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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 21 March 2024

12.00pm

Howick Local Board Meeting Room
Pakuranga Library Complex
7 Aylesbury Street
Pakuranga

 

Howick Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Damian Light

 

Deputy Chairperson

Bo Burns

 

Members

Katrina Bungard

 

 

David Collings

 

 

Bruce Kendall

 

 

John Spiller

 

 

Mike Turinsky

 

 

Adele White

 

 

Peter Young, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Matt Fletcher

Democracy Advisor

 

15 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: 027 226 0530

Email: matt.fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Howick Local Board

21 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 - Grace Hogan of the Auckland Business Chamber                    5

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                6

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     6

11        Governing Body Members' Update                    7

12        Chairperson's Report                                           9

13        Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche One - Site Selection for Māori Naming                                                11

14        Local Board views on Notices of Requirement for Stages 3C and 4L of the Eastern Busway  21

15        Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement                                                                              29

16        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                             35

17        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                                     41

18        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                                              57

19        Representation project – issues specific to the Howick Local Board                                           65

20        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                              73

21        Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34             85

22        Howick Local Board Workshop Records         87

23        Hōtaka Kaupapa | Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                               89

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

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

The Chair will open the meeting and welcome everyone present.

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Howick Local Board:

a)          whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 February 2024, 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 Howick 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 - Grace Hogan of the Auckland Business Chamber

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.    Grace Hogan of the Auckland Business Chamber will present to the Board a deputation outlining the YES Tāmaki Makaurau Regional Awards programme that involves many of schools in the Howick rohe.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      thank Grace Hogan for their deputation and attendance.

 

 

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

 

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

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Governing Body Members' Update

File No.: CP2024/01388

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Howick Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Howick Local Board on board-specific matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Providing the Howick Ward Councillors with an opportunity to update the Howick Local Board on matters they have been involved with since the last meeting that are of particular relevance to the board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the written and verbal reports from Cr Sharon Stewart QSM and Cr Maurice Williamson.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matt Fletcher - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2024/01391

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This item gives the local board chairperson an opportunity to update the local board on any announcements and note the chairperson’s written report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The local board chairperson will update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Chairperson’s verbal update and written report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board: Chairperson's Report - Chair Light's Written Report

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matt Fletcher - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche One - Site Selection for Māori Naming

File No.: CP2024/02617

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.        To confirm the initial scope, priorities and work programme for Te Kete Rukuruku (TKR), a Māori naming and storytelling programme, for the Howick Local Board.

2.        To invite mana whenua to provide Māori names for 15 parks and four libraries in the Howick Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       Five workshops have been held with the local board over the last three years to discuss and clarify Te Kete Rukuruku process and site selection for Māori naming.

4.       The local board included Te Kete Rukuruku in their work programme for 2022/2023 financial year.

5.       Sites were considered for naming and a list was provided to Te Kete Rukuruku from the local board in November 2023.

6.       It is recommended that sites with no current name or duplicated names be considered for sole Māori names. Three sites should be considered for sole naming.

7.       Sites with existing names are recommended to have Māori names adopted as dual names. This is when the existing name is retained, the Māori name is added and nothing is lost.

8.       Libraries throughout Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland are being given dual names as part of a regional naming convention. It is recommended that the four libraries in the Howick Local Board area are included in tranche one, to bring them in line with this current naming convention.

9.       This has resulted in a final list for consideration of 15 parks and four libraries for naming as tranche one. The list is included below as table one, with further details provided in Attachment A. Aerial maps of the sites are included in Attachment B.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)       endorse the Te Kete Rukuruku programme and process for Māori naming of parks and facilities, noting that it supports the visibility of te reo Māori and seeks to capture and tell the unique stories of Howick and Tāmaki Makaurau.

b)       invite mana whenua to provide Māori names and narratives for the following 15 parks and four libraries, as shown in table one below. More detail is provided in Attachment A and B of the agenda report for clarity.


 

Table one

Site Name

Street

Sole or dual name

41 Tir Conaill Avenue / Thomas Road Recreation Reserve

41 Tir Conaill Avenue LOT 405

Sole

Baverstock Park

114R Baverstock Road, Flat Bush

Dual

Botany Library

Te Pātaka Kōrero o (Māori name)

Dual

Burswood Park

170R Burswood Drive, East Tamaki

Dual

Cyril French Park

16R Bronwylian Drive / Cyril French Road

Dual

Golfland Park

111R Golfland Drive

Dual

Highland Park Library

Te Pātaka Kōrero o (Māori name)

Dual

Howick Library

Te Pātaka Kōrero o (Māori name)

Dual

Mission Heights Bush Block Reserve

104R Jeffs Road

Sole

Mission Heights Reserve

104R Jeffs Road

Dual

Murphys Bush Scenic Reserve

160R Murphys Road

Dual

Murphys Bush Reserve (old Ostrich Farm)

231 Flat Bush School Road

Sole

Norwood Estate Park

34 Norwood Drive

Dual

Pakuranga Library

Te Pātaka Kōrero o (Māori name)

Dual

Ravello Rise Reserve

16R Ravello Rise

Dual

Riverhills Park

168R Gossamer Drive

Dual

Rogers Park

Clovelly Road

Dual

Silvana Park

285R Murphys Road

Dual

Valderama Reserve

Valderama Drive

Dual

 

c)       consider adopting Māori names as sole names for three parks and dual names for 16 sites as detailed in table one.

d)       acknowledge the intent for Auckland Council to enter a mātauranga agreement that commits council to upholding the correct use of Māori names, and to use them only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

e)       note that it is expected the Māori names will be adopted by the local board to enrich the stories of our parks and support the Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learned.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     Te Kete Rukuruku is a culture and identity programme that collects and tells the unique Māori stories of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It is a partnership, led by iwi, between Auckland Council and all 19 mana whenua groups that have interests across the region.

11.     A key outcome of the programme is for te reo Māori to be seen, heard, learned and spoken. The programme contributes towards reclaiming Māori identity, and the restoration of mana and mauri (life force) to the whenua (land). This is done through the restoration of the Māori language, traditional names and associated narratives.

12.     Te Kete Rukuruku process, as agreed with iwi and local boards, is that te reo Māori names are provided by mana whenua. Public feedback on these names is not sought. Mana whenua have the mātauranga and the mana for deciding on appropriate Māori names for the whenua.

13.     Once received, the Māori names will be accepted and adopted by the local board. Communication and public notification of the Māori names will commence following this formal adoption.

Strategic alignment

14.     The adoption of dual or sole Māori names supports and delivers on multiple council policies and plans including:

a.    the Auckland Plan outlining council’s commitment to support te Reo to flourish

b.    council’s Long-term Plan 2021-2031 strategic priority of the promotion of te reo Māori

c.    the Māori Language Policy whose actions include increasing bilingual signage and dual naming.

15.     Auckland Council’s Māori Language Policy was adopted by the Governing Body in 2016 (resolution number REG/2016/89). The policy recognises council’s commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It notes that the Māori language and culture forms a critical part of a Māori identity. Reclaiming or identifying Māori names for local parks within the Howick Local Board area provides a significant opportunity to fulfil the policy intent.

16.     The Māori language policy acknowledges that te reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa and should receive equal status to English and NZ Sign Language.

Project Scope

17.     The scope of Te Kete Rukuruku, in relation to the Māori naming of parks and places, is defined as the naming, renaming or dual naming of parks and places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

18.     The programme recognises that there is a rich layer of Māori names that exist across the isthmus. It provides an opportunity for Aucklander’s to learn te Reo, Māori history and Māori values relevant to their communities.

19.     In most cases Māori naming through Te Kete Rukuruku is dual naming. Dual naming means that a Māori name is added to the existing name, thereby enriching the stories about the place or facility. The existing name is not removed. Signage will present both names with the English name following the Māori name. This is in accordance with the council’s Māori Language Policy and signage guidelines.

20.     Dual naming also means that a Māori name sits alongside another name that is not related in its meaning. In other words, the two names are not translations of each other but are independent and unique.

21.     The local board may choose to adopt a sole Māori name after the following considerations:

·     the history of the existing name

·     the community’s connection to the name

·     the usage of the name by the community

·     whether any impacts might arise from its removal.

22.     Where it is considered appropriate to replace a name, the local board will need to carefully consider who the affected parties are and determine if community engagement is required.

23.     Public consultation is not undertaken by Te Kete Rukuruku or mana whenua as part of the naming process. Any consultation with community groups, stakeholders or the public is at the local board’s discretion. It is expected that this will be completed through the local board’s current networks.  It is recommended that engagement occur prior to the parks becoming part of the Te Kete Rukuruku programme and being put forward to iwi for naming.

24.     Te Kete Rukuruku is not a signage project. Once names are adopted, signage will be replaced only when due for renewal. Should the local board wish to upgrade signage sooner to reflect the new names, funding would be required from the local board’s Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

Overview of naming process

25.     The naming process can be broadly summarised into six steps:

1.   The first step of the process is to confirm the list of parks to be named as tranche one. Any consultation with community groups, stakeholders or the public should occur at this point. The decision on which parks are named is made by the local board.

2.   Once decided, the list of parks is reported to a business meeting for resolution. This ensures transparency and results in a formal invitation to iwi to name them.

3.   The confirmed list of sites is then provided to iwi who will discuss and agree on who will name each park.

4.   Iwi undertake their own research and provide a name and a narrative outlining the meaning or story behind the name. The name may be an ancestral name that has been attached to that area prior to European occupation, or it could be a contemporary name often relating to historical activities or geographical features.

5.   The names are presented to the local board by mana whenua at a ‘hui tuku ingoa.’ This is an opportunity to build on the relationship with mana whenua, receive the names and hear the stories behind them.

6.   A report is presented at a local board business meeting for formal adoption of the Māori names. Once adopted the names are entered into Auckland Council’s website, Kura data base, any new signage will then include the new name. Any sites subject to the Reserves Act will undergo a gazettal process. Stakeholders and community groups are advised of the new names and a community celebration/event may be held.

 

Gazettal

26.     The council, as landowner, can name parks and places by resolution through exercising its power of general competence under section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002. Local boards are the allocated decision-makers for the naming of local parks, as resolved by the Governing Body on 28 June 2018 (resolution GB/2018/106).

27.     Where the land is vested in council and held as reserve under the Reserves Act, the council may name or change the name of a reserve by notice in the Gazette (s16(10) Reserves Act).

28.     As part of Te Kete Rukuruku process, any sites subject to the Reserves Act 1977 will be gazetted once the local board has adopted the names.

Libraries

29.     The libraries team has been leading a programme to provide te reo Māori names for the 55 Auckland Council libraries across the Auckland region.

30.     Research has been conducted to determine a naming convention that would be appropriate for libraries, this has included consultation with mana whenua and historians.

31.     The preferred naming convention for libraries is Te Pātaka Kōrero o (Māori place name).

32.     The concept of pātaka kōrero was developed as a metaphor for libraries. The notion of a pātaka (food storehouse) has been used as an analogy of feeding the minds of people. It also refers to the historical and cultural importance of the pātaka as a central facility of marae. Kōrero refers to the crucial role of language, stories and discussion in the transferral of information. Therefore, the combination of all of these concepts reveals “Pātaka Kōrero”.

33.     Te Kete Rukuruku supports the library process by engaging with mana whenua and local boards. The library names will be included as part of the park naming process. This will confirm the site-specific portion of the names and formalises them by resolution.

34.     The Howick Local Board has four libraries in their local board area:

·     Botany Library

·     Highland Park Library

·     Howick Library

·     Pakuranga Library

Communications approach

35.     The local communications team will use local board and council channels to communicate the decision made by the local board for tranche one names. We will focus on when the new names will be adopted, what the community is gaining and being proud of what is being achieved for all Aucklanders.

36.     Information for park stakeholders including hirers, leases, volunteers etc, will also be developed. The information will inform them on the decisions and the new names once they have been adopted.

37.     Content will be developed in consultation with mana whenua.

Background

38.     The rationale and benefits of the programme was discussed with the Howick Local Board at workshops held on 13 May 2021 and 21 April 2022. This included the process for identifying and adopting names and narratives. The Howick Local Board subsequently included Te Kete Rukuruku in its work programme for the 2022 /2023 financial year.

39.     A full list of parks in the local board area, along with any available research on the history of their existing names, was provided to the local board at the April 2022 workshop. Questions were raised about some of the existing names of the sites and further research was undertaken. The list was updated and presented for discussion at another workshop on 7 July 2022. Potential sites for naming were discussed along with clarification around process and consultation requirements. Additional workshops were held on 24 November 2022 and 3 August 2023.

40.     Internal stakeholders and iwi were contacted and asked for input into the first tranche of parks. Three sites were requested by iwi which were all supported by the local board for naming and are included on the final list. Nine sites were suggested by Parks and Community Facilities staff, of which four have been supported. A final list of sites for naming was provided to Te Kete Rukuruku from the local board at the end of November 2023.

41.     Four iwi have indicated an interest in naming sites in this local board area. There may be others who decide to participate once a formal invitation is provided. The four iwi currently interested are:

·    Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

·    Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

·    Te Ākitai Waiohua

·    Ngaati Whanaunga.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

42.     Within the Howick Local Board area there are a total of 286 parks. Six of these have Māori names that are unique to the site. This equates to 2% of the total parks in this area. Just over half (144) of the parks have been named after the street they are located on, 11 of which happen to be Māori. Another 23 sites use an address as their name.

43.     The final list of sites includes 15 parks and four libraries. The selected sites and their known histories are included as Attachment A to this report.

44.     Consultation on local park naming is a local board activity. Under the Local Government Act 2002, Part 6, Section 78, a local authority must give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter. It does not require any specific consultation process or procedure to occur, it is at the local board’s discretion.

45.     The majority of naming undertaken through Te Kete Rukuruku has not involved public consultation on site selection. Some engagement has occurred on a case-by-case basis. Specifically when English names are removed, or when there is strong interest from a community or volunteer organisation, or family associated with the park’s existing name.

46.     Previous naming undertaken with local boards has predominantly revolved around dual naming, where the English name is retained, the Māori name is added and nothing is taken away. The alternative option is adopting a sole Māori name, which involves removal of the English name.

47.     One park located at 41 Tir Conaill Avenue has no current name, and it is recommended that the local board consider adopting a sole Māori names for this site.

48.     Additionally the local board could consider a sole name for Mission Heights Bush Block Reserve. This may help to avoid confusion with the reserve across the road called Mission Heights Reserve, which could retain the Mission Heights name as a dual name. There is no official name recorded in Auckland Councils Asset Database for the bush block site.

49.     Murphy’s Bush Reserve could also have a sole name adopted to differentiate the two Murphy’s Bush sites, which are separated by a road. The area on the western side of the road incorporates a bush block in an area informally referred to as the old ostrich farm.

50.     Once approved this will be the first tranche of sites selected for naming by the Howick Local Board.

51.     Te Kete Rukuruku and mana whenua do not routinely engage with the community as part of the naming process. It is assumed at the time of writing this report that any necessary community consultation has occurred through local board channels. If the local board feel that a site requires further engagement prior to receiving a Māori name, then it should be removed from the list to allow for this to occur.

52.     Any contiguous sites may be considered for one Māori name, should mana whenua feel this is appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53.     There are no substantive climate change impacts relating to this matter.

54.     The inclusion of Māori names adopted through Te Kete Rukuruku is planned to align with signage renewal projects. This minimises environmental impacts and unnecessary wastage of resource.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55.     Te Kete Rukuruku is a cross-organisational regional programme that delivers on council’s Māori Language Policy and Kia Ora Te Reo. The policies are a priority within Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, the organisation’s Māori Outcome Performance Management Framework.  It also delivers on Kia Ora Te Ahurea (the Māori culture and identity outcomes). The programme helps to reclaim Māori identity and our unique point of difference in the world.

56.     Te Kete Rukuruku outcomes align with the aspirations of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), as articulated in the Schedule of Issues of Significance 2017, Māori Plan.

57.     This local board work programme item is a partnership programme, with the naming and narratives being led by mana whenua. It seeks to bring rigour to the process of naming across the council group over time.

58.     The programme has also triggered the development of new bilingual signage templates that are now being used across the organisation.

59.     The Parks and Community Facilities department is responsible for renewal of existing signage and will incorporate the new dual name as and when signage is renewed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

60.     Through partnering with mana whenua on this project, it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and the local board will be strengthened.

61.     Māori names are considered and connected to the sites and the area. The names add depth and interest to the park for the community.

62.     Dual language naming signage and bilingual signage helps to enrich park user experience.

63.     The programme delivers on the Howick Local Board Plan 2023 through the following outcomes and key initiatives:

·    Build and maintain mutually beneficial relationships with Māori.

Develop and strengthen relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka, in order to increase Māori input into decision-making and support participation in local government.

·    Māori culture, language, art and stories are incorporated into the design of public spaces.

Work programme projects reflect Māori culture, language, art and stories where possible.

64.     Once the names are adopted and their narratives received, the local board and Auckland Council are permitted to use them as outlined in paragraph 71 below.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65.     This programme helps to increase Māori identity and belonging and is aligned with outcomes in the Auckland Plan.

66.     The programme contributes towards outcomes from the Te Reo Māori Action Plan 2020-2023. The action plan brings to life the Māori Language Policy (2016). The plan also describes actions to champion a bilingual city where te reo Māori is seen, heard, spoken and learned.

67.     Adopting Māori names and narratives will increase the visibility of te reo Māori in the local board area. It will safeguard the stories and values of mana whenua and help ensure their survival.

68.     The adoption of Māori names is supported by iwi. All names submitted have considerable thought and research reflected through a Māori lens. 

69.     Te Kete Rukuruku enables the restoration of mana and mauri (life force) to the area through the return of the Māori language. It also raises the visibility of the traditional use and importance of this land to mana whenua.

70.     Te Kete Rukuruku has sought to establish a best practice approach to Māori naming, and the collection and sharing of stories.

71.     Mātauranga agreements are being developed to ensure that names and stories are protected by the council. It is important that the correct use is upheld, and that they are only used for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

72.     As a partnership programme, all aspects of providing names and narratives have been led by the mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau.

73.     There are a large number of resident mataawaka (Māori who live in Auckland and are not in a mana whenua group) who will have a great interest in these new names and narratives. This provides an opportunity to engage with mataawaka Māori organisations and invite them to embrace and help champion the names and narratives once the names are adopted. It provides greater opportunity for urban Māori to see themselves reflected in the area around them through the presence of the Māori language and their associated stories.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74.     Mana whenua time and resource is covered through the allocation of LDI Opex funding.

75.     Howick Local Board has one line item in their work programme for the 2023/2024 financial year. Sharepoint ID 3497: Carry forward of $3,000. This will allow iwi to resolve shared interests and complete phase one this financial year.

76.     Further funding of $4,500-$6,000 will be required for financial year 2024/2025 and will be considered as part of the local board work programme development process. This funding provides a partial contribution to iwi for their time to research, ratify and submit the tranche one names.

77.     It is not expected that names will be received until the 2024/2025 financial year.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

78.     Risks and issues were highlighted at the outset of this programme, or are added if necessary as the programme progresses. The risks are carefully managed throughout the process and mitigated in a variety of ways, as outlined in table three.


 

Table three

Potential Risks

Mitigation

Multiple mana whenua having an interest in the parks, with differing views on naming.

Timeframes are extended when required to allow robust discussion amongst iwi, should this occur. The approach of the programme is focused on a quality agreed outcome.

Extended delays in the adoption of Māori names, continuing the predominance of English only names and missing renewal opportunities.

Splitting the tranche to allow for adoption of names as they are finalised, rather than waiting for the completion of the entire tranche. This is particularly relevant when a high number of parks are being named.

Potential negative public reaction to Māori names.

The English name is retained should there be any known significance, with the Māori name being added. Communications once the Māori names are adopted, to ensure a full understanding of the significance of the names and their meanings.

High costs of replacement signage.

Signage, with the exception of one exemplar park, will be replaced as it comes up for renewal so that no additional costs are incurred. Signage in good condition in the exemplar park will be reskinned rather than replaced.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

79.     Once the sites have been resolved for naming, iwi will begin the shared interest phase of the programme. This involves the following.

·    A formal invitation from the local board to name the list of sites is passed on to iwi.

·    Any background information or development plans for any of the sites is provided.

·    Consideration of each individual site is undertaken by iwi.

·    Identification of which sites are of interest or are in areas of importance is completed.

·    Multiple hui with other iwi who have also identified an interest in naming the sites may be necessary.

·    Agreement on who will name each site, either solely by one iwi or jointly by two or more iwi, is finalised.

·    If jointly naming sites with other iwi, agreement on how that process will work is required.

80.     The local board communications team will liaise with the local board on any media releases, or information requiring dissemination in relation to the selection of the tranche one sites for naming.

81.     The local board will need to approve funding for the next phase of tranche one as part of their annual work programme for financial year 2024/2025.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tranche One Naming List

 

b

Tranche One Aerial Maps

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dawn Bardsley - Naming Lead

Authorisers

Anahera Higgins - Head of Māori Outcomes

Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services & Strategy

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Local Board views on Notices of Requirement for Stages 3C and 4L of the Eastern Busway

File No.: CP2024/01679

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite the Howick Local Board’s views on the two Notices of Requirement (NoRs) lodged by Auckland Transport for Stages 3 Commercial (EB3C) and 4 Link Road (EB4L) of the Eastern Busway.

2.       The Notice of Requirement for EB3C seeks to provide for the extension of the existing Eastern Busway and modifications and improvements to the road network from Ti Rākau Drive, adjacent to Riverhills Park to Ti Rākau Drive, adjacent to Guys Reserve.

3.       The Notice of Requirement for EB4L seeks to provide for the extension of the existing Eastern Busway, and modifications and improvements to the road network on land from Ti Rākau Drive through Guys Reserve and Whaka Maumahara Reserve to Te Irirangi Drive, Botany. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.       Decision-makers on a Notice of Requirement (NoR) to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the NoR, if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

5.       Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including on a NoR. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board[1].

6.       The Eastern Busway Alliance, on behalf of Auckland Transport, has served two NoRs on Auckland Council to designate land for the extension of the existing Eastern Busway and modifications and improvements to the road networks.

7.       The NoRs were publicly notified on 8 December 2023 and submissions closed on 30 January 2024. A total of 34 submissions were received on the two NoRs, including from land owners, businesses, utility operators, and central government entities. The key themes arising from submissions include concerns about traffic, social Impact, noise and vibration, air pollution, economic effects, effects on open spaces and parks, and planning.

8.       This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on the NoRs. Staff do not recommend a view the local board should convey.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provide local board views on the Notices of Requirement for Stage 3 Commercial and Stage 4 Link Road of the Eastern Busway.

b)      appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on the Notices of Requirement.

c)       delegate authority to the chairperson of Howick Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the hearing on the Notices of Requirement.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.[2]

10.     The NoRs are for new designations for Stages 3C and 4L of the Eastern Busway to provide for extension of the existing Eastern Busway and modifications and improvements to the road network in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views where any process proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

11.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planners include those views in the hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the NoRs, along with all submissions.

12.     If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who will make a recommendation on the NoRs.

13.     Following receipt of the recommendation, the Requiring Authority would be required to advise the council, within 30 working days, whether they accept or reject the recommendation in whole or in part. Once the council has received a decision from the Requiring Authority, submitters will be advised and are then given an opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court if they are not satisfied with the outcome. Auckland Council will also have the opportunity at this stage to appeal the decision.

14.     This report provides an overview of the NoRs and a summary of the key themes in submissions.

15.     The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey. Staff cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     On the 29 September 2023, Auckland Transport lodged the EB3C and EB4L NoRs with the Council, together with resource consent applications for vegetation clearance, works within the coastal marine area, stream works, diversion and drawdown of groundwater, and discharge of contaminated soil. They were publicly notified on 8 December 2023 and submissions closed on 30 January 2024.

17.     A summary of the NoRs is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Description of the EB3C and EB4L NoRs for the Eastern Busway

Notice of Requirement

Project Name

Description

Requiring Authority

EB3C

Eastern Busway 3 Commercial

Extension of the existing Eastern Busway from Ti Rākau Drive, adjacent to Riverhills Park to Ti Rākau Drive, adjacent to Guys Reserve.

Key features include the construction of two new bridges, construction of bus lanes, a new intermediate bus station at Burswood, walking and cycling infrastructure, and upgrade of stormwater infrastructure.

Auckland Transport

EB4L

Eastern Busway 4 Link Road

Extension of the existing Eastern Busway on land from Ti Rākau Drive through Guys Reserve and Whaka Maumahara Reserve to Te Irirangi Drive, Botany.

Key features include construction of a retaining wall and bridge structure across Guys Reserve and Whaka Maumahara Reserve, construction of bus lanes, new walking and cycling infrastructure, and upgrade of stormwater infrastructure.

Auckland Transport

 

 

18.     The location of the NoRs is shown below.

Figure 1: Extent of the EB3C NoR

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Extent of the EB3C NoR (continued)

Figure 1: Extent of the EB3C NoR (continued)

Figure 2: Extent of the EB4L NoR

 

19.     The timing of the works will depend upon funding. Auckland Transport has asked for a five (5) year lapse period for the EB3C NoR and a ten (10) year lapse period for the EB4L NoR.

20.     The NoRs include technical reports that evaluate:

·   traffic

·   arboriculture

·   natural character, landscape and visual

·   social impact

·   stormwater

·   noise and vibration (construction and operational)

·   open space

·   ecology

·   air quality

·   archaeology.

21.     The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at: 

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/notices-of-requirement-to-designate-land/Pages/default.aspx

Council planners, and other experts, are evaluating the NoRs, and will report on:

·   technical reports supplied by the applicant

·   submissions

·   views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

22.     Auckland Transport requested that the NoRs be publicly notified. The NoRs were publicly notified on 8 December 2023 and submissions closed on 30 January 2024.

Themes from submissions received

23.     Submissions on the NoRs were made by 34 organisations and people:

24.     Key issues raised in the submissions to the EB3C and EB4L NoRs are listed below: 

·   increased traffic flow and noise

·   effects of dust, noise and vibration from construction

·   businesses concerned about access changes/restrictions during construction

·   concerns about safe and efficient access to Botany Town Centre

·   increased congestion in and around Botany Town Centre

·   loss of customer patronage and associated business revenue for tenants at Botany Town Centre

·   encroachment of the designation boundary into the Z Energy site at 284 Ti Rakau Drive, and concerns about restricted access

·   loss of amenity due to increase traffic noise and air pollution

·   prevents Mobile Ti Rakau Drive from continuing to operate

·   effects on Watecare’s assets and operations

·   safe and convenient access to the proposed cycleway and bus services

·   effects on open space and tree removal

·   Chinatown and other retailers - ensure entrances and carpark are clear and clean

·   effects on the operation, maintenance and development of Transpower assets.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

26.     The Eastern Busway is a critical part of achieving the desired modal shift from private motor vehicle use to increases in both public and active transport patronage, particularly through its planned improvements in bus and active transport (walking and cycling) infrastructure, and once constructed is projected to reduce the region’s carbon emissions by 9,929 kg per day by 2028.[3]

27.     The local board could consider if the NoRs:

·   will reduce, increase or have no effect on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form)

·   prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change i.e. do the NoRs elevate or alleviate climate risks (e.g. flooding, coastal and storm inundation, urban heat effect, stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     Auckland Transport is the requiring authority that has lodged the two NoRs.

29.     Watercare Services have lodged submissions on both NoRs to ensure that the construction and operation of the Eastern Busway does not have any adverse effects on Watecare’s ability to provide water and wastewater services.

30.     The council’s Healthy Waters and Parks Services departments have specialists within the council’s project team, who will contribute to the reporting planners’ hearing report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31.     The NoRs fall within the Howick Local Board area.

32.     Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view include:

·   interests and preferences of people in local board area

·   well-being of communities within the local board area

·   local board documents, such as local board plan, local board agreement

·   responsibilities and operation of the local board.

33.     Auckland Transport have advised that the Howick Local Board has received regular updates on the project.

34.     Feedback at that stage was informal. Restrictions on delegations prevent that informal feedback from being the views of the local board.[4] 

35.     This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The hearings panel will consider local board views, if provided, when making its recommendation on the NoRs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36.     If the local board chooses to provide its views on the NoRs, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world view). In the 2018 census, 6% residents in the local board area identified as Māori.

37.     Auckland Transport has engaged with local iwi to help identify key cultural issues associated with the project and address any potential effects this may raise. These iwi groups were Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Patukirikiri, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Paoa Trust, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Te Ahiwaru and Ngāti Tamaterā.

38.     No mana whenua groups have submitted on the NoRs.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39.     There are no financial implications with the local board providing its views.

40.     The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views.

41.     The cost associated with processing the NoRs is recoverable from Auckland Transport.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a NoR cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).[5] To avoid the procedural risk of an individual local board member expressing the views of the local board, this report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43.     The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wong - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2024/01989

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on Auckland Transport’s proposed work programme for 2024-2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport is building a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes.

3.       At this stage of the Project Kōkiri (part of the Local Board Relationship Project), Auckland Transport is seeking formal views on the proposed work programme for 2024-2025.

4.       Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the local board on 30 November 2023 and 22 February 2024 to aid developing views on priorities.

5.       After the local board provides formal views, Auckland Transport will provide a response to the local board before delivering a draft local board transport agreement (Kōkiri) to June 2024 business meetings for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provides views on the proposed work programme on which projects the local board requests Auckland Transport to:

i)       collaborate

ii)       consult

iii)      inform. 

b)      provides any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes

c)       provides any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to review that are not supported by the local community.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

6.       In mid-2023, Project Kōkiri was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT).

7.       The project was in part a response to the 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations which highlighted the need for local boards and Auckland Transport to work more meaningfully and collaboratively.

8.       AT has taken steps to improve information flow and local board decision-making, including:

·    instituting an annual forward works programme briefing for all local boards

·    increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

·    providing local board insights in all project engagement

·    participating in Auckland Council’s CCO Engagement Plan reporting.

9.       Auckland Transport aims to provide a better basis for communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations, and opportunities. 

10.     The overall purpose of this process is to identify local board interest in AT projects and programmes and to clearly express the preferred levels of local board engagement.

11.     The levels of engagement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine; and are as follows:

Collaboration

AT and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme.  The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.

Consultation

AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.

Informing

AT leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by AT, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     AT first provided quality advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 30 November 2023.

13.     The local board has continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 22 February 2024.

14.     This report seeks to confirm local board feedback on the proposed work programme and seek views on how the local board wants to work together with Auckland Transport.

15.     Auckland Transport recommends that the local board prioritises work programme items aligned to transport goals stated in their local board plan.

16.     The local board should prioritise a list of projects and programmes for each of the three levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform).

17.     Auckland Transport resource is limited. Projects in the collaborate and consult require significant staff and elected member time such as:

·    providing quality advice, including technical advice on options and their costs as well as benefit analysis.  Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop.

·    considering the advice, time is required for members to process and understand the advice provided.

·    making a formal decision, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

18.     Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as local board transport capital fund projects.

19.     Other projects and programmes that may be at the ‘collaborate’ level include any projects which the local board has delegated financial control over either by AT, council or by another government agency like New Zealand Transport Agency.

20.     There may also be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but is not currently identified in AT planning. Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes.

21.     There may be projects or programmes that the local board considers are not supported by the community it represents.  This report provides an opportunity for the local board to express its community’s concerns about proposed work. AT will consider and may decide not to proceed with these projects based on the local board’s feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

23.     AT reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. AT’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed AT to improve the relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how AT will achieve closer Local Board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

25.     AT’s ‘2023-26 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (AT) will engage more meaningfully and transparently with Local Boards, recognising that they represent their communities, and that they should have greater involvement in local transport projects that affect those communities. This means a genuine partnership where we seek to understand the unique and diverse needs of each Local Board at a regional level, not just by project. We will work in partnership to integrate those needs into our planning. We will support Local Boards to communicate integrated local transport planning to their communities.”

26.     Project Kōkiri provides an annual process where local boards prioritise a group of key programmes or projects, identifying them to AT, and setting engagement levels that capture the local board’s expectations. This plan forms the basis for regular reporting on key programs and projects.  Project Kōkiri will be supported by regular updates to provide transparency.

27.     Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division.  It has also been reported generally monthly to the Local Board Chair’s Forum and discussed with a reference group of local board chairs.

28.     Further, this work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other CCOs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29.     The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 30 November 2023 to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. They have been specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by AT executive leaders.

30.     There was an additional workshop on 22 February 2024 with the AT Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views. 

31.     A range of opinions were expressed at the 22 February 2024 workshop on the merits of various proposed AT projects. Generally, the local board welcomed more formal reporting on selected projects at business meetings. This will allow it the opportunity to provide formal feedback to Auckland Transport to better reflect community views and to align its feedback with its local board plan 2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32.     Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

33.     AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.     This decision has no financial implications for the Howick Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

35.     Local boards do have a transport budget through the local board transport funds, and these projects are included in this report. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     The proposed decision does carry some risk. First, the local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested.  If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs to AT and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     After receiving this report, AT will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

38.     AT may engage with the local board directly after receiving their formal resolutions to clarify positions or to discuss the proposed levels of engagement.

39.     By mid-May 2024, AT will provide a memo outlining its response to this report. This memo will provide the basis for future engagement.

40.     In June 2024, AT will draft a report with an attached annual ‘Kōkiri’ (local board transport agreement) stating how AT and the local board will engage over the next 12 months. 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement - Forward Works Programme Brief

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy - Principal Advisor Strategic Relationships, Auckland Transport 

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/01991

 

  

 

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 Howick 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.

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

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

Watercare

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

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans - Eke Panuku Development Auckland work programme update

 

b

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans - Watercare work programme update

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02457

 

  

 

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 Howick 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

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02460

 

  

 

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 Howick 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

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Representation project – issues specific to the Howick Local Board

File No.: CP2024/02083

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on representation project issues that are specific to the Howick Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The representation project comprises the review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections, which the council is required to undertake, and the development of a reorganisation plan that reduces the number of local boards.

3.       A report on both these matters is being presented to all local boards and is on the same agenda as this report.

4.       This report deals only with those matters that are specific to the Howick Local Board. The key issue is the non-compliance of subdivisions with the 10 percent rule which applies to a representation review. This report presents alternative options to correcting the non-compliance.

5.       At a recent workshop local board members noted that the name of the local board is identical to the name of one of its subdivisions. This report provides the opportunity for the board to convey a proposal for an alternative name if that is its wish.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Receive the update on the result of public consultation on the matters that are discussed in this report.

b)      Provide feedback on which option it prefers for addressing the non-compliance of the Botany subdivision with the 10 percent rule.

c)       Provide feedback on its preference, if any, for changing the name of the Howick Local Board.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       One issue raised in this report relates to the review of representation arrangements for the Howick Local Board for the 2025 elections..

7.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that subdivisions provide for effective representation of communities of interest and that they also comply with the rule that the population per member within a subdivision does not vary from the average population per member for the whole local board by more than 10 percent.

8.       A council may decide to not comply with the requirement for population per member to not vary by more than 10 percent from the average, if complying would compromise effective representation of communities of interest by:

·    dividing a community of interest or

·    joining communities with few commonalities of interest.

9.       A decision to not comply is referred to the Local Government Commission for their determination.

10.     The population table for subdivisions in the Howick Local Board is as follows:

 

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

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

 

11.     The statistics are a 2023 estimate of residential population that is based on the 2018 census. The Botany Subdivision varies from the average (“quota”) by 34.20%, being under-represented (the subdivision needs less population).

12.     There is an excess of 5,989 population per member in the Botany subdivision, being an excess of 17,967 population over three members. That is a significant number to transfer out of the Botany subdivision to bring the percentage difference from the quota to zero. A total of around 12,500 would need to transfer out of Botany to bring the percentage difference from quota down to 10 percent.

13.     A map of current subdivisions is as follows:

 


333

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     In order to address non-compliance, the Botany subdivision needs to lose population by extending the Howick or Pakuranga subdivisions into the Botany subdivision. Alternatively it might achieve compliance by adding members, which reduces the ratio of population per member within the subdivision.

Option 1 – add two members to the Botany subdivision

15.     If two members are added to the Botany subdivision, without any boundary changes, the subdivision complies. The population table is as follows:

Subdivision

Pop
(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from Quota

% diff

Pakuranga

43,100

3

14,367

39

0.27

Howick

44,000

3

14,667

339

2.37

Botany

70,500

5

14,100

-227

-1.59

Total

157,600

11

14,327

 

 

 

Option 2 – shrink the Botany subdivision boundaries

16.     This retains 9 members but adjusts boundaries to address non-compliance. There are a number of ways that changes could be made to the Pakuranga and Howick subdivisions. The following map illustrates the degree of change that would be required. The Howick subdivision extends past the Botany Town Centre and the Pakuranga subdivision extends to the Howick Local Board southern boundary west of Te Irirangi Road.

 

Option 3 – combination: increase members and adjust boundaries

17.     This increases the number of members by only one and makes a smaller adjustment to boundaries.  The Pakuranga subdivision is extended to take in Burswood. The Howick subdivision is extended at its southern-most point to Ti Rakau Drive.

 

Option 4 – add members and split the Botany subdivision

18.     This option increases the number of members in the current Botany subdivision to five members, as for Option 1, and splits the subdivision into two separate subdivisions – a smaller Botany subdivision with a Flatbush subdivision to its south. With five members total there are two sub-options:

(i)         Option 4a: Botany has 3 members and Flatbush has 2 members

(ii)        Option 4b: Botany has 2 members and Flatbush has 3 members

Option 4a – Botany with three members and Flatbush with two members

19.     The following map illustrates this option:

 

20.     The population table is:

Subdivision

Pop
(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from Quota

% diff

Pakuranga

43,100        

3

   14,367

39

0.27

Howick

44,000

3

   14,667

339

2.37

Botany

41,790

3

   13,930

-397

-2.77

Flat Bush

28,710

2

   14,355

 28

 0.19

Total

157,600

11

14,327

 

 

 

Option 4b – Botany with two members and Flatbush with three members

21.     The following map illustrates this option:

A map of different colored states

Description automatically generated

 

22.     The population table is:

Subdivision

Pop
(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from Quota

% diff

Pakuranga

43,100

3

14,367

39

0.27

Howick

44,000

3

14,667

339

2.37

Botany

27,840

2

13,920

-407

-2.84

Flat Bush

42,660

3

14,220

 -107

     0.75

Total

157,600

11

14,327

 

 

 

Effective representation of communities of interest

23.     Each of the options addresses the non-compliance of the Botany subdivision with the 10 percent rule. The board needs to consider which option best provides for effective representation of communities of interest. It is important to note that it is not just a matter of identifying communities of interest but determining effective representation of communities of interest.

24.     The Local Government Commission has published guidance on the concept of “community of interest”. Essentially a community of interest has three dimensions:

(i)         A perceptual dimension – do people feel they belong to the area?

(ii)        A functional dimension – do people use the services in the area?

(iii)       A political dimension – will people in the area, and their needs and issues, be effectively represented at the decision-making table if representatives are elected by electors of this subdivision?

25.    

26.     There has been considerable population growth in the Botany subdivision, compared to Howick and Pakuranga, since inception in 2010. The population table when the local board was established in 2010 was as follows:

Subdivision

Pop
(2010)

Mbrs

% diff

Pakuranga

41,900

3

-1.9

Howick

42,700

3

-0.1

Botany

43,600

3

2.0

Total

128,100

9

 

 

27.     At its workshop the board carefully considered the options of expanding the Howick and Pakuranga subdivisions without increasing the number of members. Members expressed concern that any proposed new boundaries for Pakuranga and Howick would compromise the communities of interest associated with those subdivisions. Boundaries would extend to areas where residents would likely not identify with Howick or Pakuranga.

28.     Given the growth in population in the Botany subdivision members considered that effective representation of communities of interest would be better achieved by increasing the number of members. They also considered that the Botany area to the north of the subdivision and the Flatbush area to the south of the subdivision would be enhanced by having separate representation. In terms of the Local Government Commission guide – residents in these areas would identify with those areas and would have different interests that would benefit from separate representation at the decision-making table.

29.     The Howick Local Board has been consulting with the public on the options relating to increasing the number of members and the results of the consultation will be provided to the board prior to the meeting.

Name of the Howick Local Board

30.     At a recent workshop local board members noted that the name of the local board is identical to the name of one of its subdivisions. The board might wish to recommend a name change. This has also been the subject of consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31.     The options being considered in relation to the representation review do not impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.     There is no impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33.     This report provides an opportunity for the board to provide feedback to the Joint Governance Working Party and the Governing Body on issues relating to the representation review.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The issues being considered largely do not impact on Māori differently to other members of the community. It is noted that the board might consider a name change and that the original name applied to the local board by the Local Government Commission was Te Irirangi. This was overturned by Parliament.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     There will be costs associated with LINZ producing official maps of boundary changes. For the 2019 review this was around $12,000 total for all changes. These costs are met by the representation project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     There is the risk that the Governing Body’s final proposal will be appealed to the Local Government Commission, in which case the Commission will make final decisions after receiving submissions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     The board’s feedback will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party and then to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02086

 

  

 

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 Howick 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[6].

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

 

b

Summary of consultation feedback, including feedback by local board aea

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34

File No.: CP2024/02455

 

  

 

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 2024-34 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 Howick Local Board:

a)      provide / whakarite local views on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34 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 2024-34

 

b

Memo Consultation on the new draft GPS on Land Transport 2024

 

c

GPS Land Transport - Local Board Feedback template

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authoriser

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Howick Local Board Workshop Records

File No.: CP2024/01393

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This item attaches the workshop records taken for the period stated below.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Under Standing Order 12.1 workshop records shall record the names of members attending and a statement summarising the nature of the information received, and nature of matters discussed.  No resolutions are passed, or decisions reached but are solely for the provision of information and discussion.

3.       This report attaches the workshop records for the period stated below.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for the workshops held on 22, 29 February and 7, 14 March.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Howick Local Board Workshop Records - 22 February 2024 Record of Workshop

 

b

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Howick Local Board Workshop Records - 29 February 2024 Record of Workshop

 

c

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Howick Local Board Workshop Records - 7 March 2024 Record of Workshop

 

d

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Howick Local Board Workshop Records - 14 March 2024 Record of Workshop

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matt Fletcher - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 

 


Howick Local Board

21 March 2024

 

 

Hōtaka Kaupapa | Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2024/01394

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Howick Local Board with its updated Hōtaka Kaupapa.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa for the Howick Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to meetings and distributed to council staff.

3.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendars was introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim 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.

 

Ngā tūtohunga                                                                        

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      note the Hōtaka Kaupapa included as Attachment A of the agenda report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 March 2024, Howick Local Board - Hōtaka Kaupapa | Governance Forward Work Calendar - Copy of the Hōtaka Kaupapa

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matt Fletcher - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 



[1] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 15(2)(c).

[2] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss15-16.

[3] Page 30 of Section 3.1 of the Eastern Busway 3 Commercial and 4 Link Road, Assessment of Environmental Effects.

[4] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Part 1A, clause 36D

[5] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D

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