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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 26 March 2024

9.30am

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

and via Microsoft videoconference

 

Franklin Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Angela Fulljames

 

Deputy Chairperson

Alan Cole

 

Members

Malcolm Bell JP

 

 

Sharlene Druyven

 

 

Gary Holmes

 

 

Amanda Hopkins

 

 

Andrew Kay

 

 

Amanda Kinzett

 

 

Logan Soole

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Denise Gunn

Democracy Advisor

 

18 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: 021 981 028

Email: denise.gunn@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 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: Waiuku Association Football Club                                               5

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                                                      6

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                                                              6

11        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                            9

12        Representation project - issues specific to the Franklin Local Board                  25

13        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                        33

14        Auckland Transport - Project Kōkiri March 2024                                                     41

15        Auckland Transport Project for Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School - Board Feedback-2                                                                                        51

16        Proposed landowner approval to Kahawai Point Development Limited for the creation of a marine facility at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve, Glenbrook 59

17        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                                                                    69

18        Local board views on Plan Change 95 (Private) at Golding Road, Pukekohe      85

19        Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34                                                                      93

20        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                                                                                       99

21        Approval for a private road name at 1 Seventh View Avenue, Beachlands       117

22        Approval for three new private road names at 3 and 17 Clevedon Kawakawa Road, Clevedon                                                                                                                     125

23        Approval to amend the road names approved at the Karaka Village subdivision (69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road, Papakura                                                       135

24        Governance Forward Work calendar  - Hōtaka Kaupapa - March 2024              145

25        Franklin Local Board workshop records                                                                149

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

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

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

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)         whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 27 February 2024, including the confidential section, as true and correct.

 

 

 

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

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


 

 

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Franklin Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Deputation: Waiuku Association Football Club

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Phil Donovan, representing the Waiuku Association Football Club, will be in attendance.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Representatives of the Waiuku Association Football Club will take the opportunity to present the current situation for organisations that utilise Massey Park in Waiuku. This includes the  Waiuku Cricket Club.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      Thank Phil Donovan, representing the Waiuku Association Football Club, for his attendance and presentation on the current situation for organisations utilising Massey Park in Waiuku.

 

 

 

 

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

 

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02458

 

  

 

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 Franklin 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, Governance Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard – General Manager – Governance Services

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Representation project - issues specific to the Franklin Local Board

File No.: CP2024/02101

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on representation project issues that are specific to the Franklin 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 Franklin 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.       The report also provides advice following questions from members about changes to the Auckland boundary with Waikato District.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on its preferred option for addressing the non-compliance of the Waiuku subdivision with the 10 percent rule.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       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.

7.       A council may decide to not comply with the requirement for population to 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.

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

9.       The population table for subdivisions in the Franklin Local Board is as follows:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Franklin Local Board Area

Pukekohe

41,800

4

10,450

967

10.2%

Wairoa

27,200

3

9,067

-417

-4.4%

Waiuku

16,350

2

8,175

-1,308

-13.8%

Total

85,350

9

9,483

 

 

 

10.     There is a small non-compliance in the Waiuku subdivision. It is over-represented and needs to gain population.

11.     A map of the current subdivisions is as follows:

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     Staff present two options for correcting the non-compliance of the Waiuku subdivision. One option extends Waiuku into Pukekohe up to Patumahoe Road. The other option extends Waiuku into Clarks Beach and Waiau Pa.


 

Option 1 – Waiuku extends to Patumahoe Road

13.     The maps for this option are as follows, the bold yellow line is the new boundary:

 

 

 

14.     The population table for Option 1 is:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Franklin Local Board Area

Pukekohe

39,730

4

9,933

449

4.7%

Wairoa

27,190

3

9,063

-420

-4.4%

Waiuku

18,430

2

9,215

-268

-2.8%

Total

85,350

9

9,483

 

 

 

Option 2 – Waiuku extends to Clarks Beach and Waiau Pa

15.     The maps for this option are as follows, with the bold yellow line indicating the new boundary (Kingseat Road):

 

 

16.     The population table for Option 2 is:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Franklin Local Board Area

Pukekohe

38,460

4

9,615

132

1.4%

Wairoa

27,190

3

9,063

-420

-4.4%

Waiuku

19,700

2

9,850

367

3.9%

Total

85,350

9

9,483

 

 

Effective representation of communities of interest

17.     Each of the options addresses the non-compliance of the Waiuku subdivision with the 10 percent rule. The board needs to consider which, if any, represents a community of interest with the remainder of the Waiuku subdivision.

18.     Alternatively, if the board considers that each option compromises communities of interest then it might recommend that the council does not comply with the 10 percent rule.

19.     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?

20.     The board might consider that one option, more than the other, defines an area where residents share a common sense of identity with the rest of Waiuku, use similar council services and will be effectively represented at the local board decision-making table by the Waiuku subdivision representatives.

Boundary with Waikato District

21.     At a recent workshop members asked whether the boundary with Waikato District could be considered during the review. The purpose of this would be to include in Franklin those residents in Waikato who currently use Auckland Council facilities due to their proximity.

22.     Staff have consulted with the Local Government Commission who advised that changes of this type would require either:

(i)         a reorganisation initiative under Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002

(ii)        a local authority-led reorganisation application under clauses 22A-22B, Schedule 3

23.     A reorganisation initiative involves requesting the Local Government Commission to investigate.  A local authority-led reorganisation application involves all affected councils adopting a reorganisation plan and submitting it to the Commission for approval.

24.     Staff do not currently have the capacity to investigate this further at the present time but the Board might wish to indicate its interest in pursuing this later.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     Minor changes to subdivision boundaries do not have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     There are no impacts on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide its feedback on options to adjust subdivision boundaries to address the requirements of the 10 percent rule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     Small adjustments to subdivision boundaries should not impact on Māori communities differently to other communities. Iwi who have rohe in the Franklin area will have relationships with the full board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     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 are costs of the representation project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30.     There is the risk that members of the public will appeal the council’s final proposal which will result in the Local Government Commission making the determination. If the council decides to not comply with the 10 percent rule, the Commission makes the determination in any case.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.     The board’s feedback will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party which will then make recommendations to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authoriser

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02463

 

  

 

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 Franklin 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)      over time 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

John Nash – Principal Advisor – Local Board Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard – General Manager – Governance Services

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurrewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Transport - Project Kōkiri March 2024

File No.: CP2024/02524

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive and consider the recommendations from Auckland Transport contained in the attachment Project Kōkiri March 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Franklin Local Board will consider recommendations contained in Attachment A of this report, Project Kōkiri March 2024, which provides a proposed Auckland Transport work programme for the year for the Franklin Local Board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      receive and consider the recommendations in the Project Kōkiri - Local Board Response to Auckland Transport’s Proposed Work Programme report in Attachment A

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport - Project Kōkiri March 2024

43

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Project Kōkiri - Local Board Response to Auckland Transport’s Proposed Work Programme

File No.: CP2024/02393

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek formal views from the local board about Auckland Transport’s proposed work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Kōkiri is the name of Auckland Transport’s (AT) programme of work designed to provide a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with, and to influence transport projects and programmes.

3.       The project has been discussed with the local board including AT providing both quality advice and support to consider this advice alongside the Local Board Plan.  At this stage, AT requests that the local board provide their feedback on the proposed work programme.

4.       This report requires a decision, in that the local board is asked to prioritise key projects or programmes and then state its expectations for AT engagement with it during their delivery.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)  requests Collaboration with Auckland Transport about the following projects or programmes:

i)    Whangapouri Bridge Project.

ii)   Transport projects included in the proposed Franklin target rate, if it is struck. 

 

b)  requests Consultation with Auckland Transport about the following projects or programmes:

i)    Clevedon Village safety and efficiency measures.

ii)   Butley Drive pedestrian improvements.

iii)   Mill and Harrisville Road Intersection.

iv)  Parking changes and strategy.

 

c)  requests being Informed by Auckland Transport about the following projects or programmes:

i)    Flood and slip repair programme.

ii)   Any seismic assessment of a bridge in the local board area.

iii)   Kitchener Road new footpath.

iv)  Waiuku pedestrian improvements:

A.   Queen Street, Mellsop Avenue, George Street pedestrian improvements project.

B.   Waiuku College pedestrian crossing Constable Road.

C.  George Street, Waiuku zebra crossing upgrade.

v)   If a minor transport project is judged by AT to have a high degree of local interest, and if AT is not constrained by safety or network efficiency consideration allowing options for changes based on feedback, it can be moved to ‘Consult.’

vi)  The Community Transport team’s programme, so that local board members can participate in activities.

d)  The following projects or programmes are considered by Auckland Transport for inclusion in future work programmes, and that if they cannot be included then the local board is provided quality advice about why:

i)    the local board has requested several changes to the Road Corridor renewal programme including ‘consult’ level engagement. Details will be confirmed in a response memo and these pieces of work will be listed in the ‘consult’ section of the Kōkiri agreement.

ii)   better public transport that is fit for purpose allowing Franklin people:

A.   better access to Auckland’s public and active transport networks, employment centres and community service hubs

B.   to contribute to reducing carbon emissions by using public transport.

iii)   development of new design standards for work and construction in the road corridor, that provide more flexible options for work in rural areas (i.e. the use of gravel rather than concrete paths in rural areas to reduce construction costs)

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       Historically, the relationship between AT and local boards has been criticised, and there is a long-standing desire for local boards to have a more structured and supported relationship with AT. 

 

6.       In 2020, Auckland Council reviewed council-controlled organisation (CCO) governance and a report was published that listed many recommendations. The 2020 CCO Governance Review’s summed up the difficulties of CCO/local board relationships succinctly in the following paragraph:

 

 “CCOs’ interactions with local boards does not result in effective accountability. CCOs largely inform local boards about projects in their area rather than seek real input into their design. CCOs are also not sufficiently responsive to local boards’ concerns and do not co-ordinate their efforts in local board areas with other CCOs. The time has come for local boards and senior CCO managers to sit down and thrash out a more meaningful way of working together. And local boards need to show more initiative in their relationships with CCOs when it comes to integrating their planning into CCOs’ own planning.”

 

and the release of the 2020 CCO Governance Review led to a series of activities to improve relations between CCO’s and local boards. This work culminated in the development and implementation of annual CCO engagement plans.

 

7.       AT conducted a significant amount of work internally to support the process including an investigation of the relationship and took steps to improve information flow and inclusion of local board perspectives in decision-making, including:

a)   Instituting an annual ‘forward works programme’ briefing for all local boards.

 

b)   Increasing the number of updates sent to local boards.

 

c)   Including local board insights in all project engagement.

 

d)   Participation in Auckland Council’s annual CCO Engagement Plan process.

 

8.       In 2022, a new Council and Mayor were elected initiating a new ‘Letter of Expectation’ that included direction about improving AT’s relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, the Letter of Expectation states 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.”

 

9.       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.”

 

10.     In mid-2023, Project Kōkiri was initiated. The project aims to bring local boards and AT closer together and provide a structured and easy to understand process for local boards to express their communities’ expectations regarding transport projects.

 

11.     The aim is that a structured process that is understood by all participants will provide the basis for better communication and therefore understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations and opportunities.  The process is based on the CCO Engagement Plan and Auckland Council’s successful changes to how its Community Facilities department works with local boards. Essentially, using successful as the starting point for a process of discussion and policy development with local boards.

 

12.     The process is based on several activities being undertaken as follows:

a)   Late-2023: AT provides quality advice to all local boards about its work programme and about their ability to influence projects or programmes.

b)   February-March 2024: Local boards provide feedback to AT about their community’s expectations from AT’s work programme.

c)   April – May 2024: AT responds to the local board feedback.

d)   June 2024: A report confirms the agreed level of engagement between AT and the local board over work being delivered in the area.

13.     The overall, aim of this process is to identify AT projects and programmes that the local board is interested in; and to clearly express the level of engagement that members would like to have with AT regarding the project.

 

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

 

a)   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.

 

b)   Consultation: AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities for it 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.

 

c)   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.

 

15.     Additionally, there may be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but that are not currently identified in AT planning.  Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes. Firstly, as part of your resolutions arising out of this report or in a submission to the Regional Land Transport Plan

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     AT provided quality advice at a workshop on Tuesday 5th December 2024. Since then, the local board, supported by AT has considered the advice including workshops on the following date: Tuesday 13th February 2024. This report is to confirm the feedback that this local board is providing to AT about the work programme and how it wishes to work together with AT.

 

17.     AT’s advice is to prioritise, based on the local board’s transport goals stated in the Local Board Plan, selecting a manageable number of projects of programmes for each of the three levels of engagement.

 

18.     This is because any project requiring local board decision-making (collaborate and consult levels of engagement) requires time and elected member input that is structured in the following manner:

a)  Quality advice including technical advice about options and their costs or benefits must be provided about the decision.  Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop.

 

b)   Consideration of the advice, time is required for members to think about the advice provided.

c)   A local board decision, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

19.     This process takes time and places a significant burden on local board member’s workshop time so is the basis for AT to recommend prioritising the level of engagement requested for projects or programmes within the work programme.

 

20.     After supporting consideration and working with the local board AT recommend the following levels of engagement for projects and programmes:

a)  Collaborate:

i)    All Local Board Capital Fund projects are intended to be collaborate. Due to funding constraints the Board only has one project. That being Whangapouri Bridge.

ii)  The board currently has out for consultation a targeted rate to progress transport and connectivity projects in Franklin. Should this proceed then AT will collaborate with board to deliver the boards projects. A meeting with Ats senior management has already occurred to progress this.

b) Consult:

i)   With the consult projects the degree of consultation will depend on the magnitude of the project or programme. Major projects may involve several workshops and potential decisions throughout the life of the project. Others will be a one off.

ii)  The projects are:

A.   Clevedon Village safety and efficiency measures

B.   Butley Drive pedestrian improvements

C.  Mill and Harrisville Road Intersection

D.  Parking changes and strategy.

c)  Inform:

A.     Inform projects are:

A.   Flood and slip repair programme.

B.   Any seismic assessment of a bridge in the local board area.

C.  Kitchener Road new footpath.                          

D.  Waiuku pedestrian improvements:

i.   Queen Street, Mellsop Avenue, George Street pedestrian improvements project.

ii.  Waiuku College pedestrian crossing, George Street.

iii.  George Street, Waiuku zebra crossing upgrade.

E.   If a minor transport project is judge by AT to have a high degree of local interest, and if AT is not constrained by safety or network efficiency consideration allowing options for changes based on feedback it can be moved to ‘consult.’

F.   The Community Transport team’s programme, so that local board members can participate in activities.

21.     Additionally, after reviewing AT’s proposed work programmed and considering the expectations of its community the local board would like to advocate to AT for inclusion of the following projects or programmes in its work programme:

a)    The local board has requested several changes to the Road Corridor renewal programme including ‘consult’ level engagement. Details will be confirmed in a response memo and these pieces of work will be listed in the ‘consult’ section of the Kōkiri agreement.

b)    Better public transport that is fit for purpose allowing Franklin people:

i)   better access to Auckland’s public and active transport networks, employment centres and community service hubs

ii)  to contribute to reducing carbon emissions by using public transport.

c)    Development of new design standards for work and construction in the road corridor, that provide more flexible options for work in rural areas (i.e. the use of gravel rather than concrete paths in rural areas to reduce construction cost).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     Auckland Transport 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.     The primary climate change benefit of this plan is that by working more closely with local boards AT may be able to develop more effective approaches to achieving Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

 

25.     Further, this work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other Council Controlled Organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     A workshop was held on Tuesday 5 December 2023 with this local board, at which quality advice about AT’s work programme was provided to members.

27.     Later, on the following date, Tuesday 13 February 2024 the local board’s AT Elected Member Relationship Manager workshopped and discussed with members the proposed programme supporting the local board to develop the position articulated in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

 

29.     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

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

31.     Local boards do have a transport budget, the Local Board Transport Fund and these projects are included in this report. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32.     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 it has 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

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

34.     AT may engage with the local board directly after receiving this memo to clarify positions or to discuss the proposed levels of engagement.

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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas, Auckland Transport, Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authoriser

John Gillespie, Auckland Transport, Head of Stakeholder and Elected Member Relationships

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Transport Project for Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School - Board Feedback-2

File No.: CP2024/02722

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on the Auckland Transport Project for Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School transport related matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport has investigated and is consulting on pedestrian improvements outside Maraetai Beach School.  

3.       Auckland Transport’s report on this project and recommendations are provided as Attachment A. The design for consultation is provided as Attachment B.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      provide feedback to Auckland Transport on proposed pedestrian improvements outside Maraetai Beach School as outlined in Attachments A and B.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport Project for pedestrian improvements outside Maraetai Beach School - Board feedback

53

b

Maraetai Crossing design for consultation

57

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Transport Project for Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School - Board Feedback

File No.: CP2024/02411

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from the Franklin Local Board on Auckland Transport Project for Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School transport related matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Board and the wider school community have been concerned about safety around Maraetai Beach School,

3.       Auckland Transport began investigations and following initial observations, safety options were explored, and a draft proposal was put out for consultation. This was from 6 December to 20 December 2023.

4.       Any feedback that came in just after this time frame was also considered. There was general support for the proposal. Auckland Transport (AT) is now seeking formal feedback from the board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      receive the report from Auckland Transport.

b)      Provide feedback on Pedestrian Improvements Outside Maraetai Beach School

 

Horopaki

Context

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6.       This section of the report contains information about relevant projects, issues, and initiatives. It provides summaries of the detailed advice and analysis provided to the local board during workshops and briefings.

7.       The Board and the wider school community have been concerned about safety around Maraetai Beach School, In addition to the board and the community the headmaster have become increasingly concerned about safety, particular for pupils.

8.       AT began investigations and following initial observations, safety options were explored, and a draft proposal was put out for consultation.

9.       Any feedback that came in just after this time frame was also considered. There was general support for the proposal. This was from 6 December to 20 December 2023. 28 submissions were received.

RESPONSES:

The changes would benefit the community

18

The changes would not benefit the community

3

I have a suggestion to make

7

I need more information

0

Not selected

0

TOTAL RESPONSES

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.     Following feedback AT decided on the following changes:

•     The raised zebra crossing will be on top of a speed bump, raised to the height of the footpath. The speed bump is flat and wide with a long off ramp. This makes it more comfortable for larger vehicles and their passengers.

•     A new footpath with a grass kerb extension.

•     New tactile pavers which are yellow guidance paving markers for people find their way to the crossing and safely cross the road.

•     New road markings and signage to support the upgraded crossing.

•     Four on-street parking spaces will be removed to allow for visibility. We understand this can be inconvenient, so we have minimised the removal of parking as much as possible while still improving safety on Maraetai Drive.

11.     Auckland Transport is now seeking formal feedback from the board.

12.     Due to the current draft policy documents, particularly the Long-Term Plan and the Government policy has created a degree of uncertainty about the level of funding for 2024/25. The status of this project is currently prioritised for delivery. The board will be kept updated.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

16.     Tackling climate change will require a very significant change to the way we travel around our region although the timing and the detail of how this change might unfold are still to become obvious. Climate change targets in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) occurred with a strong awareness of central government climate change legislation and Auckland Council climate change targets. Auckland Council through its Climate Plan has committed to a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, the amount required to keep the planet within 1.5°C of warming by 2100.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.     The purpose of this report is to inform the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     There are no impacts specific to Māori for this reporting period. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi-the Treaty of Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

21.     Our 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.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     The project is prioritised for delivery in 2024/25.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     Risks are managed as part of each AT project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     Following the board feedback the project will move to detailed design.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport proposed crossing design Maraetai for consultation

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

 

Author

Bruce Thomas – Elected Members Relationship Manager

Authoriser

John Gillespie – Head of Elected Member Relationship

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Proposed landowner approval to Kahawai Point Development Limited for the creation of a marine facility at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve, Glenbrook

File No.: CP2024/02512

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the landowner approval application from Kahawai Point Development Limited for the creation of a marine launching facility at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Kahawai Point is a large housing development being established along the northern Glenbrook coast.

3.       The applicant, Kahawai Point Development Limited (KPDL), has applied for landowner approval to establish a club-based marine launching facility at the Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve.

4.       Two development concepts have been proposed by the applicant, which aim to improve existing assets and install new assets, some of which would be restricted to club and paid guest use.

5.       The development concepts would see the installation of seawalls/groynes, carparking and fencing. Proposed free-to-use public assets include some increased parking, new footpaths, a lookout, and landscaping. A café or restaurant may also be established at the nearby community hall.

6.       It is considered that the proposal does not align with the Franklin Local Board Plan 2023 as it contradicts the Shoreline Adaption Plan for Manukau South. This plan notes the area is subject to coastal erosion and inundation and recommends no new assets be installed.

7.       Staff have completed a high-level review of the proposal and recommend that the proposal be declined due to the loss of green open space that will result from the proposal and the applicant’s ability to construct a launching facility on their own private land.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      decline the landowner approval application from Kahawai Point Development Limited for the creation of a marine launching facility at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve.

 

Horopaki

Context

The land

8.       Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve (figure 1) is comprised of two land parcels, Lot 3 DP 351480 and ALLOT 14 Parish KAHAWAI DISTRICT.

9.       Lot 3 DP 351480 is approximately 901m2 and held by Auckland Council as an unclassified Local Purpose (Community Hall Utility) Reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

10.     ALLOT 14 Parish KAHAWAI DISTRICT is approximately 15732m2 and held by Auckland Council as a classified Local Purpose (Landing) Reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

11.     The reserve features a car parking area, two boat ramps, numerous trees, a public toilet, a community hall, and area of open green space.

12.     The existing community hall is covered under a ground lease issued to the Glenbrook Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association (GBRRA). The hall itself is a tenant owned building.

13.     The northern boat ramp is suited to smaller vessels, whereas the southern boat ramp is an all-tide ramp able to service larger recreational vessels. The southern boat ramp does not require ongoing dredging to enable its use.

14.     The existing carparking (hard surface) can service approximately 18 vehicles with boat trailers. Vehicles have been noted to park on grassed open space during busy periods.


 Figure 1. Extent of Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve (blue)

 

The proposal

15.     Kahawai Point is a large housing development being established along the northern Glenbrook coast. Original plans for the development included a marine launching facility within the private development site.


 

16.     Due to consenting difficulties associated with wetlands within the development site, the applicant (Kahawai Point Development Limited) has applied for landowner approval to establish a club-based marine launching facility at the Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve.

17.     The applicant believes improving the existing public assets at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve will pose fewer engineering and consenting constraints than a facility on the private development site.

18.     The applicant proposes a boat club be established to run and maintain a new facility created at the reserve.

19.     Two development concepts have been proposed.

20.     Both concepts would see the improvement of existing assets and the installation of new assets some of which would be restricted to ‘club’ and/or paid visitor use.

21.     The concepts would see the installation of seawalls/groynes, carparking and fencing.

22.     Proposed free-to-use public assets include increased parking along the south of the site, new footpaths, a lookout, and landscaping.

23.     A café or restaurant may also be established at the nearby community hall.

24.     Neither concept would see restrictions on public pedestrian access to the reserve.

Concept one

25.     The first design concept (figure 2) would see the northern boat ramp disestablished, with the southern boat ramp the focus of improvements. The usage of the southern ramp would be split between public/free use and club/paid guest use.

26.    

Public/free parking would be restricted to southern reserve area with club/paid guest parking established over current open space.

Figure 2. Design concept one

 

Concept two

27.     The second design (figure 3) would see the southern ramp left as is, with the northern ramp improved and available for club and paid guest use.

28.     Public/free parking would be restricted to southern reserve area, with club/paid guest parking established over the existing open space.


Figure 3. Design concept two

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29.     The following Auckland Council specialists have reviewed the proposal and the comments below reflect those recieved:

·       Senior Land Use Advisor, Parks & Community Facilities

·       Parks & Places Specialist, Parks & Community Facilities

·       Facilities Manager, Parks & Community Facilities

·       Manager Area Operations, Parks & Community Facilities

·       Senior Coastal Specialist, Resilient Land & Coasts.

 

Existing assets

30.     The reserve’s southern boat ramp functions as an all-tide ramp and does not require ongoing dredging to enable its use.

31.     The council holds no data on the usage of the existing boat ramps.

32.     Auckland Council is currently in the process of reviewing the existing ramps through the regional coastal renewal programme. Once reviewed, upgrades may be scheduled for the future. This work would be funded by the Governing Body and would not come at the expense of the local board. Any work carried out by the council would likely be to maintain usability and safety and would not be of a similar scale of what the applicant proposes.

33.     The proposal would result in several council owned trees being removed, including pine and pōhutukawa. These trees provide recreational and ecological benefits.

Community hall

34.     The community hall is a tenant owned building, belonging to The Glenbrook Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association (GBRRA), and covered under a ground lease.

35.     The proposal would see the hall being converted into café and/or restaurant. This would enable the club to generate more revenue required to maintain the proposed new assets.

36.     Staff understand the leaseholder has been engaged by both the local board and developer for feedback on the proposal.

Proposed club and assets

37.     The proposal would see the creation of a local boat club, which would require a community lease over a portion of the reserve.

38.     The applicant proposes the club’s governance structure be comprised of a member of the local board, an appointee from Ngāti Te Ata, an appointee from Coastguard NZ, three members of the existing Glenbrook fishing club and a member of Kahawai Point Development Limited (KPDL). The member of KPDL would then leave the governance structure once the marine facility is up and running.

39.     Members of the public would be able to pay a membership fee to join the club or as a guest, pay for one off access to use the facilities.

40.     Both design concepts would see the creation of a lookout and public pathways, which are considered to be beneficial to reserve users.

41.     Both design concepts would see the creation of groynes within the marine area. While the structures would be expected to have a long lifespan, there is potential that the structures would need maintenance/remedial work in the future. The impact of the groynes on coastal erosion and inundation further down the coast, is unknown.

42.     A new facility offering all weather launching, would likely attract more users. The site is approximately 30km from the Te Toro Point and Bottle Top Bay boat ramps and may attract users who reside in between these two locations.

43.     While both designs results in an increase in parking, it is unknown whether this parking will be able to accommodate increased use of the facility. Accordingly, the proposal may result in parking issues at the reserve and on nearby streets.

44.     Both design concepts show public free parking being restricted to the southernmost area of the reserve. This area is more susceptible to coastal erosion than the proposed club/paid guest parking areas (figures 2 and 3). If coastal erosion was to render this parking inaccessible, parking issues may occur. 

45.     The proposal provides for the creation of waka ama and Coastguard launching facilities. These offerings are considered beneficial for community engagement with the reserve and public safety.

Loss of green space and development opportunity

46.     The reserve is used for a variety of activities, including boat launching, picnicking, play and other passive recreational activities.

47.     Converting the open space to carparking would reduce the council’s ability to create playgrounds, family gathering areas and other community facilities on site.

48.     Housing intensification places more reliance on green open spaces and community facilities for recreation purposes. The grassed area in its current state is a valuable asset for both the mental and physical health of the local community. 

49.     The applicant has created open space through the subdivision process. The open space created though this regulatory process has been done so to address the increase in density arising from the development and not to offset any loss of open space associated with this proposed facility. 

50.     When in use, the community hall experiences a spillover effect where activities and the public can move between the two spaces. This is believed to create a more enjoyable experience of the hall and enable users to facilitate larger events.

Plan alignment

51.     The proposal does not align with the recently completed Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Manukau South. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Manukau South indicates the long-term managed retreat of Auckland Council assets and activities within this site. This may necessitate the landward relocation of the public parking or access in the future. It is important to ensure that there is space on the reserve to accommodate landward retreat of Auckland Council assets to avoid potential erosion risk.

52.     Shoreline Adaption Plans (SAPs) were created as a result of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. The ‘Te Tāruke ā-Tāwhiri | Climate action’ section of the Franklin Local Board Plan 2023 aims to adapt to climate change and implement ‘Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan’ in Franklin.

53.     By contradicting the Manukau South SAP, the proposal does not align with Auckland’s Climate Plan or the climate action objectives of the Franklin Local Board Plan 2023.

Alternatives

54.     The applicant notes there are a number of engineering and consenting constraints associated with building the facility within private land, as originally intended (figure 4). The main constraints being the presence of wetlands within the original ‘Taihiki’ location and the steepness of the land on either side.

55.     The original location has a natural gradient sloping down towards the waterway, making the location an obvious choice for a marine facility.

56.     The presence of wetlands within the area, would necessitate a move in location or an alteration of design.

57.     The land either side of the Taihiki location is relatively steep, rendering a location shift difficult. To attempt to shift the location along the coast may result in the need for substantial earthworks and recontouring of the coastline. There may be other suitable locations within the development site, further from the Taihiki location.

58.     Staff believe an alteration of the original design remains an option, with the applicant having potential to redesign the hard surfaces around the wetlands. This would likely result in the facility covering a larger overall area and reduce the number of houses the applicant intends to provide.

Figure 4. Kahawai Point Masterplan showing the original location of the facility within private property.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

59.     As the project is in the early stages, staff are unable to provide a precise account of potential climate impacts. Accordingly, the following statements are general considerations, with the extent of any impact depending on specific designs and methodologies etc. 

60.     There is a likelihood that the operation of machinery associated with construction activities will create emissions.

61.     There is also a likelihood that the conversion of open green space to car parking will have a localised environmental impact. Increasing the number of car parks may increase vehicle operations at the site, along with associated emissions. The conversion of grass to hard surface may also result in a localised temperature increase, known as a ‘heat island’ effect.

62.     The Manukau Harbour South Shoreline Adaptation Plan notes that the area is at risk of coastal erosion and inundation. How the proposal will impact coastal erosion and inundation is unknown at this stage.  

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

63.     Feedback from Council Controlled Organisations has not been sought for this proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64.     Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation and community facilities, including the use of local parks, and associated leasing matters.

65.     The ‘Te Tāruke ā-Tāwhiri | Climate action’ section of the Franklin Local Board Plan 2023, seeks to adapt to climate change and implement Auckland’s Climate Plan in Franklin. Auckland’s Climate Plan facilitated the creation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Manukau South. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Manukau South recommends no new assets be established in the areas and details landward retreat may be required. Accordingly, the proposal does not align with the climate action objectives of the Franklin Local Board Plan 2023

66.     On Tuesday 13 February 2024, a meeting was held by the Franklin Local Board with residents and the applicant to discuss the proposal and hear community views. This process was not conducted by Parks and Community Facilities staff and no responses have been received or assessed in relation to this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

67.     Engagement with mana whenua has not been undertaken by Auckland Council at this stage. Engagement with interested iwi would be a requirement of granting a community lease, needed to establish the boating club.

68.     Staff are aware that the applicant has engaged with Ngāti Te Ata and has included the provision for Waka Ama launching within the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69.     The existing southern boat ramp located at the reserve, is an all-tide ramp which does not require continued dredging to enable use. The alteration of this ramp may result in continued dredging being required. This cost would be expected to be borne by the proposed boat club.

70.     The proposal would see the creation of groynes within the marine area. While the structures would be expected to have a long lifespan, there is potential that the structures would need maintenance/remedial work in the future. This cost would be expected to be borne by the proposed boat club.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Upon approval:

71.     The Manukau Harbour South Shoreline Adaptation Plan notes that the area is at risk of coastal erosion and inundation. The plan recommends no new assets be established in such areas and details landward retreat may be required.

72.     The open space found at Glenbrook Beach Boat Ramp Reserve serves a purpose for non-boating members of the public. The space is used for picnics, play and other passive recreation activities. In converting this area to a carpark, there is a risk of excluding those members of the community who utilise the area for passive recreation. 

73.     The loss of open green space may reduce user enjoyment of the reserve and associated health benefits (physical and mental).

74.     The applicant proposes to increase parking in both design concepts. However, it is unknown as to whether this is sufficient to accommodate future usage. There are risks associated with damage to public and private property as a result of rogue parking. Rogue parking may also pose health and safety risk to pedestrians.

Upon decline:

75.     The applicant may not have the ability or desire to pursue a facility on private land, as originally intended. This may then result in a loss of upgrades to the existing assets.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

76.     The Franklin Local Board may resolve to decline or approve the application for landowner approval. Staff will inform the applicant of the outcome and work with the local board to draft a landowner approval agreement, if required.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alex Stansfield, Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill, Head of Property Commercial Business

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/02071

 

  

 

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 Franklin 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

Eke Panuku Auckland development work programme update

75

b

Watercare work programme update

77

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authoriser

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 








Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Local board views on Plan Change 95 (Private) at Golding Road, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2024/02072

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite local board views on a private plan change by Aedifice Development No.1 Limited, Golding Road, Pukekohe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (‘AUP’) must consider a local board’s views on the plan change if the local board chooses to provide its views.

3.       Private Plan Change 95 (‘PC95’) relates to land on the western side of Golding Road about 350m south of that road’s intersection with East Street / Pukekohe East Road.  The land is part of a much larger block that has recently been rezoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (MHUZ) by Plan Change 76 (PC76).  The private plan change request was made by Aedifice Development No.1 Limited and seeks that, for the 0.85ha involved, that the MHUZ be changed to  Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone (‘NCZ’) in the AUP. The plan change also proposes a “Golding Road Neighbourhood Centre Precinct” over the proposed change area.

4.       The plan change request was lodged on 30 May 2023. It was publicly notified on 16 November 2023 with the submission period closing on 14 December 2023. The Summary of Decisions Requested (‘SDR’) was notified on 16 February 2024 with the further submission period closing on 1 March 2024. At the time of writing, there were no further submissions.

5.       Five submissions were received. Key submission themes include: amending the provisions to be consistent with other plan changes in this area; changing the structure of the precinct so that  it is incorporated into the wider Pukekohe East Central precinct (PC76); amending the provisions to address matters relating to traffic impacts and loss of amenity for local residents; amending the provisions related to water and waste water infrastructure, and ensuring that water supply and wastewater capacity and servicing requirements for the PPC can be adequately met.

6.       A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on PC95. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      provide local board views on Plan Change 95 by Pukekohe Ltd for Aedifice Development No.1 Limited, Golding Road, Pukekohe

b)      appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on Plan Change 95, if considered necessary by the local board

c)      delegate authority to the chairperson of Franklin Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the private plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

7.       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 (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

8.       A private plan change request will be included in the AUP if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than the council proposes a change to the AUP.

9.       If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. The hearing report will address issues raised in local board views and submissions by themes.

10.     If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

11.     This report provides an overview of the private plan change, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

12.     This report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on PC95. The planner must include any local board views verbatim in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     The plan change area is in Golding Road (refer to Figure 1 below) and is approximately 0.85 hectares in total area. The plan change area is located approximately 1.8km east of the Pukekohe Town Centre and Pukekohe train station.

 

Figure 1: The Plan Change Area at Golding Road, Pukekohe

 

 

14.     The plan change area is surrounded by land zoned for residential and future urban development use. See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: The PC95 Area in relation to the recently operative PC74 and PC76 areas

 

15.     The plan change area was, until recently, used for agricultural purpose with no vegetation coverage. Following the approval of PC76, significant site enabling works were commenced on the larger PC76 site. The topography across the site is flat to undulating pastoral farmland which dips towards  the south and north of the site. The plan change area is free from overland flow paths or flood plain areas.

16.     The plan change area is zoned MHUZ and is subject to Pukekohe East-Central Precinct. The area is also subject to the following controls:

·    Natural Resources: High-Use Aquifer Management Areas Overlay [rp] - Pukekohe Kaawa Aquifer

·    Natural Resources: High-Use Aquifer Management Areas Overlay [rp] - Bombay Volcanic

·    Natural Resources: Quality-Sensitive Aquifer Management Areas Overlay [rp] - Franklin Volcanic Aquifer

·    Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index - Rural

·    Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Urban.

 

Plan Change overview

17.     The private plan change seeks to rezone land at Golding Road, Pukekohe from MHUZ to NCZ (see Figure 3 below), remove the existing precinct – Pukekohe East-Central from the plan change area, and to apply a new precinct – Golding Road Neighbourhood Centre Precinct.

 

Figure 3: The existing AUP zoning (left) shows the MHUZ within the extent of the plan change area. Areas to the west and north are zoned MHUZ. Areas to the east and south are zoned Future Urban Zone (‘FUZ’). The proposed AUP zoning (right) is NCZ.

 

18.     The submitted plan change application states that the purpose of PC95 is to introduce an appropriate zoning for the site to meet demand for business land and provide opportunities for local employment.

19.     PC95 as notified does not seek any other changes to the AUP aside from the rezoning, removing the existing precinct (Pukekohe East-Central Precinct) provisions applicable to that part of the subject land and introducing a new precinct (Golding Road Neighborhood Centre Precinct).

20.     The plan change includes technical reports that evaluate the proposed zoning, including infrastructure, traffic, urban design, economics, ecology, and cultural values, as well as geotechnical and environmental assessments. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website here.

21.     Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

·   technical reports supplied by the applicant

·   submissions

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

 

Strategic planning context

22.     The Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 (‘the structure plan’) has been prepared to guide future development of this area over a 30-year period, consistent with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (‘FULSS’). The structure plan’s preferred zoning over the plan change area is MHUZ which is consistent with the zoning that has now been introduced by PC76. The appropriateness of the proposed NCZ zoning will be considered in the hearing report.

23.     Infrastructure and funding issues were comprehensively addressed during the processing of PC76 and appropriate provisions to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided have been introduced into the AUP to address those matters. Some amendments may be necessary as a result of this plan change which will provide for business rather than residential development. Future funding and the provision of infrastructure necessary to support urban development in the plan change area will be considered in the hearing report and the decision-making process on PC95.

24.     Plan Change 78 (‘PC78’) is the council intensification planning instrument required to incorporate the medium density residential standards (‘MDRS’) into relevant residential zones, and to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (‘NPS-UD’). PC78 was notified in August 2022 and is part way through the statutory intensification streamlined planning process. PC78 and the requirements of MDRS do not affect PC95 and the proposed NCZ.

Themes from submissions received

25.     PC95 was publicly notified on 16 November 2023 with the submission period closing on 14 December 2023. The SDR was notified on 16 February 2024, with the further submission period closing on 1 March 2023.

26.     Fourteen submission points were made by five submitters.

27.     The matters covered by the submissions are summarised as follows:   

·     Support for the plan change with amendments to align with wording of the PC76.

·     Concern about the increased risk of traffic incidents due to population growth and rising traffic volume, as well as the security and deterioration of environmental quality caused by increased noise and pollution.

·     Concern about the loss of valuable local plant species leading to unsustainable development if similar development continues.

·     Propose amendments to the existing Pukekohe East-Central Precinct provisions instead of adopting the proposed Golding Road Neighbourhood Centre Precinct provisions to provide for more comprehensive consideration of transportation matters.

·     Establish more comprehensive precinct provisions addressing transport effects and ensuring good transport outcomes as the area develops.

·     Provide for a flexible location of the proposed privately-owned publicly accessible village green.

·     Ensure that infrastructure in the area in terms of water supply and wastewater capacity, as well as servicing requirements, are provided for, in order to manage water supply and wastewater-related effects appropriately.

Table 1: Submissions

Submissions

Number of submissions

In support, as notified

0

In support but with provisos

3

Neutral, with suggested amendments if approved

1

Oppose but if approved, with suggested amendments

1

 

28.     Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website here.

29.     No further submissions had been received at the time of writing. Further submissions are only able to support or oppose primary submissions received and are not able to raise new matters. Therefore, further submissions will not change the submission themes identified above. Any information about further submissions will be included in the planner’s section 42A hearing report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

·   to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

·   to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

31.     The local board could consider if the private plan change:

·   will reduce, increase or have no effect on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions

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

32.     Intensification of the site may have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions given the use of private vehicles and lack of public transport. However, this is offset by the provision of local employment opportunities, improved access to business services and helps to sustain Pukekohe as a self-sufficient rural community.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33.     Plans and Places has sought advice from Healthy Waters on the plan change, which will inform the recommendations made in the planner’s section 42A hearing report.


 

34.     Auckland Transport submitted on the plan change and indicated they support the plan change subject to the matters they raise being adequately addressed. Auckland Transport seek that the neighbourhood centre be incorporated into the Pukekohe East Central precinct (PC76) and also seek amendments to the proposed provisions to ensure that all the transport and land use matters are addressed. These matters include the identification of the Collector Road / Golding Road intersection as a key intersection, mitigation of traffic noise and promotion of good transport land use integration from future subdivision and development, adoption of the existing triggers for transport upgrades, and flexible location of the village green area.

35.     Watercare Services submitted on the plan change. Watercare seeks a decision that ensures that the water supply and wastewater capacity, and servicing requirements of the Plan Change will be adequately met and that proposed amendments to the precinct provisions are included to achieve the expected outcomes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.     The private plan change request does not relate to public land for which the local board has decision making powers.

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

·    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.

38.     This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the private plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change 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). 11,247 residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in 2018 census results.

40.     The applicant has indicated that they engaged with mana whenua to discuss the merits of the proposal and to get advice on cultural matters. A Cultural Impact Assessment (‘CIA’) was prepared by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua for the plan change area. The matters raised by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua in the CIA will be addressed in the hearing report.

41.     Direct notice of the plan change upon notification was provided to 21 iwi groups.

42.     The Ngāti Tamaoho Trust and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua submitted on the plan change, seeking that the plan change provisions align with the cultural provisions incorporated into the provisions for PC76 and demonstrates the fulfillment of recommendations outlined in the Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Cultural Impact Assessment Report.

43.     The planner’s hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44.     The private plan change request does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

45.     Costs associated with processing the private plan change request will be recovered from the applicant.

46.     Impacts on infrastructure arising from the private plan change request, including any financing, and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47.     There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

·    the mechanism for the Franklin Local Board to express its views and preferences

·    the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

48.     If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

49.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). 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

50.     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.

51.     The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrew An, Policy Planner, Central South

Authorisers

Celia Davison Manager Central South - Plans and Places

*Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/02492

 

  

 

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 Franklin 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 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Memo Consultation on the new draft GPS on Land Transport 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

GPS Land Transport - Local Board feedback template

95

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 




Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02107

 

  

 

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 Franklin Local Board:

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

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

 

Horopaki

Context

Why consult

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

About the NPS-FM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Impact of signalled changes to the NPS-FM

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

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

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

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

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

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

How freshwater farm plans fit in

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

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

How we consulted

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

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


 

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

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

·        ‘Setting our Direction’ – the consultation document

·        A geographic information system (GIS) online mapping tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local board feedback

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

Other engagement

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

How freshwater health is monitored

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

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

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

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

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

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

Known state of freshwater in Auckland

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

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

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

Potential management approaches

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

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

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

48.     Several methods could be utilised, including:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed vison

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

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

 

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

Proposed values

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

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

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

Proposed environmental outcomes

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

Criteria for ‘outstanding waterbodies’

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

Identifying primary contact sites

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

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

Setting targets for improvement

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

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

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

Fish passage action plan

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the loss of wetlands, rivers and streams

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

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


 

Water quantity and phasing out over allocation

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

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

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

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

Common themes of consultation feedback

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

A.      Long-term vision

B.      Values and environmental outcomes

C.      Waterbodies where special management is required

D.      Achieving the vision and environmental outcomes for freshwater

E.      Habitat protection and improvement

F.      Water quantity

G.      Other feedback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·     a desire to have improved plans and management of waterways

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation questions

111

b

Summary of consultation feedback, including feedback by local board aea (Under Separate Cover)

 

     


 

 

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

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 







Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Approval for a private road name at 1 Seventh View Avenue, Beachlands

File No.: CP2024/01111

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongoPurpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name a private road created by a development at 1 Seventh View Avenue, Beachlands.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The developer and applicant, Metlifecare Limited has proposed a private way within the development at 1 Seventh View Avenue, being an extension of an existing road.

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

5.       Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines. Since the application relates to an extension to an existing road name, mana whenua have not been consulted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      approve the extension of Gateway Avenue created by a development undertaken by Metlifecare Limited at 1 Seventh View Avenue, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90113699, resource consent reference LUC60340345).

Horopaki

Context

6.       Resource consent was approved on 4 March 2022 for Stage 2 of a retirement village, consisting of 157 retirement units and associated facilities. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

7.       In accordance with the standards, any road including private ways, commonly owned access lots, and right of ways, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.


 

8.       In this development, although there will be no new allotments being created, the development does consist of more than five units. To ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering, the applicant would like to name a private road within the development which runs from the intersection of Gateway Avenue and Winterman Road to a footbridge linking Eighth View Avenue. This can be seen in Attachment B, where the road that requires a name is highlighted in yellow.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

11.     All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity.  It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

12.     Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that the extension of the name ‘Gateway Avenue’ is considered to be to be the most suitable option for the private way.

13.     Since this is an extension to an existing road name rather than proposing a new name, mana whenua were not consulted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

16.     This report seeks the local board’s decision, and the decision is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17.     While the guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua and the allocation of road names where appropriate, in this instance, the application merely seeks the extension of the existing Gateway Avenue. Therefore, no consultation is considered necessary. 

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19.     The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Location Map

121

b

Attachment B - Site Plan

123

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marybeth Wilson - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Approval for three new private road names at 3 and 17 Clevedon Kawakawa Road, Clevedon

File No.: CP2024/01022

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name three new private roads created by a development at 3 and 17 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, Clevedon.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

5.       The proposed names for the new private roads at 3 and 17 Clevedon Kawakawa Road are:

 

Applicant’s Preference

Alternative  

Alternative 

Road 2

Te Ara Wai Tukutuku

Mane Lane

Pony Lane

Road 3

Atchison Lane

Milky Way

Nightsky Place    

Road 4

Kumekume Way

Bridlevale Green

Provincia Green

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      approve the following names for the three new private roads created by a development undertaken by Metlifecare Limited at 3 and 17 Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90112430, resource consent references BUN60404209 and SUB60404271).

i)    Te Ara Wai Tukutuku (Road 2)

ii)   Atchison Lane (Road 3)

iii)   Kumekume Way (Road 4).

Horopaki

Context

6.       Resource consent reference BUN60404209 (SUB60404271) was approved on 25 August 2022 for an integrated residential development of up to 210 residential units. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

7.       In accordance with the standards, any road including private ways, commonly owned access lots, and right of ways that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

8.       In this development, although there will be no new allotments, the development does consist of more than five units. To ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering, the applicant would like to name private roads (Accessways) 2, 3 and 4. This can be seen in Attachment A, where the roads that require a name are highlighted in yellow.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

11.     Most of the names have a rural and /or an equestrian theme. A number of the proposed names have also been recommended by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and the Clevedon & Districts Historical Society, reflecting the history, culture and landscape features of the area.

Road Number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 2

Te Ara Wai Tukutuku

(applicant’s preference)

Name suggested by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Te Ara Wai Tukutuku – a shortened variation of the name Te Ōkenga Wai Tukutuku, an area of our awa Te Wairoa near to the Ōtau site.

Mane Lane

(alternative)

The name is proposed to reflect the equestrian and rural themes and it relates to a horse’s mane.

Pony Lane

(alternative)

The name is proposed to reflect the equestrian and rural themes.     

Road 3

Atchison Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Named after one of the four European families who owned, farmed and lived on the property from 1853 through almost to Metlifecare’s purchase of the land.

Milky Way

(alternative)

This name reflects the dark-sky area above Clevedon, making it suitable for stargazing.

Nightsky Place

(alternative)

This name refers to the dark-sky area above Clevedon, making it suitable for stargazing.

Road 4

Kumekume Way

(applicant’s preference)

Name suggested by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Kumekume Way - to pull or drag, the name depicting a waka launching/landing place

Bridlevale Green

(alternative)

Bridlevale is a combination of bridle (horse headgear) and vale (valley).

Provincia Green

(alternative)

Provincia is Latin for province, a rural reference

 

12.     All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

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

14.     ‘Te Ara’, ‘Lane’, ‘Place’, ‘Green’ and ‘Way’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads.

15.     Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows. The applicant has also consulted with Clevedon & Districts Historical Society and has obtained consent from the Atchison family for the use of that name at Road 3.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

18.     This report seeks the decision of the local board and the decision is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

20.     Additionally, the applicant consulted directly with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki prior to the lodgment of the road naming application and has included names suggested by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki as preferred names.

21.     On 07 December 2023, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

·        Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

·        Te Ākitai Waiohua

·        Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

·        Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·        Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

·        Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

·        Ngāti Maru

·        Ngāti Tamaterā

·        Waikato-Tainui

·        Ngāti Whanaunga.

22.     By the close of the consultation period, no additional responses, comments, or feedback had been received. While acknowledging that this does not automatically signify a lack of interest in the matter, the preferred name for roads 2 and 4 have been proposed at the suggestion of Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki and therefore it is considered that mana whenua consultation has been appropriately undertaken in this instance.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Report Attachment A - Site Plan

131

b

Report Attachment B - Location Map

133

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authoriser

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Approval to amend the road names approved at the Karaka Village subdivision (69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2024/01728

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to name a new public road, created by way of a subdivision development at 69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road, Papakura.

2.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to amend the lengths and locations of approved road names for Hampshire Lane (Road 1), Ryeland Lane (Road 5), Dorset Down Drive (Road 15) and Whangamarie Rise (Road 19) at the Karaka Village Subdivision located at 69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road, Papakura.

3.       To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board to correct the spelling of the previously approved road name ‘Whangamarie Rise’ (Road 19) to the corrected ‘Whangamaire Rise’ at the Karaka Village Subdivision located at 69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

5.       The developer and applicant, Karaka Village Development Limited is seeking an amendment to the road names, lengths and locations approved by the Franklin Local Board on 26 September 2023 (resolution number: FR/2023/158). In summary, the applicant is seeking approval to:

·    alter the lengths of roads Hampshire Lane (Road 1), Ryeland Lane (Road 5), Dorset Down Drive (Road 15) and Whangamarie Rise (Road 19);

·    name a new road (Road 24); and

·    correct the spelling of the name for Road 19 from Whangamarie Rise to Whangamaire Rise.

6.       The proposed names for the new road (Road 24) at 69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road are:

·    Powarth Lane (applicant’s preference)

·    Norfolk Horn Lane (alternative)

·    Hay Barn Lane (alternative)

7.       The proposed road names have been assessed against the guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      approve the alteration of the road name extensions of Roads 1 (Hampshire Lane), Road 5 (Ryeland Lane), Road 15 (Dorset Down Drive) and Road 19 (Whangamarie Rise), created by way of subdivision undertaken by Karaka Village Development Limited at 348 Linwood Road and 69A Dyke Road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90113745, resource consent references SUB60413962-A)

b)      approve the name Powarth Lane for a new public road (Road 24) created by way of subdivision undertaken by Karaka Village Development Limited at 348 Linwood Road and 69A Dyke Road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90113745, resource consent references SUB60413962

c)      approve the renaming of Whangamarie Rise (Road 19) to Whangamaire Rise’ in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

8.       Resource consents SUB60408253, SUB60411132 and SUB60413962 were granted in 2022 and 2023 for a subdivision development known as the Karaka Village at 69A Dyke Road and 348 Linwood Road. The Franklin Local Board approved 23 public roads and one private road created by the subdivision development on 26 September 2023 (resolution number: FR/2023/158).

9.       The applicant has since sought a variation to subdivision consent SUB60413962 (Council reference SUB60413962-A) which resulted in changes to the roading layout across the site. These changes include alternations to the extent of Hampshire Lane (Road 1), Ryeland Lane (Road 5), Dorset Down Drive (Road 15) and Whangamarie Rise (Road 19) and the creation of a new road being Road 24. As such, the applicant has requested an amendment to the extent of the names for Hampshire Lane (Road 1), Ryeland Lane (Road 5), Dorset Down Drive (Road 15) and Whangamarie Rise (Road 19). The applicant has also presented three proposed name options for the new Road 24 for consideration by the local board.

10.     Of the 24 names approved on 26 September 2023, one has been found to have an incorrect spelling due to a typographic error in the original road naming application by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has also requested the name of Whangamarie Rise (Road 19) be corrected to Whangamaire Rise.

11.     The applicant has advised Council that subdivision for the development has not yet been completed so no residents will be affected by the amendments to road names.

12.     In accordance with the standards, any road including private ways, COALs, and right of ways, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering. Road 24 does not currently serve five lots; however, the road is likely to be serving more lots in the future once the superlots are further developed, and as such Road 24 would require a road name.

13.     Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 19

Whangamaire Rise

This road runs east to west towards the Whangamaire Stream. 

Note: the name was previous incorrectly spelt as Whangamarie.

Road 24

Powarth Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Powarth is a breed of sheep.

Norfold Horn Lane (alternative 1)

Norfold Horn is a sheep breed.

Hay Barn Lane (alternative 2)

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

 

The names for Hampshire Lane (Road 1), Ryeland Lane (Road 5) and Dorset Down Drive (Road 15) are not being considered as component of this report as it is merely the positioning and length of those roads that are being altered at this time. Those road names were previously approved by the Franklin Local Board (FR/2023/158).

17.     All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity.  It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

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

19.     ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new road (Road 24), suiting the form and layout of the road.

20.     Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

23.     This report seeks the decision of the local board, and the decision does not have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24.     To aid local board decision making, the guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate.  

25.     The proposed names for Road 24 have been selected from the alternate names that were not chosen by the local board at the earlier opportunity (FR/2023/158), as sufficient and suitable road names were selected. As these names were included in the list of names sent out to mana whenua for consultation in 2023 as part of the previous road naming application, no additional consultation was carried out as part of the current application.

26.     During the 2023 application, responses were received from Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho and WaikatoTainui. WaikatoTainui supported the names suggested by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho. With respect to non-Māori names, both Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho indicated that they did not oppose the non-Māori names. The unused names suggested at that time, and approved for use by LINZ, are included here for completeness, and remain to be utilised:

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

·   Orangahu Rise - This name was suggested by both Ngati Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. It is the traditional name of the headland which sits east of the Whangamaire Stream and Te Paahurehure Inlet.

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

·   Puketakauere Road - The name was suggested by Ngati Tamaoho. It is the traditional name of Shark Island which sits to the northwest of the site.

·   Waikirihinau Road - The name was suggested by Ngati Tamaoho. It is an alternative name for Koopuahingahinga Island and Bottle Top Bay.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.     Approved road names are notified to LINZ and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database.  LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Report Attachment A - Site Plan

141

b

Report Attachment B - Location Map

143

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Governance Forward Work calendar  - Hōtaka Kaupapa - March 2024

File No.: CP2024/00620

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

·   clarifying what advice is required and when

·   clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the Franklin Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa ( governance forward work calendar) dated March 2024 in Attachment A.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Franklin Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa - Governance Forward Work calendar March 2024

147

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Franklin Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2024/00619

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.   To receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for workshops held on February 13, 20 and 27, 2024

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4.   Workshop records for the Franklin Local Board are attached for February 13, 20 and 27, 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Franklin Local Board workshop records for February 13, 20 and 27, 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Franklin Local Board workshop record 13 February 2024

151

b

Franklin Local Board workshop record 20 February 2024

153

c

Franklin Local Board workshop record 27 February 2024

155

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Denise Gunn - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Manoj Rajupathy – Local Area Manager Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa

 

 


Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Franklin Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

 



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