners within the creative industries.

 

3.       With increased funding cuts and our impending move from our Avondale Hub, we are facing a critical funding shortfall as we urgently seek new premises to continue delivering our programmes to vulnerable rangatahi who may otherwise slip through the cracks, and deepen our impact in the Henderson-Massey area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Cat Percy and Lisa Carrington from Crescendo for their attendance.

 

 

 

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 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.”

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Ward Councillors' Update

File No.: CP2024/01734

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a verbal update from the Waitākere Ward Councillors.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A period of 10 minutes has been set aside for the Waitākere Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Henderson-Massey Local Board on regional matters.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      thank Councillors Shane Henderson and Ken Turner for their verbal update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Amendment to the 2022-2025 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2023/15030

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for two meeting dates to be added to the 2023-2024 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 (the Long-Term Plan) and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 (Annual Plan) timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted its 2022-2025 meeting schedule on Tuesday, 6 December 2022.

3.       At that time, the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 were unknown. 

4.       The local board is being asked to approve two meeting dates as an addition to the Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule so that the modified 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 timeframes can be met.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      approve the addition of two extraordinary meeting dates to the 2022-2025 Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 timeframes as follows:

i)       Thursday, 2 May 2024, 10.00am

ii)       Tuesday, 11 June 2024, 10.00am

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6.       In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

·        clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings.  Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

·        sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7.       The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted its 2022-2025 business meeting schedule during its Tuesday, 6 December 2022 business meeting.

8.       The timeframes for local board decision-making in relation to the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9.       The local board is being asked to make decisions in late-November 2023 and late-April and early-June 2024 to feed into the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 processes. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     The local board has two choices:

i)          Add the meetings as additions to the meeting schedule.

Or,

ii)         Add the meetings as extraordinary meetings.

11.     For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting, there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled.

12.     For option two, only the specific topic the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025 process could be considered at this meeting.

13.     Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option two – approving these meetings as extraordinary meetings, as there are ample meetings to manage usual business in the schedule. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14.     This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15.     There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16.     This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17.     This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18.     There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19.     If the local board decides not to add this business meeting to their schedule this would result in the input of this local board not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration and inclusion in the 10-year Budget 2024-2034 and the Annual Budget 2024-2025.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20.     Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02493

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from the local board on:

i)          The review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections

ii)         Local board reorganisation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       There are two projects underway in relation to governance arrangements for the 2025 elections:

i)          a review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections

ii)         a local board reorganisation plan.

3.       Every council is required to review its current representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council’s previous review was for the 2019 elections. It must review arrangements for the 2025 elections.

4.       A council’s representation arrangements are its electoral arrangements. For the Governing Body a review includes the total number of councillors and whether councillors are elected by ward or at-large. If by ward then the number of wards, their names and the number of members in each ward.

5.       For local boards a review includes, for each local board, the total number of members, whether members are elected at-large or by subdivision, number of subdivisions, their names and number of members in each subdivision. The local board name may also be reviewed. A review of representation arrangements reviews each current board’s representation arrangements. It does not alter the number of local boards. It cannot change local board boundaries other than make very minor adjustments to correct anomalies.

6.       At the same time there is a project investigating a local board reorganisation plan which will provide for fewer local boards. If the Governing Body decides to proceed with the reorganisation plan and it is approved by the Local Government Commission, the local board representation arrangements set out in the plan will take effect at the 2025 elections.

7.       The Governing Body has tasked the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) with developing the council’s initial proposal for the representation review and developing options for the reorganisation plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on any matters relating to the review of representation arrangements for the current 21 local boards (except for any matters specific to this local board that are addressed in a separate report)

b)      provide feedback on the proposal to reduce the number of local boards through a reorganisation plan noting that Governing Body has supported the development of a 15 local board model as described in this report.

c)       support a reorganisation plan for local boards proceeding to public consultation.

 

Horopaki

Context

Overview

8.       Every council is required to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council conducted a review for the 2019 elections and must now conduct a review for the 2025 elections. The Governing Body has referred the development of an initial proposal to the JGWP. The Governing Body resolved in April 2023:

That the Governing Body:

e)      whakaae / agree that the council’s initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2025 elections is developed by the Joint Governance Working Party as follows:

i)     the Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements after seeking feedback on issues and options from the Governing Body and local boards, then make recommendations to the Governing Body for the Governing Body to formally resolve its proposal for public notification for submissions.

ii)    the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals.

(Resolution: GB/2023/68, 27 April 2023)

9.       On the initiative of the mayor, the Governing Body has also referred to the JGWP the development of a reorganisation plan relating to local boards. The Governing Body resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaae / agree that any reorganisation of local boards is considered under the provisions of the “unitary authority-led reorganisation application” of the proposed Schedule 3A to the Local Government Act 2002

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that these provisions include requirements for the council to consider the views and preferences of affected local boards and to demonstrate community support for a reorganisation plan

c)      tautohu / refer to the Joint Governance Working Party the development of a reorganisation plan, or options for reorganisation plans, for recommendation back to the Governing Body so that the Governing Body may then decide whether to proceed further, including whether to undertake public consultation.

(Resolution: GB/2023/108, 22 June 2023)

10.     The Governing Body further resolved on 14 December 2023

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaae / agree that the Joint Governance Working Party continue to develop an initial proposal for the Auckland Council review of representation arrangements, based on retaining rural Governing Body wards and noting that this results in 20 ward councillors

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Joint Governance Working Party intends to report an initial proposal for representation arrangements for the Governing Body and for all current local boards, to the May 2024 meeting of the Governing Body, for public notification for submissions

c)      whakaae / agree that the Joint Governance Working Party continue to develop a draft reorganisation plan for local boards based on option one (15 local boards) vs the status quo as per resolution number JGWPC/2023/28 and report back its findings at the same time as it reports its recommendations for the review of representation arrangements

d)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that when the Joint Governance Working Party reports back its findings that the Governing Body will then decide whether to proceed further with formal public consultation on a reorganisation plan, based on the Working Party’s investigation into costs and benefits, or to stay with the status quo in terms of number of local boards

e)      whakaae / agree that as part of developing a reorganisation plan for local boards the Joint Governance Working Party will seek initial local board, Māori and targeted community feedback on preferences either for the status quo or for one or more other options for the number of local boards, as identified by the Joint Governance Working Party and that this will also include early engagement on representation arrangements.

(Resolution GB/2023/237)

11.     The table below outlines the differences between a review of representation arrangements and a local board reorganisation plan.

 

Representation review

Reorganisation plan

Legislation

Local Electoral Act 2001

Local Government Act 2002

Scope

·    Total number of councillors

·    Wards and their boundaries

·    Number of members of local boards

·    Subdivisions and their boundaries

·    Names of local boards

·    Number of local boards

·    Local board boundaries

·    Representation arrangements for each local board

Output

·    A proposal for the 2025 elections which is publicly notified for submissions

·    Appeals on final proposal are determined by Local Government Commission

·    A local board reorganisation plan which is submitted to the Local Government Commission for approval

Frequency

At least once every six years

Ad hoc

 

12.     If the council decides to submit a reorganisation plan, the Local Government Commission will consider the approval of the reorganisation plan parallel with any appeals and objections to the council’s proposal for representation arrangements for the 2025 elections. If it approves the reorganisation plan then the contents of the Order in Council relating to the reorganisation plan will be reflected in the Commission’s final determination for representation arrangements.

Representation review

Legislative requirements

13.     A review of representation arrangements must take into account:

·        effective representation of communities of interest

·        fair representation.

14.     Ward and local board boundaries should align as far as is practicable.

15.     The legislation does not define “communities of interest”. The Local Government Commission has provided guidance suggesting there are three dimensions:

·        Perceptual:

o   a sense of belonging to an area or locality which can be clearly defined

·        Functional:

o   the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for comprehensive physical and human services

·        Political:

o   the ability of the elected body to represent the interests and reconcile the conflicts of all its members.

16.     The “fair representation” requirement applies if an area is comprised of wards (in the case of governing body members) or subdivisions (in the case of a local board). The population per member in the ward, or subdivision, must not vary by more than 10 per cent from the average across the whole of Auckland (for councillors) or across a whole local board area (for local board members).

17.     A council may decide to not comply with this requirement if complying would compromise effective representation of communities of interest by:

·        dividing a community of interest or

·        joining communities with few commonalities of interest.

18.     The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the council to base its population statistics on the ordinarily resident population as provided by the Government Statistician.

19.     Legislation that was passed in 2023 allows the council to include minor adjustments to a local board’s external boundary for the purpose of aligning with a ward. The number of residents affected by such a change must not be greater than 2,000 residents.

Reorganisation plan

Legislative requirements

20.     Legislation was passed in 2023, amending the Local Government Act 2002 by adding a Schedule 3A that deals with the reorganisation of local boards in a unitary authority area. That schedule provides a process titled “Unitary authority-led reorganisation applications”.

21.     The process involves a unitary authority adopting a reorganisation plan and submitting it to the Local Government Commission which is required to approve it unless the required documentation is not supplied or the council has not considered the views and preferences of local boards or the plan does not have community support.

22.     The council is required to consider a number of matters. It must consider the scale and likelihood of achieving the objectives set out in legislation:

·        enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities

·        better enabling the purpose of local government

·        efficiencies and cost savings

·        boards have the necessary resources

·        effective responses to opportunities, needs, and circumstances of the area

·        alignment with communities of interest

·        enhanced effectiveness of decision making

·        enhanced ability of local government to meet the changing needs of communities for governance and services into the future

·        co-governance and co-management arrangements.

23.     The council must also consider:

·        implementation costs

·        consequences of not implementing

·        communities of interest

·        public support

·        views and preferences of affected local boards.

Timeline

24.     A summary of the timeline for making decisions:

·        March 2024 - formal reports to boards

·        April 2024 - Joint Governance Working Party considers its recommendations to the Governing Body

·        May 2024 – Governing Body:

o   resolves initial proposal for representation arrangements for 2025 (including 21 local boards)

o   agrees on draft local board reorganisation plan for consultation

·        June – August 2024 - submissions and hearings

·        September 2024 – Governing Body makes final decisions:

o   final proposal for representation arrangements

o   local board reorganisation plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Representation review

Local boards

25.     Local boards which have subdivisions are as follows. There is significant non-compliance with the 10 per cent rule in the Rodney and Howick local boards:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Rodney Local Board Area

Wellsford Subdivision

6,960

1

6,960

-2,036

-22.63

Warkworth Subdivision

23,600

3

7,867

-1,129

-12.55

Kumeū Subdivision

40,900

4

10,225

1,229

13.67

Dairy Flat Subdivision

9,500

1

9,500

504

5.61

Total

80,960

9

8,996

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area

Hibiscus Coast Subdivision

64,800

4

16,200

1,563

10.67

East Coast Bays Subdivision

52,300

4

13,075

-1,563

-10.67

Total

117,100

8

14,638

Albert-Eden Local Board Area

Ōwairaka Subdivision

50,200

4

12,550

125

1.01

Maungawhau Subdovision

49,200

4

12,300

-125

-1.01

Total

99,400

8

12,425

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area

Maungakiekie Subdivision

32,100

3

10,700

-1,314

-10.94

Tamaki Subdivision

52,000

4

13,000

986

8.20

Total

84,100

7

12,014

Howick Local Board Area

Pakuranga Subdivision

43,100

3

14,367

-3,144

-17.96

Howick Subdivision

44,000

3

14,667

-2,844

-16.24

Botany Subdivision

70,500

3

23,500

5,989

34.20

Total

157,600

9

17,511

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area

Papatoetoe Subdivision

60,700

4

15,175

1,361

9.85

Ōtara Subdivision

36,000

3

12,000

-1,814

-13.13

Total

96,700

7

13,814

Franklin Local Board Area

Waiuku Subdivision

16,350

2

8,175

-1,308

-13.80

Pukekohe Subdivision

41,800

4

10,450

967

10.19

Wairoa Subdivision

27,200

3

9,067

-417

-4.39

Total

85,350

9

9,483

 

26.     Issues which are known to staff are summarised in the table below. Many of these issues are simply enquiries from individual members and do not represent the formal position of a local board:

Local board

Issue

Status

Devonport-Takapuna

Looking at a name change

 

Devonport-Takapuna

Saunders reserve is split between Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour LB, requiring two different reserve management plans

Investigated. Problem is due to a large meshblock. Solution is to split the meshblock and do minor boundary change to the local board area.

Franklin

Looking at a name change

 

Franklin

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Waiuku at ‑13.80 per cent

 

Hibiscus and Bays

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Variance is 10.67 per cent

 

Howick

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Botany at 34.20 per cent

Staff attended workshop with Howick Local Board on Thursday 1 February 2024. Preference is to add 2 members to the Botany subdivision and split the subdivision. Board is consulting community.

Howick

May look at name change.

Name “Howick Local Board” clashes with name of one of the subdivisions.

Kaipātiki

Move part of northern boundary to Goldfinch Rise.

Move all Kereru Reserve to Upper Harbour.

Local board reorganisation: move Unsworth Heights from Upper Harbour to Kaipātiki.

Goldfinch Rise and Kereru Reserve changes can be implemented as minor boundary changes.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Maungakiekie subdivision does not comply with 10 per cent rule being -10.94 per cent

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Concern about misalignment with ward boundaries

It is possible to address this with the review of wards.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Ōtara subdivision does not comply with 10 per cent rule being -13.13 per cent

 

Rodney

Rearrange subdivisions to provide better rural representation

Rodney Northern Action Group (NAG) initially submitted to the Governing Body for the 2022 elections and were advised that the next review would be for the 2025 elections.  NAG convened a workshop with board members 22 November 2023.

Rodney

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Wellsford at
‑22.63 per cent

Staff attended workshop with board on 28 February 2024.

Upper-Harbour

Create subdivisions

Investigated possible subdivisions for compliance and seems ok. Not yet discussed with local board.

Waitākere Ranges

Ensure representation from the heritage area by creating a subdivision.

Staff have investigated.

 

27.     Some of these issues are reported separately in more detail to the relevant local boards.

Governing body

28.     Due to legislative change this review is the first time the council can review the number of councillors. An approach is to consider whether the Rodney and Franklin rural areas as communities of interest require their own wards in order to provide effective representation. If this is so, then the ratio of residents to councillor is set at about 85,000 which results in 20 councillors (the current number). Any at-large councillors would need to be in addition.

29.     The Joint Governance Working Party and the Governing Body have confirmed that ward options should be developed based on 20 councillors.

30.     One issue is the misalignment between wards and local board boundaries in the isthmus. For the 2019 review of representation there was significant non-compliance with the 10 per cent rule in the Waitematā and Gulf ward. This was corrected by shrinking the Waitematā and Gulf ward on the eastern side with the effect of Parnell and Newmarket becoming part of the Ōrākei ward. There were flow-on effects to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa wards.

31.     Current population estimates indicate it will be possible to return these ward boundaries to their pre-2019 positions with only minor non-compliance. This option will be developed further.

32.     If there are minor changes to local board boundaries as part of the representation review then relevant ward boundaries might need adjusting to retain alignment.

Reorganisation plan

Discussion to date

33.     The Governing Body tasked the Joint Governance Working Party with developing options for a local board reorganisation plan. The Governing Body noted that one option would need to be the status quo.

34.     The Joint Governance Working Party investigated:

·       (20, 11 and 6 “local councils”)

·       The mayor’s preferred option of 13 local boards, based on the Royal Commission’s model of 11 local councils but adding the two island local boards

·       A model of 15 local boards where the local boards in all wards containing two local boards are amalgamated

·       Various clustering arrangements that were already in existence.

35.     The JGWP recommended to the Governing Body that the model that is developed further is the 15 local board model, to be compared to the status quo. The Governing Body supported this approach. The Governing Body will decide at its May 2024 meeting whether to proceed further with public consultation on local board reorganisation.  

36.     Early engagement has been held with local boards through workshops, advisory panels, community stakeholders and Māori.

Affected local boards

37.     In a 15 local board model, the boards that are affected:

·        Albany ward: Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour

·        North Shore ward: Kaipatiki, Devonport-Takapuna

·        Waitākere ward: Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges

·        Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa ward: Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa

·        Manukau ward: Mangere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe

·        Manurewa-Papakura ward: Manurewa, Papakura.

38.     The boards that are not affected are:

·        The 2 island boards: Aotea / Gt Barrier, Waiheke

·        The 2 rural boards: Rodney, Franklin

·        Some isthmus boards: Whau, Waitematā, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

·        The Howick Local Board (it is already associated with a two-member ward).

39.     The following map shows the boards that are affected (amalgamated) or not affected.


40.     There are sound arguments that rural boards should not amalgamate (they already have very large geographic areas and their communities have different issues to urban communities). The island boards are geographically separate. The Howick Local Board is already one large board in a two-councillor ward. All the remaining boards would experience amalgamation except for some in the isthmus (Whau, Waitematā, Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki).

Population size

41.     One issue is that most current local boards have population sizes that are larger than district councils. Under the 15 local board model an amalgamated local board will have a population size of around 180,000.

42.     To put this into perspective staff note that this is the size of Hamilton City Council, which does not have a separate layer of community boards. City councils larger than Hamilton have community boards. The relationship between a local board with a community of 180,000 people is similar in scale to that of Hamilton with its community. Another similarity is that Hamilton City Council makes local decisions (the Waikato Regional Council makes the regional decisions).

43.     However, Hamilton City Council makes decisions that do not come within the scope of a local board, such as employing a chief executive, making bylaws, striking the rate, appointing council-controlled organisations and making regulatory decisions. Hamilton has more responsibilities than local boards yet makes its decisions without there being a more local level of representation.

44.     The following table shows possible local board sizes.

Local Boards

Map

Pop 2023

Amalgamated?

Mbrs

Current
members

Hibiscus & Bays + Upper Harbour

2

191,700

Amalgamated

12

14

Henderson-Massey + Waitākere Ranges

4

187,000

Amalgamated

12

14

Manurewa + Papakura

12

186,700

Amalgamated

12

14

Ōtara-Papatoetoe + Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

10

185,900

Amalgamated

12

14

Albert-Eden +Puketāpapa

6

160,600

Amalgamated

12

14

Howick

11

157,700

No change

11

9

Kaipātiki + Devonport-Takapuna

3

149,900

Amalgamated

12

14

Waitematā

7

86,700

No change

7

7

Whau

5

86,300

No change

7

7

Ōrākei

8

86,200

No change

7

7

Franklin

13

85,300

No change

9

9

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

9

84,100

No change

7

7

Rodney

1

81,000

No change

9

9

Waiheke

14

9,420

No change

5

5

Aotea/Great Barrier

15

1,050

No change

5

5

 

 

 

 

139

149

 

Representation

45.     Where two local boards amalgamate it is possible to retain existing representation arrangements through establishing subdivisions in the new board that reflect the contributing boards and their original subdivisions – providing that subdivisions meet the +/-10 per cent rule. This ensures voters in each of the contributing areas would continue to vote for representatives for their area.

46.     However, there would be a decrease in representation in that the maximum size of a local board is set at 12 members in legislation. In each case where two local boards amalgamate within a ward the total members of contributing boards are 14 members. Therefore, on amalgamation, there would be a loss of two members over the whole of the new local board area. The ward name is used in the table below for the name of the amalgamated board.

Current boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

New boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

Hibiscus & Bays

East Coast Bays 4

8

Albany

East Coast Bays 4

12

Hibiscus Coast  4

Hibiscus Coast 3

Upper Harbour

 

6

Upper Harbour 5

Henderson-Massey

 

8

Waitākere

Henderson-Massey 8

12

Waitākere Ranges

 

6

Waitākere Ranges 4

Manurewa

 

8

Manurewa-Papakura

Manurewa  7

12

Papakura

 

6

Papakura  5

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

 

7

Manukau

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu  6

12

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Ōtara     3

7

Ōtara  2

Papatoetoe               4

Papatoetoe 4

Albert- Eden

Maungawhau               4

8

Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa

Maungawhau 4

12

Owairaka               4

Owairaka 4

Puketāpapa

 

6

Puketāpapa 4

Kaipātiki

 

8

North Shore

Kaipātiki 7

12

Devonport -Takapuna

 

6

Devonport–Takapuna 5

 

47.     The subdivisions in the table are based on the existing subdivisions. There is minor non-compliance in the new Waitākere Ranges, Puketāpapa and Ōtara subdivisions which could be corrected by tweaking boundaries.

48.     It is, of course, possible to have any other arrangement of subdivisions provided they provide effective representation of communities of interest and comply with the 10 per cent rule. For example, in any case where subdivisions provide unequal number of members, subdivisions could be drawn to ensure equal numbers.

Objectives

49.     The following table provides very brief comments alongside the summary of the legislative objectives. If the council proceeds with a reorganisation plan the Local Government Commission will require our documentation to comment on the scale and likelihood of achieving these objectives.

Objective

Comment

Enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities

This is part of the purpose of local government and includes elements of:

·    Community engagement in decision-making

·    Decision-making by elected representatives on behalf of the community and their accountability back to the community (through the election process).

While there is some evidence that turnout at elections can be better for smaller councils, engagement with communities between elections tends to be issue-based.

People will engage over issues that affect them. Last year’s engagement on the Governing Body’s annual plan attracted over 40,000 submissions whereas there were 5,000 submissions total for all local board plans.

Better enabling the purpose of local government

The other part of the purpose of local government is “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future”.

Amalgamated boards will be better resourced to promote community well-being.

Efficiencies and cost savings

Cost savings are not the main driver for the proposal. There is a value-for-money analysis being undertaken which will identify efficiencies and cost savings.

Boards have the necessary resources

This is a key consideration in the empowerment part of the project and one of the reasons for seeking fewer local boards.

Effective responses to opportunities, needs, and circumstances of the area

Amalgamated boards will be better resourced to respond to the opportunities, needs and circumstances of their area.

Larger geographical areas mean less likelihood of boundary issues (for example when a facility close to a boundary is funded by one local board and used by residents of the neighbouring local board).

Alignment with communities of interest

Each amalgamated board will align with the community of interest of the corresponding ward.  There will be a one-to-one alignment between all boards and wards (apart from the island boards).

Enhanced effectiveness of decision making

Decision-making will likely be more effective because the organisation is better able to support the decision-making if there are fewer boards. Quality advice is crucial to effective decision-making and prompt and competent implementation after a decision is made is equally important.

Enhanced ability of local government to meet the changing needs of communities for governance and services into the future

Future planning is important in terms of providing for communities’ needs for services into the future and will be enhanced through more resources being made available to boards.

Proposals for changes to governance arrangements, such as amalgamating local boards, must take future growth into account.

Co-governance and co-management arrangements

Staff believe that proposals are unlikely to have any significant effect on existing arrangements with Māori. There is engagement with Māori to obtain their feedback on the proposals to understand their views more fully Engagement with existing co-governance and co-management entities will need to be covered as well.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50.     There may be a climate impact if there is increased motor vehicle use due to members, staff and the public having to travel more due to larger local board areas. This is offset by fewer meetings for staff to travel to and the regular use of remote attendance. It is expected that travel for constituency work would not increase if subdivisions reflect existing electoral areas.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51.     Council-controlled organisations are involved with the work of local boards to varying extents. Most affected would be Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku. Comments from the council group are being collated as part of the value-for-money exercise.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52.     The representation review and local board reorganisation affect local boards – for some boards the affect of the local board reorganisation is significant and is discussed in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53.     Council is engaging with Māori to ascertain how these proposals affect them.

54.     The Governing Body has not decided to include Māori representation in its representation arrangements for 2025. It has resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a)   whakaae / agree that further work is required to determine the appropriate arrangements for Māori representation on Auckland Council, including in discussion with Māori and the Auckland public, and request that this be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party and reported back to the Governing Body by 31 December 2024.

(Resolution GB/2023/195, 26 October 2023)

55.     For the local board reorganisation plan there is a requirement to consider the “effective provision for any co-governance and co-management arrangements that are established by legislation (including Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement legislation) and that are between local authorities and iwi or Māori organisations”.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56.     There will be internal resource requirements and costs associated with the programme stages and public consultation in both the current financial year and 2024/2025. Costs through each stage of decision-making by the Governing Body, include:

·        If Governing Body confirms support for the JGWP to further investigate the matters outlined in the recommendations, the early engagement costs are estimated at $30-35k, in addition to some fixed term staff resource. The Governance and CCO Partnerships Directorate will look to absorb these costs within operational budgets. 

·        If the reorganisation of local boards proceeds through to a final proposal to the Local Government Commission, the bulk of additional fixed term staff resources will be needed through to April 2025. This cost is estimated at $210k. The Governance and CCO Partnerships Directorate will look to resource this through reprioritisation of resources and deferral of other work.

57.     If Governing Body confirm support for regionwide public consultation on both a representation review proposal and a local board reorganisation plan at the May 2024 meeting, the costs associated with consultation are between $165 - $200k. A contribution from the Mayor’s discretionary budget has been requested to support consultation costs, should this proceed. The above costs relate to undertaking further work on the analysis and policy elements to support Governing Body decisions for the representation project. Should a change to the status quo be supported by the Governing Body, the cost of change will be reported to the Governing Body as the analysis progresses.

58.     Existing staff will undertake most of the analysis that is required for the local board reorganisation work. Staff do not anticipate a need to engage external resource in order to undertake the analysis. 

59.     The financial implication of a reorganisation decision, particularly a reduction to fewer local boards, is being evaluated and this information will be made available in due course.

60.     A budget of $66k associated with the mandatory review of representation arrangements is unavoidable and has been budgeted for.

61.     There are implications of adopting a reorganisation plan at the same time as conducting a representation review.  Council staff have held discussions with the Local Government Commission staff about how the two projects interact. These discussions are continuing.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62.     Work on both the review of representation arrangements and local board reorganisation has commenced earlier than necessary in order that final decisions are not made too close to the 2025 elections. This mitigates the risk that if there is slippage, final decisions will still be known by early April 2025 in time for the election.

63.     There is a risk that, if the council proceeds with a local board reorganisation application, that the Local Government Commission will not approve it due to shortcomings in documentation or due to lack of community support. This risk is mitigated by on-going contact between council staff and Local Government Commission staff to ensure the correct process is followed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64.     Local board feedback will be reported to, and considered by, the Joint Governance Working Party as it develops its recommendations to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02494

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on initial staff proposals for more empowered local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff have workshopped the proposal for fewer, more empowered local boards and representation arrangements with all local boards during February 2024 and are now bringing these proposals to March 2024 local board business meetings seeking formal feedback.

3.       At the workshops, staff advised that the proposals for fewer more empowered local boards represented initial staff thinking and that they were seeking initial responses from boards.

4.       This report focuses on the more empowered local boards proposal. It uses work done to date and what staff have been seeing and hearing both from elected members and the organisation to identify how the existing local board model might be improved to give effect to the Mayor’s request.

5.       The report outlines matters under two key shifts which if implemented would support local boards to be more empowered. These shifts are that local boards need to have:

a)      sufficient strategic advice to fulfil their purpose on behalf of their specific communities

b)      sufficient resourcing and greater decision-making/accountability over their funding arrangements.

6.       Several ideas are put forward about what the council group might need to do differently to support this shift, such as:

·        examining the complexity of current approaches and identifying where things could be simpler

·        working towards an organisation that is responsive and flexible

·        developing bespoke systems and processes that reflect the needs and differences of different local boards and only retain consistency where necessary

·        lifting the level of local board activity to a governance level aligned with what more empowered local boards should do and reducing the time and resource taken up on low impact and operational matters

·        reviewing plans and policies which impact on the operation of local boards to ensure the approach best fits what is needed for more empowered local boards.

7.       While staff are undertaking early engagement on proposals for fewer and more empowered local boards together and to meet the Mayor’s wish for change to be in place by 2025 local election, the more empowered aspect is not subject to electoral timelines and can, if necessary take longer.

8.       Staff will report initial feedback from February 2024 local board workshops to the March 2024 meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) and the six local board representatives on the JGWP will share the working party’s consideration of that with the local board clusters they represent.

9.       Local board March 2024 business meeting feedback will be reported to the April 2024 working party meeting, ahead of consideration by the Governing Body in May 2024. If the Governing Body agrees to proceed, the proposals will go to formal public consultation in June 2024.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on staff proposals for more empowered local boards, in particular:

i)       aspects of the proposal that it supports, opposes, has further comment on or would like further information on

ii)       ideas and examples of what more empowered local boards should be able to do

iii)      the benefits, or otherwise of linking proposals for more empowered local boards with having fewer local boards.

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

What does ‘more empowered’ mean?

10.     The Mayor’s proposal for more empowered local boards is part of his wider proposal that there be fewer local boards and that they be more fairly funded. The Mayor’s expectation is that local boards have the true level of local leadership and accountability over local matters envisaged for them under the legislation, and if necessary, where current legislation has not met this intent, that legislative change be pursued.

11.     Many of the recommendations of the 2016 Governance Framework Review (GFR) are in effect proposals for local boards to be more empowered. In particular, the Governing Body’s October 2021 decision to approve Increased Local Board Decision-making is a significant example of this.

12.     While there have been notable wins and improvements in such areas as the organisation establishing more teams which directly work with and face local boards, more remains to be done and this has been evidenced by local board member responses to elected members surveys and the 2023 Mayoral Office survey of local board members. In both cases these show significant dissatisfaction from local board members on their role and decision-making, funding, the advice they seek and receive, and their ability to advance the matters that they value.

13.     So how might fewer more empowered local boards help to turn that around?  At a holistic level local board roles and responsibilities, allocations and delegations, financial policy and process matters should be tested against the following: that local boards should be:

a)      supported to fully give effect to the provisions included in and envisaged by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) and enabled by Auckland Council to do so

b)      empowered according to the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in LGACA - that non-regulatory decisions should be made by local boards except where decisions are better made on an Auckland-wide basis.

14.     Based on previous work and feedback, the following are the key themes and matters that have been identified. It isn’t considered to be exhaustive or definitive list. Rather it is a catalyst to stimulate local board members and staff, to think about and articulate what they think local boards should be able to do. The two key themes are as follows:

 

 

Sufficient strategic advice

15.     Local boards should receive sufficient strategic advice to fulfil their purpose on behalf of their communities. Local boards need to be supported and provided with advice to fully exercise all the legislative powers they have been given (and as appropriate legislative change), including:

a)      being genuinely able to govern in ways that reflect their communities’ differences and diversity and not have to all do things in the same way for administrative convenience

b)      have access to strategic advice to support the development of local solutions provided these are consistent with regional policies and plans

c)      have a level of influence over the decisions and activities of the Governing Body and Auckland Council group commensurate with local board’s legislated governance role

d)      be supported and enabled to interact with the communities they represent with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of their engagement and trust in their activities

e)      be supported by systems and processes that are fit for purpose, simple to understand, flexible and agile, and of practical value.

Funding arrangements - resourcing, decision-making and accountability

16.     Local boards should receive sufficient resourcing and have greater decision-making and accountability over their funding arrangements, including:

a)      Auckland Council should develop minimum standards for all or most local community services in discussion with local boards, and commit to funding these

b)      Local boards should be able to:

i)        raise funds to advance some or all their local community services beyond agreed and funded minimum service levels

ii)       decide what additional activities and services they want, provided that they can fund and justify them, and that required support structures are in place

iii)      engage with Auckland Transport to seek delegated decision-making over local transport activities such as town centre improvements and street trading activities, where this doesn’t adversely impact on the transport network.

17.     The following are some examples staff have heard about which support the above proposals:

a)      more easily obtain approval to use targeted rates without the major time consuming and resource heavy process that is currently required and to be able to use a targeted rate more widely e.g. for all or any local community services

b)      change a local asset or the way it is used. Currently it is difficult to get advice for something that isn’t already on a work programme or being progressed under a regional provision

c)      have greater opportunities for local procurement. Current most procurement is managed and decided centrally and local boards see opportunities for use of local providers without adversely impacting the agreed value of bigger contracts.

d)      be able to more easily review community leases to free up space currently tied up in peppercorn leases with low-value, low-participation activities on valuable council land

e)      be able to have decision-making over local planning and policy development for local community services for such things as open space and town centres

f)       have clear, consistent advice on what the proceeds from sale of service property can be used for and enabling local boards to dispose of a property prior to identifying project(s) to which the proceeds of sale will be allocated

g)      shifting local assets between community and commercial use (or a hybridisation of the two)

h)      enable open space acquisition and development in high-growth areas (including through demolition of under-utilised assets to free up open space)

i)       better understand and have clear roles and responsibilities on local vs regional strategic asset network decision-making.

18.     As discussed at workshops, staff are encouraging local boards to identify things they would like to do, but haven’t had advice on, or where they have been advised that matters can’t proceed. In addition to formal resolutions, staff have also asked that members bring matters they have been thinking about to staff working on these proposals. Examples will help staff understand what roadblocks there are to advancing these matters.

What might the council group need to do differently to support this change?

19.     Having noted that significant resource is applied to operating 21 local boards and that over the last 13 years the organisation has continually sought to improve how it supports local boards, there does however remain some disconnect between what local board members want to do and what the organisation currently supports. There may be times when things that local boards want to do will not fall within their role and responsibilities, but this does need to be tested and justified.

20.     An approach going forward might include to:

a)      examine the complexity of current approaches and identify where matters can be simplified and what duplication can be removed

b)      alter systems and processes to reflect the needs and differences of different local boards and only retain consistency where the need for efficiency overrides these individual needs. 

c)      overtime lift the level of local board activity to a governance level commensurate with what more empowered local boards will do and reduce the time and resource taken up on low impact matters

d)      review where advice comes from to local boards in the organisation and ensure it is led organisation-wide and that the level of strategic and policy advice available to local boards is commensurate with their more empowered role

e)      review plans and policies which impact on the operation of local boards to ensure the approach best fits what is needed for more empowered local boards.

21.     Considerable resources, time and thinking will be required to implement agreed changes successfully. Experience with issues around delivering increased decision-making for local boards suggests this should be approached systematically and in stages. Phasing change, prioritising what is doable, what will have the most impact for the least effort, and where resources can be applied relatively easily to change is suggested.

Other implications

22.     Staff have also noted that local boards need to be remunerated and have work hours commensurate with their intended role – understanding that this is a decision of the Remuneration Authority.  A review of its approach to setting the remuneration of Auckland’s local board members was undertaken by the Authority in 2019 and uses a size index based on local board:

·        population

·        gross operating expenditure (taken from local board agreements)

·        total assets (council assets attributed to local boards)

·        the Socioeconomic Deprivation Index.

23.     The Authority’s size index is based on the roles and responsibilities of the board rather than the number of members or the population of the local board area. Staff are working with the Authority to understand how any proposed changes might impact on local board member remuneration.  It is likely a review of Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration will be reviewed on a holistic basis by the Authority.

How this fits with other workstreams?

24.     Local boards are also being asked for their views on proposals for fewer local boards; status quo or a 15 local board model. An analysis is also being undertaken on the costs and benefits of fewer local boards and this will be reported to the April 2024 JGWP meeting.  The ‘fairer funding’ model is currently out for consultation as part of the Long-term Plan and feedback and next steps will also be brought back to the JGWP, including how funding would be allocated if there were 15 local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     This report itself has no climate impacts. It is possible that more empowered local boards will making more influential decisions will have different impacts on the climate.  Climate impacts will be reported both when a report is brought to Governing Body when a final decision on more empowered local boards is made and when each board makes a decision that impacts climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     Fewer, and/or more empowered and/or more fairly-funded local boards will have a significant impact on the council group, and particularly those parts of the organisation that interact with local boards.  These impacts will be considered and addressed if proposals proceed to public consultation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     These proposals have the potential to have a significant local impact, not just on local boards but on their communities. This includes a possible change in community awareness of, and engagement with their representatives as communities become aware of what more empowered local boards might do.

28.     Comprehensive engagement with local boards on these changes and the provision of high-quality advice is critical for success throughout this entire process. Early engagement in February 2024 and reporting to local board business meetings in March 2024 are part of this.  Regionwide consultation and further engagement with local boards will be triggered if the Governing Body decides that the proposal has merit and should be investigated further.

29.     All matters will primarily be progressed through the JGWP which has six local board members, each representing a “cluster” of local boards. These representatives are responsible for bringing the views of these clusters to JGWP meetings and engaging with their members on the direction and next steps agreed by the working party.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     Engagement with Māori is a core part of advancing these proposals for fewer more empowered local boards. The early engagement process includes Mana whenua and Mataawaka.  The outcomes of this engagement will be reported back to the April 2024 JGWP meeting.

31.     Many of local board members who responded to the recent Mayor’s survey outlined in this report suggested that having Māori representation on local boards, along with fewer boards might improve the way they engage with Māori. The Independent Māori Statutory Board chair is also on the JGWP and has contributed to these discussions to date.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32.     While this report itself has no direct financial implications, there are potentially very significant financial implications resulting from the establishment of fewer, more fairly-funded and more empowered local boards.

33.     These will be progressively identified as the above parts of this wider change develop. Stage one of the value for money work will outline the costs and benefits of having fewer local boards and will progress this further as options for more empowered local boards progress. The associated organisational change workstream will contribute further to this.

34.     The JGWP work is supported by a general manager level steering group which meets ahead of each JGWP meeting. This includes finance staff and is a key control and oversight group for financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     There are a number of risks and mitigations associated with this workstream, as follows:

a)      Political risks. Local board representatives on the JGWP have expressed scepticism about these proposed changes, questioned the need for them and asked why there can’t be 21 more empowered local boards, not fewer. Local board feedback on these proposals from February workshops and March 2024 business meetings will be considered alongside other early engagement feedback.

b)      Implementation risks. It is inevitable that the disruption of change will be felt for some time and this could have negative impacts on local community service delivery, council’s and local boards’ reputation and level of trust, and increase disaffection by local board members. To mitigate this risk, the change process will need to be robust and adequately resourced.

c)      Delivery risks. The ability of the organisation to pivot to support these changes and to provide the enhanced advice needed for change to be effective, may not be achieved in a timely manner.  To mitigate this risk, the Executive Leadership Team oversight will be needed.  This will be required of CCO executives as well, which is why it is important to capture their views at an early stage.

36.     Broader programme risks have been identified and are being monitored.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     The JGWP has monthly meetings planned for 2024. Staff will report initial informal local board workshops themes to the March JGWP meeting alongside those of stakeholder views that have been gathered. March local board business meeting feedback will be reported to the April JGWP. The JGWP and the Governing Body will decide on public consultation in June/July 2024.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02097

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides an overview of the feedback received through the second phase of public consultation to inform how freshwater should be managed in Auckland.

3.       This work is part of the programme to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), which provides national direction for freshwater management to all councils in New Zealand, and applies to rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, aquifers (groundwater), and springs.

4.       Consultation questions relate to a wide range of matters, not limited to the proposed long-term vision for freshwater in Auckland, freshwater values and outcomes, how to look after ‘outstanding’ waterbodies, how to protect and improve habitats, and how to manage the increasing demand for water. There were 3,899 submissions. Responses by local board area are included in relevant tables throughout the summary of feedback.

5.       When the consultation was held (from 3 November to 4 December 2023), the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) statutory deadline for council to notify a freshwater plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) was 31 December 2024. The government has since signalled an intent to amend the NPS-FM and has moved the plan change deadline to December 2027. A revised NPS-FM is anticipated by the end of 2025.

6.       While there may be a longer-term impact on the council’s implementation programme, at this stage consultation feedback remains relevant and will inform any future work.

7.       Local boards have been provided with the consultation questions (Attachment A), a summary of feedback (Attachment B) and a local board members’ briefing that was held on Monday 19 February 2024 (a recording of which can be found on Nexus). Additionally, the HaveYourSay website contains the consultation document, an online mapping tool, and a “state and trend” dashboard for the health of Auckland’s waterbodies.

8.       There is a separate and ongoing programme of engagement with mana whenua.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      kohuki / consider feedback received from their communities in the second phase of public consultation to inform implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

b)      whakarite / provide feedback as per the consultation questions.

 

Horopaki

Context

Why consult

9.       The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) directs the council to develop a plan to maintain or improve the state of freshwater in Auckland. In developing that plan, the council is required to actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) and to engage with communities.

About the NPS-FM

10.     National policy statements are issued under the Resource Management Act (RMA). They allow central government to state objectives and policies for matters of national significance, which support the sustainable management purposes of the Act.

11.     Regional councils and unitary authorities are required to change regional policy statements and regional plans to give effect to the requirements of the NPS-FM. This applies to all freshwater bodies, including rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, aquifers (groundwater), and springs.

12.     At the time of consultation, the NPS-FM required that all freshwater outcomes must be driven by ‘Te Mana o te Wai.’ This describes the vital importance of water and establishes a priority order to support decision making, called the hierarchy of obligations:

·        First, the health and wellbeing of waterbodies and freshwater ecosystems

·        Second, the health needs of people (such as drinking water)

·        Third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, now and in the future.

13.     Auckland Council is required to set ‘ambitious but reasonable’ goals to improve the health of freshwater within a generation. Any further loss or degradation of wetlands and streams is to be avoided; restoration is to be encouraged. National bottom lines for freshwater health must be met, and a ‘baseline state’ for freshwater improvements has to be set, from 2017 if possible.

14.     While primarily concerned with the management of freshwater, the NPS-FM also requires an integrated management approach called ‘ki uta ki tai’, including consideration of the relationship of freshwater and freshwater management to the coastal receiving environment as well as the foreseeable impacts of climate change.

15.     The National Objectives Framework’ (NOF) contains a series of related requirements for the plan change process, such as setting a long-term vision, and identifying values. Each stage sets the foundation for the next. See Figure 1 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.     The council needs to set objectives and specific, measurable targets to maintain and / or improve water quality and ecosystem health. Once a vision, values, and environmental outcomes for Auckland are decided, a baseline state, or benchmark in time, can be established for the attributes of Auckland’s freshwater systems. From there, appropriate targets can be set. Compulsory ‘attributes’ (essentially something that can be measured and monitored) relate to water quality, ecosystem health and human contact.

Impact of signalled changes to the NPS-FM

17.     When the consultation was held, the council needed to amend the AUP by 31 December 2024 and develop non-regulatory action plans to support improvement of regional freshwater resources, as soon as possible.

18.     In December, the government signalled its intent to amend the NPS-FM and moved the RMA deadline for the plan change to December 2027, to allow councils time to implement the amended NPS-FM.

19.     The government has indicated that the process to complete a revised NPS-FM will take between 18 to 24 months and will include a robust and full consultation process with all stakeholders, including iwi and the public.

20.     While there may be a longer-term impact, the consultation results remain largely relevant and will inform any future work. Staff are currently assessing the potential impact of the changes on council’s planning and implementation approach, in order to report to the programme steering committee, the NPS-FM political working group, and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

21.     Since the consultation, the Court of Appeal has also quashed the NPS-FM exemptions for what were the Pukekohe and Horowhenua Specified Vegetable Growing Areas, due to inadequate consultation by Ministry for the Environment staff when the exemptions were inserted in the NPS-FM. The exemptions allowed for regional councils to set targets below national bottom lines in areas where vegetable production could be compromised. It is likely that the government will address this matter when developing revisions to the NPS-FM.

22.     High levels of contaminants in the Pukekohe area continue to be a concern and will need to be addressed in the NPS-FM programme.

How freshwater farm plans fit in

23.     Changes to the NPS-FM do not affect Freshwater Farm Plans, the scope of which is outside this consultation. Freshwater Farm Plans are a practical way for farmers and growers to demonstrate how they are managing the impact of their operations on the freshwater environment. They will be gradually phased in across Auckland from late 2024 and will be a key method for implementing the NPS-FM in rural areas, along with rules in the AUP, and non-regulatory action plans.

24.     Many farmers already have a farm environment plan or are part of an industry programme. Freshwater Farm Plans will build on that work.

How we consulted

25.     This is the second of two planned public consultations to inform implementation of the NPS-FM in Auckland. In the first, (June / July 2023) the council sought feedback to develop a vision and values for freshwater in Auckland.

26.     This time (3 November 2023 to 4 December 2023), the council checked back in with the community to get their views of proposed measures to protect, use, and allocate freshwater. There were 3,899 submissions.

27.     Respondents could comment on one or more of the consultation questions. Feedback was sought on a wide range of matters, not limited to; the proposed long-term vision for freshwater in Auckland, freshwater values and outcomes, how to look after ‘outstanding’ waterbodies, how to protect and improve habitats, and how to manage the increasing demand for water.

28.     Detailed background information was available for those who wanted it in:

·        ‘Setting our Direction’ – the consultation document

·        A geographic information system (GIS) online mapping tool

·        A state and trend dashboard about the health of Auckland’s waterbodies.

29.     The feedback form was translated into Te Reo, Hindi, Korean, Samoan, Chinese (simplified and traditional) and Tongan. Some information was available in New Zealand Sign Language on AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl

30.     Supporting communications began appearing in the week before the start date and ran throughout, utilising a variety of communication platforms – Our Auckland, mailing lists, radio advertising, local board Facebook pages, notifications on Linked In, etc. Feedback was submitted online through AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl, or collected by email, post, Auckland libraries, community partners, and the People’s Panel.

31.     Several events and activities were undertaken to encourage the public to have their say. These included:

·        Face to face interactions / ‘community drop ins’ at Auckland Diwali Festival (Saturday 4th / Sunday 5th November), Clevedon A&P Show (Saturday 4th / Sunday 5th November), Auckland Regional Waka Ama Regatta (Saturday 18 November) and Grey Lynn Park Festival (Saturday 18 November).

·        An online information webinar presented by subject matter experts (Wednesday 15th November), available on AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl.

·        A community partner-led engagement programme reaching out to Auckland’s Indian, Samoan, Asian and Pasifika communities.

Local board feedback

32.     To conclude the consultation, local board feedback will be incorporated into the summary of feedback for consideration by the programme steering committee, the NPS-FM political working group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. The results of the consultation will also be reported back to mana whenua.

Other engagement

33.     The NPS-FM programme includes two separate and complementary streams of planned engagement:

34.     ‘In partnership’ with 19 mana whenua groups across Auckland, a series of hui have been held with mana whenua since 2021. Maintaining the current state of freshwater where it can be further improved is insufficient for mana whenua; degradation needs to be halted, and mauri enhanced.

35.     ‘Involving’ stakeholders with a high level of interest across industrial, farming, environmental, and commercial sectors, to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. Workshops with stakeholders began in 2023. Further input will be sought as the plan change is developed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

How freshwater health is monitored

36.     The AUP has a comprehensive range of provisions that aim to protect Auckland’s water resources, including objectives, policies, rules and other methods. In 2022 staff assessed the effectiveness of AUP provisions in meeting its stated freshwater objectives and concluded that while these address all the relevant matters, waterways are still degrading. This means improvements are needed[1].

37.     Regular freshwater monitoring is conducted as part of the State of the Environment monitoring programme. This includes monitoring rainfall, river flows, groundwater levels, water quality in rivers and streams, lakes and groundwater, and aquatic life and habitats in rivers, lakes and wetlands.

38.     Staff are working to improve monitoring coverage of waterbodies over time and have recently increased the regional lakes monitoring programme from five to 15 lakes. The river and stream monitoring network has also been expanded. The monitoring work will provide information to understand the current state (at any point in time) and long-term trends – both positive and negative – in freshwater bodies and in the ecosystems they support.

39.     The NPS-FM utilises this monitoring for grading state via bands, with A being very good and D (or E) being poor. The best monitoring information available is used, and several modelling tools are used to extrapolate results for the region. These tools help council and communities to better understand the extent of issues facing the region’s freshwater bodies.

40.     Water quality and ecosystem health is generally good at the top of river catchments, where the land cover is mainly native forest. As rivers and streams flow down from the hills, the surrounding land use changes, with less vegetation and more rural and urban activity. Water quality and ecosystem health is much poorer in these areas.

41.     Figure 2 is an overview of the causes of degradation in Auckland’s waterways. All of these pressures have impacts on what Aucklanders individually and collectively value about fresh water, such as being able to use waterways for swimming and recreation, harvesting mahinga kai, and protecting threatened species.

 

 

Known state of freshwater in Auckland

42.     Council is required to set a ‘baseline state’ for freshwater improvements. This is a starting point from which to measure river and lake health and assess improvements over time.

43.     Baselines are being measured for a range of water quality and ecosystem health attributes (the characteristics we measure). The baseline is usually set in 2017 to protect against any degradation since that time.

44.     Further information about the range of attributes to be measured is available in the consultation document.

Potential management approaches

45.     Council is aiming for one set of rules for Auckland, with integrated and consistent planning provisions. Bespoke and/or targeted management responses, processes, and provisions will be used where needed, to protect special sites and features.

46.     To achieve freshwater targets, council needs to improve how the activities that impact water in both Auckland’s rural and urban areas are managed. This will require a combination of both regulatory tools (rules in the AUP), and non-regulatory tools such as council strategies, action plans, asset management, monitoring, support for community work, incentives, and training.

47.     Management tools may include regulatory limits on resource use (land use controls, input controls and output controls in the AUP), as well as non-regulatory action plans and other voluntary measures (i.e. investment programmes, and actions by council). There may be some changes to the limits set on certain activities, and how progress is monitored.

48.     Several methods could be utilised, including:

a)      Stock exclusion / keeping stock away from waterways, wetlands, and off highly erodible land. This is one of the most effective tools for improving water quality and habitats. AUP rules and national regulations already in place for keeping stock out of waterways, do not cover many small streams in steeper areas, which contribute a lot of sediment and E. coli.

b)      Discharges to freshwater include stormwater runoff and dairy farm effluent. Council can put greater controls on discharges, to avoid them altogether or to ensure any discharges get the best treatment possible before they reach waterways.

c)      Riparian vegetation (the plants and trees along the water margins and banks) is essential for healthy water. It provides the cool, shady habitats freshwater ecosystems need. The existing rules may not be providing enough space for riparian vegetation to establish and thrive around waterways.

d)      On-site wastewater provisions in the AUP may need to be strengthened to be consistent with the performance standards in the council’s updated guidance document for on-site wastewater and address some of the consenting barriers to upgrading onsite systems.

e)      The existing approach to sediment-generating activities may also need to be changed, to prefer those that minimise land disturbance and have a greater soil conservation focus.

Proposed vison

49.     Council is required to have a vision for freshwater management in Auckland. The vision will become an objective in the AUP. This means that it will need to be applied in the policies and rules of the AUP, and to resource consent decisions.

50.     The overarching vision has been developed with mana whenua. It is ‘To protect and enhance Te Mauri o te Wai – the life-sustaining capacity of water.’ This aligns with the Auckland Water Strategy and responds to the feedback already received from mana whenua and the community about freshwater values.

 

51.     After community consultation in 2022, three Freshwater Management Units (FMU) were identified. They are the Kaipara FMU, the Manukau FMU and the Hauraki FMU (i.e. the combined catchment areas that drain to each harbour). Based on the characteristics, state and environmental pressures on freshwater in each FMU, council is also proposing specific local vision statements.

Proposed values

52.     The NPS-FM lists several values that apply everywhere and other values that council must consider for each FMU. Two additional values have been proposed, with reference to the first consultation on how to manage freshwater in Auckland. These are:

·     the importance of resilience for our freshwater and freshwater bodies, and

·     the value that Aucklanders place on amenity - that is, enjoying being near rivers, lakes and waterfalls without necessarily going into the water.

Proposed environmental outcomes

53.     For each freshwater values that will apply in Auckland, there are specified environmental outcome/s. The outcomes describe what we want to achieve for each of the values. There are particular outcomes for the Pukekohe Specified Vegetable Growing Area, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and the Hunua Ranges.

Criteria for ‘outstanding waterbodies’

54.     Outstanding waterbodies are the rivers, lakes and wetlands that are the ‘best of the best’ in the region. Staff are developing relevant criteria for these and for assessing available information relating to Māori cultural values and ecological, landscape and recreational values. The consultation document includes a list of proposed outstanding waterbodies.

Identifying primary contact sites

55.     Primary contact sites are freshwater sites that are known to be regularly used for recreational activities where people make contact with water, like swimming, waka ama and kayaking.

56.     Sites will be identified in partnership with Auckland’s Safeswim programme. Although Safeswim has historically focused on Auckland’s beaches, it now includes nine freshwater sites. There are 14 other potential freshwater sites that might be included, subject to further analysis and evaluation. Particular attention will be paid to human health risks at these sites. Stricter standards may be needed to reduce sources of contamination in these catchments, such as keeping stock out of waterways and upgrading wastewater systems.

Setting targets for improvement

57.     The targets which need to be set to improve freshwater [attributes] need to be set above national bottom lines. This is ambitious for some attributes, such as E. coli in freshwater.

58.     At this stage the approach will be to set long-term targets to improve all attribute states across the region where they are poor (C or D band). Where waterbody health is already good (A or B band), the approach will be to at least maintain the baseline state.

59.     Staff are working with vegetable growers to ensure that they are using best management practices as they produce vegetables. Other actions could include requirements to limit expansion of the area and have a cap on fertiliser application.

Fish passage action plan

60.     A fish passage action plan is being prepared to ensure that in-stream structures enable the passage of fish.

61.     Many native fish species need to migrate between fresh and salt water to complete their life cycle. Culverts and other barriers in streams can impede fish passage. New culverts need to meet fish passage standards.

 

62.     There are more than 4,000 existing barriers to fish passage in the Auckland region. Most of these are on private land. Staff are drafting an action plan to remediate these barriers, but realistically it will take time to replace these barriers with fish-friendly designs.

63.     Considerations include how to prioritise remediating existing barriers, catchments based on factors such as mana whenua engagement and initiatives, how to maintain existing high-quality habitat catchments, and how to support threatened species management. This will factor in a cost-benefit analysis, the presence of community groups who can contribute, and connectivity to the coast.

Avoiding the loss of wetlands, rivers and streams

64.     Only around four per cent of Auckland’s freshwater wetland ecosystems remain. Urban and rural streams and wetlands are at risk from reclamation, drainage, vegetation clearance and piping. The NPS-FM directs that council needs to avoid the loss of wetland areas, rivers and streams, and their values.

65.     In some cases, the council proposes to retain stricter rules in the AUP than those required under national regulations. For example, council could keep the 20-metre (AUP) setback for vegetation removal around wetlands instead of the 10-metre national standard. For rivers and streams, staff are looking at keeping the current non-complying activity status for river reclamation, which is more restrictive than the discretionary activity status set in the national regulations.

Water quantity and phasing out over allocation

66.     Existing water take allocations may also need to be reviewed. There are some over-allocations of water already occurring in the region’s aquifers. Revised flows, levels and take limits will need to ensure that water is available to reliably meet reasonable irrigation, pastoral farming, food processing, commercial and industrial needs.

67.     Under the NPS-FM, freshwater flows and levels in rivers and lakes must be high enough to support the health of aquatic life and ecosystems, even in times of drought. Currently, the AUP prioritises domestic needs, municipal water supply, and animal drinking water above other water uses. It could be more specific, for example making location-specific priorities for agriculture or horticulture where there is highly productive land.

68.     Demand for water is high in some parts of the Auckland region, and this demand is only likely to increase as the population grows and the climate changes. Managing the taking and use of water is especially important when water levels are low, as in times of drought, and in areas where the amount of water that can be taken out of waterbodies has been overallocated. Best available information suggests around 10 per cent of the region’s aquifers are over allocated. This may increase as flows, levels and take limits are revised.

69.     Work is underway to develop an approach for phasing out over-allocation, and to determine the time in which it will take place. When the plan change is notified, it will include further information about how and when this will take place.

Common themes of consultation feedback

70.     See Attachment B for a comprehensive feedback summary. The feedback form for this consultation asked people 22 questions, spread across six sections:

A.      Long-term vision

B.      Values and environmental outcomes

C.      Waterbodies where special management is required

D.      Achieving the vision and environmental outcomes for freshwater

E.      Habitat protection and improvement

F.      Water quantity

G.      Other feedback.

 

71.     There were 3,873 from individuals and 36 from organisations.

72.     In general, there was widespread support for all proposals, with the majority receiving at least 70 per cent support.

73.     The one exception was the approach to identify outstanding waterbodies, with criteria for Māori cultural values, ecological, landscape and recreational values. This proposal received 50 per cent support, while 38 per cent did not support it. Common themes in the responses included:

·     of those that supported the proposal, and provided comments, most commonly said they thought mana whenua should be involved as we should acknowledge Māori cultural values or agreed with the approach to address water quality issues

·     of those that did not support the proposal most commonly felt the plan focuses too heavily on Māori values, and/or were opposed to co-governance arrangements with Māori entities in general. A significant number of submissions received that expressed these views coincided with an external campaign by ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ These are reported on within the ‘individual’ submissions category.

74.     Common themes in the responses to each question are covered in the body of the report. However, below are some general themes found across all questions.

75.     Those that were supportive of the proposals most commonly addressed:

·     concerns for the health, quality, and sustainability of water resources

·     the importance of sustainable practices, climate change mitigation, and protecting our waterways for future generations

·     a desire to have improved plans and management of waterways

·     the importance of prioritising healthy waterways to support water consumption for people.

76.     Those that were not supportive of the proposals most commonly addressed:

·        concerns that the plan focuses too heavily on Māori values, and/or were opposed to co-governance arrangements with Māori entities in general

·        that certain aspects of the plan were unnecessary and/or a waste of time and/or money.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

77.     The fundamental concept of the NPS-FM Te Mana o te Wai is about restoring and preserving the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community. This concept is in line with the natural environment priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which sets the goal:

Oranga taiao, oranga tāngata: a healthy and connected natural environment supports healthy and connected Aucklanders. The mauri (life essence) of Tāmaki Makaurau is restored”.

78.     The NPS-FM includes the following policy direction in response to climate change:

Policy 4: Freshwater is managed as part of New Zealand’s integrated response to climate change.

79.     The NPS-FM also requires councils to have regard to the foreseeable impact of climate change when setting limits on resource use, when setting environmental flows and levels, and when assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of plan provisions under section 35(2A) of the RMA.

80.     The implementation of the NPS-FM will help to promote the resilience of freshwater ecosystems to the impacts of climate change. The development of freshwater action plans will require sustainable land and water management practices to enhance the mauri and health of waterways, which is in line with actions prioritised in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

81.     Subject matter experts from across the council prepared and peer reviewed consultation questions and supporting material, which was approved by the NPS-FM political working group.

82.     A memo to members dated 14 August 2023 set out the process for local board input. Members had the opportunity to attend briefings on the consultation content on 30 October 2023, and on the consultation feedback on 19 February 2024.

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

Local impacts and local board views

83.     Feedback received from local boards will be incorporated into the summary of feedback for consideration by the programme steering committee, the political working group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

84.     The NPS-FM currently states that the council must “actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) in freshwater management” including in identifying Māori values and decision-making processes relating to Māori freshwater values.

85.     Partnership with 19 mana whenua entities in Auckland is being undertaken through an on-going, jointly agreed engagement process, and is separate to this consultation. This process began in mid-2021 and is a core part of work for the NPS-FM. An important direction by mana whenua entities has been their exercise of mana whakahaere and rangatiratanga. The summary of feedback, including local board views will be shared with mana whenua.

86.     A range of mataawaka groups from across the rohe were invited to share their views through the consultation.

87.     Five per cent of respondents identified as Māori in the feedback received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

88.     There are no direct financial implications associated with receiving this report. The freshwater implementation programme, including the consultation, are factored into council’s usual budgeting procedures.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

89.     There are no direct risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

90.     Local board feedback will be included in a consultation summary for the Political Working Group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation questions

51

b

Summary of consultation feedback, including feedback by local board aea

57

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 







Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 


















































































Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-2034

File No.: CP2024/02449

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite local boards to provide their views on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-2034 to inform an Auckland Council submission to the Ministry of Transport.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry of Transport has released a new draft of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 (GPS 2024) (Attachment A) for public consultation, replacing the draft GPS 2024 released in August 2023. There are many significant differences between this version and the draft released last year which have been summarised in a memo to local boards circulated on 12 March 2024 (Attachment B).

3.       The GPS sets out the government’s land transport strategy and priorities for the next decade and is updated every three years. It outlines what the government expects to achieve in land transport, along with how much funding will be provided and how this funding will be allocated across the different aspects of the land transport system.

4.       A key focus of the draft GPS 2024 is the government’s direction on how $20 billion in funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) will be allocated over the next three years. Funding allocations are shaped by four proposed strategic priorities:

·     economic growth and productivity

·     increased maintenance and resilience

·     safety (particularly policing and enforcement)

·     value for money.

5.       The proposed funding allocations across the 12 activity classes in the draft GPS 2024, in combination with a much more directive approach to how funds in certain classes are to be used, will increase funding for the construction and maintenance of state highways and local roads, while potentially decreasing funding for several other aspects of the land transport system, including walking, cycling, public transport, rail services and infrastructure-based safety interventions.

6.       There are a range of significant implications for Auckland, both direct and indirect, along with the risk that some of the proposed changes may have unintended consequences. The proposal to require multi-modal projects to apply for funding from multiple activity classes is a reversal of the trend in recent GPS towards more integrated transport planning, funding and delivery.

7.       Topics including equity, accessibility and Māori outcomes, which feature prominently in Auckland Council’s plans and strategies, are absent from the draft GPS. The proposed approaches to transport emissions reduction and road safety also differ significantly from the previous edition of the GPS as well as the Auckland Council group’s plans and strategies.

8.       Previous versions of the GPS have included a commitment to a joint transport planning and prioritisation process with Auckland Council, such as the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP). The draft GPS 2024 does not include any mention of ATAP or a potential Integrated Transport Plan for Auckland.

9.       A template for local board feedback has been provided (Attachment C).

10.     A summary of the key dates for preparing council’s submission is as follows:

Date

Action

11 March 2024

Memo circulated to elected members

20 March 2024

Transport and Infrastructure Committee Workshop on draft GSP 2024

22 March 2024

Staff complete draft submission and circulate to elected members

28 March 2024

Deadline for feedback from local boards

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      provide / whakarite local views on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-2034 discussion document as per the feedback template provided to inform the council’s submission.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Government Policy Statement on land trasnport 2024-2034

141

b

Memo Consultation on the new draft GPS on Land Transport 2024

185

c

GPS Land Transport - Local Board Feedback template

201

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 












































Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 
















Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 




Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans

File No.: CP2024/02028

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the local board with an update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan-Mar 2024) as well as a general update on the CCO Engagement Plans.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans were adopted in June 2022. These plans record CCO responsibilities and local board commitments with Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland and Watercare.

3.       CCOs provide local boards with the CCO work programme in their area. Each work programme item lists the engagement approach with the local board, activity status, updates and milestones anticipated for the next quarter.

4.       The engagement plans expired in June 2023 and have not been updated since June 2022.

5.       The plans have not been updated due to:

·    impacts from the Annual Budget 2023/2024

·    disruptions from the Water Services Reform Programme

·    Auckland Transport’s work on local transport plans (Kōkiri)

·    lack of dedicated support from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to support local board engagement and liaison following Annual Budget 2023/2024 impacts.

6.       The Joint CCO Engagement Plans will be reviewed mid 2024.

7.       This report does not include work programme updates from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited or Auckland Transport.

8.       Auckland Transport will provide their work programme updates through the Kōkiri reporting in March and April 2024.

9.       This report provides an update on Eke Panuku and Watercare work programme items from January to March 2024.  

10.     The next CCO quarterly report will be provided in June 2024.  

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the update on Council-controlled Organisation Engagement Plans and Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan-Mar 2024).

Horopaki

Context

What are CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans?

11.     The 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations recommended that CCOs and local boards adopt an engagement plan to:

·    help cement CCO and local board relations

·    agree on a common understanding of accountability between CCOs and local boards

·    coordinate CCO actions better at the local level.

12.     These plans record the commitment between Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, Watercare and the local boards to work together.

13.     Each local board adopted their 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans in June 2022. These plans include CCO responsibilities and local board commitments.

CCO work programme items

14.     CCOs provide local boards with a work programme that lists the different CCO projects happening in the local board area.

15.     The work programme is not a full list of projects in the local board area. It includes work programme items for engagement purposes.

16.     The engagement approach is based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) standards which are provided in Table 1 below. Note that the “involve” and “empower” categories are not included in the CCO reporting as decided when the joint engagement plans were adopted.

Table 1: International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Engagement Approach Levels

CCO engagement approach

Commitment to local boards

Inform

CCOs will keep local boards informed.

Consult

CCOs will keep local boards informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how local board input influenced the decision. CCOs will seek local board feedback on drafts and proposals.

Collaborate

CCOs will work together with local boards to formulate solutions and incorporate their advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

 

17.     Local boards received the last update to the CCO work programme and engagement approach in October 2023.

CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans will be reviewed mid 2024

18.     The CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans expired in June 2023. The plans have not been updated since June 2022.

19.     The plans have not been updated due to:

·    impacts from the Annual Budget 2023/2024

·    disruptions from the Water Services Reform Programme

·    lack of dedicated support from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to support local board engagement and liaison following Annual Budget 2023/2024 impacts.

20.     Auckland Transport is currently rolling out work which future engagement plans would need to consider, such as:

·    Forward Works Programme (full list of Auckland Transport projects in the local board area)

·    Local Board Transport Capital Fund

·    Regional Land Transport Plan

·    Local Board Transport Plans (Kōkiri).

21.     The CCO Accountability Policy will be updated as part of the next Long-term Plan which the CCO engagement plans would need to align. 

What are the next steps?

22.     The CCO quarterly reporting will continue to provide work programme updates from Watercare and Eke Panuku with the next report in June 2024.

23.     Local board staff will continue to liaise with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited on what engagement and reporting resource they are able to provide to local boards following their restructure.

24.     Auckland Transport will provide updates on their work programme through the Kōkiri reporting in March and April 2024. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25.     The following sections provide an update on work programme items for Eke Panuku and Watercare. 

26.     More detailed updates to the CCO work programme are provided in Attachments A-B.

27.     Eke Panuku’s work programme items are provided in Attachment A.

28.     Watercare’s work programme items are provided in Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.     This report does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to may.

30.     Each CCO must work within Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework. Information on climate impacts will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31.     Local boards advise CCOs of issues or projects of significance, communicate the interests and preferences of their communities and allow for flexibility in terms of engagement, recognising differing levels of interest.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32.     This report on the CCO work programme items provides the communication of up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on projects in their area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33.     This report does not have a direct impact on Māori, however the projects it refers to will.

34.     Local boards and CCOs provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to their decision-making processes. These opportunities will be worked on a project or programme basis. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     This report does not have financial impacts on local boards.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37.     Some local boards expressed concern over the quality of CCO work programme reporting in April and July 2023, in particular with Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport is currently working on a relationship project which has objectives to deliver:

·    an enhanced process to develop transport plans that reflect local board input and priorities

·    more consistent and timely reporting, updates and analysis on local projects and issues

·    improved support for communication and engagement with local communities.

38.     Auckland Transport will be reporting to local boards in March and April 2024 on priorities for local transport plans (Kōkiri).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39.     The local board will receive the next Watercare and Eke Panuku work programme report in June 2024.

40.     The CCO Engagement Plans will be reviewed in mid 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Eke Panuku Development Auckland work programme update

209

b

Watercare work programme update

211

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Board Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Chair's Report - Chris Carter

 

File No.: CP2024/01735

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on projects, meetings, and other initiatives relevant to the local board’s interests.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Local board members are responsible for leading policy development in their areas of interest, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive Chair Chris Carter’s March 2024 report.

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chair Chris Carter’s report - March 2024

215

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule)

 

File No.: CP2024/01736

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Henderson-Massey Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule) was previously the governance forward work programme calendar for the Henderson-Massey Local Board (Attachment A). The policy schedule is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

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

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

·     clarifying what advice is expected and when

·     clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule) for March 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Henderson-Massey Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule) - March 2024

219

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 

Confirmation of Workshop Records

 

File No.: CP2024/01737

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present records of workshops held by the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Briefings/presentations provided at the workshops held are as follows:

13 February 2024

1.   Watercare - Final update and outcome of the Henderson-Massey Water Literacy Pilot

2.   Community Centre Management Agreement for Glendene Community Hub, Sturges West Com House, Massey Community Hub, Manutewhau Community Hub, Hub West Mclaren Park, Henderson Youth Facility (Zeal), Rānui Community Centre

3.   Debrief of Citizenship Ceremony at Hoani Waititi Marae – learnings for future ceremonies

4.   Six monthly report of the Community Broker’s work programme

5.   Reorganisation/Representation review

 

27 February 2024

1.   Pest Free Te Atatū

2.   Te Puna Creative Quarter, Henderson

3.   Te Whau Pathway Project

4.   Update of Kainga Ora activity and programmes in the Henderson-Massey local board area

5.   Parks and Community Facilities update

6.   Local Board Kōkiri Project (Transport Plan)

7.   Auckland Transport Monthly Update

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for 13 and 27 February 2024.

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Henderson-Massey Local Board workshop records for 13 and 27 February 2024.

223

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 March 2024

 

 








[1] See AUP ‘effectiveness and efficiency monitoring reports’ at Auckland Unitary Plan monitoring