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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday 26 March 2024

10:00 am

Local board office
2 Glen Road
Browns Bay

 

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Gary Brown

 

Deputy Chairperson

Julia Parfitt, JP

 

Members

Jake Law

Victoria Short

 

Sam Mills

Gregg Walden

 

Alexis Poppelbaum, JP

Leanne Willis

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Louise Healy

Democracy Advisor

 

21 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: 021 419 205

Email: louise.healy@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Hibiscus and Bays 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 - One Nudge Community Trust                                                       5

8.2     Deputation - North Harbour Budgeting                                                             6

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                                                      6

9.1     Public Forum - Restore Hibiscus and Bays                                                      6

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                                                              7

11        Approval of the concept plan for the drainage reserve at Sunny Heights, Ōrewa 9

12        Ōrewa Recreation Reserve Future Management                                                     21

13        Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement                                                                                                                  39

14        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                                                                                       45

15        Local board input to Auckland Council submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34                                                                      57

16        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                        59

17        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                          67

18        Representation project - issues specific to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 83

19        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                                                                    91

20        Amendment to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board business meeting schedule for 2024                                                                                                                             101

21        Hōtaka Kaupapa - Policy Schedule for March 2024                                               103

22        Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop records                                              107

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

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

24        Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public        113

C1       Holiday Parks update                                                                                                113

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

 

 

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays 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 - One Nudge Community Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Katherine Claydon has requested a deputation to introduce her organisation and give an overview on their services. 

2.       A presentation has been provided and is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Katherine Claydon for her presentation and attendance at the meeting.

 

Attachments

a          One Nudge presentation.............................................................................. 117

 

 

8.2       Deputation - North Harbour Budgeting

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Claudette Wilson has requested a deputation to introduce her organisation and provide an overview of their services. 

2.       A presentation has been provided and is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Claudette Wilson for her presentation and attendance at the meeting.

 

Attachments

a          North Harbour Budgeting presentation........................................................ 121

 

 

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.

 

9.1       Public Forum - Restore Hibiscus and Bays

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Richard Hursthouse from Restore Hibiscus and Bays has requested public forum time to address the local board in relation to the closed Early Childhood Education space at Browns Bay.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Richard Hursthouse for his attendance at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Approval of the concept plan for the drainage reserve at Sunny Heights, Ōrewa

File No.: CP2024/02757

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the concept plan for the proposed development of a portion of the drainage reserve located at 217 West Hoe Heights, Sunny Heights, Ōrewa to be vested to Healthy Waters and maintained by Auckland Council.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Changda International New Zealand Limited, registered on Companies Register, No. 6427652 was granted a resource consent by Auckland Council in November 2016 for the subdivision of its property at 217 West Hoe Heights, Ōrewa. The subdivision will deliver a 470-lot development that will have two recreation reserves and a drainage reserve to vest in Auckland Council’s ownership.

3.       Working with council staff, the developer produced a concept plan (Attachment A to the agenda report – A16046 Drainage Reserve Package), for the development of part of the drainage reserve, which will be referred to as the open space. The development includes informal play assets within the Sunny Heights development being undertaken by Changda International New Zealand Limited. Council will own and maintain the new amenity assets on the reserve in the long term.

4.       It is recommended that an Infrastructure Funding Agreement is entered into between council and Changda New Zealand Limited. This agreement will record the assets being delivered and handed over to council, clarify responsibilities and timeframes, and discuss maintenance obligations.

5.       Developing this reserve aligns with the Hibiscus Bays Local Board Plan 2023, which refers to 'Our Community’ under outcome three. It will provide recreation outcomes for residents and enable multi-use of an open space containing informal play assets, seating, and bike racks.

6.       Staff recommend that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approve the concept plan and subsequent construction of the open space at Sunny Heights, Ōrewa.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakaae / approve the concept plan (Attachment A – A16046 Drainage Reserve Package), and subsequent construction of the open space at Sunny Heights, Ōrewa and approve that the assets be taken on by council upon practical completion.

b)      tautapa / delegate to the General Manager of Parks and Community Facilities authority to negotiate the Infrastructure Funding Agreement on terms acceptable to council’s infrastructure funding team, including maintenance periods.

c)      tautapa / delegate to the General Manager of Parks and Community Facilities authority to assess and approve variations to the Engineering Plan Approval stage for the open space development.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The drainage reserve (Lot 702) covers an estimated area of 9,501m² and is located within Stage 2 of the wider development, in the north-eastern portion of the development. The area to be developed is proposed within the southeastern corner of the drainage reserve, with a total area of 723m2. The drainage reserve development will provide recreation outcomes for residents containing informal play assets, seating and bike racks.

Figure 1: Showing location of overall development site (edged blue) with the approximate location of the drainage reserve shown by red circle

Source: Auckland Council GIS, red circle author’s addition

8.       Changda International New Zealand Limited (Changda NZ) is overseeing the development of Sunny Heights in Ōrewa, Auckland. The overall masterplan development of this land was consented under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA) in November 2016 (council ref: SLC-67956 BUN20455171).

9.       The resource consent approved a subdivision to create a 42ha site into a 470-lot development which includes two recreation reserves and the drainage reserve. The drainage reserve to vest is the subject of this business report.

10.     The concept plan includes various nature play elements such as stepper and balance logs, retaining walls, and native planting, as well as a concrete seat wall, picnic benches, and bicycle racks.

11.     The drainage reserve to vest is currently in private ownership and will vest to council (specifically Healthy Waters) as part of the residential subdivision.

12.     The concept plan was discussed with local board at a workshop on 7 November 2023. The local board expressed their support for the concept plan but raised queries about the wider connectivity of the development and the size of the area of the portion drainage reserve to be developed. The developer has confirmed the size, as noted above (723m2).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Acquisition assessment

Strategic Alignment

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023

‘Our Community’ outcome…Our spaces can be used by all, and we have an abundance of recreation facilities.

Development costs:

Operational costs:

Local boards decide how local open spaces are developed.

 

In this case the developer will develop the land and an Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) to be agreed between the developer and the IFA team.

Estimated annual maintenance cost for the public open space is up to $11,900 per annum.

 

Maintenance costs are met by operational budget allocated as a percentage of the acquisition cost through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

 

Assessment conclusion and staff recommendation

13.     Following the local board workshop, feedback was received from council’s landscape architect within the design team of Parks and Community Facilities requesting that the play assets be low to the ground with no need for full depth compliant safety surfacing and critical fall zones, as opposed to the typical off the shelf playground equipment, which requires compliance and a more intensive on-going maintenance regime. This feedback has been given to the developer and the plans provided showing the design reflect this advice.

14.     The landscape architect and Parks and Places specialist also provided comment on road safety, which was requested by parks planning noting the road that borders the edge of the drainage reserve to the south and west of the park. They noted that “There is sufficient embankment planting providing a buffer between the informal pay space and road”. In terms of the road to the east the raised concrete wall and the presence of the picnic tables and cycle racks, clustered towards the park entry where families or caregivers will typically congregate, will help slow down any children, ensuring they don’t run into the carriageway. They also noted the low traffic volumes on the roads within the subdivision further ensuring traffic safety for children using the informal play space.

15.     Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters specialists provided advice that they do not have any concerns with the latest design for the drainage reserve and that they would need access onto the wider reserve for a 3m wide digger, but that this could be provided over the grass verge and into the reserve to the north of the area being developed.

16.     Therefore, council staff are seeking approval for the concept plans and further delegation to general manager of Parks and Community Facilities to assess and approve variations to the approved engineering detail for the open space development.

17.     If developed as proposed, the park will help meet the open space needs of the local community now and in the future, being in line with the ‘Our Community’ outcome in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023, noted above.

18.     The park is located on a drainage reserve that meets Healthy Waters’ network plan and the development provides an opportunity to address multi-purpose needs and create flexible and adaptable public space. It will therefore provide future residents with easily accessible infrastructure for day-to-day informal recreational opportunities and enhance the environment.

19.     Staff recommend that the proposed land be developed as proposed by the applicant and in line with the applicant’s concept plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

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

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

21.     Climate change is expected to bring increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and changing rainfall patterns. Vegetation on parks and open space, including grass, can serve as temperature regulators through shade and evapotranspiration. Vegetation processes and stores carbon, helping to offset the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The incorporation of planting around the edges of the informal play assets ensures that the reduction in green space for planting is minimal.

22.     Parks and open space act as collection points for surface and run-off water, reducing flood risks during storms by buffering peak flows, reducing the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff, and helping create resilience in our infrastructure.

23.     Parks and open spaces also serve as ecological stepping-stones or corridors. They can promote and protect native plants and animals, enhance biodiversity, and increase resilience to environmental change.

24.     Climate change is unlikely to negatively impact the proposed public open space as no part of the proposed open space area is located in a flood-sensitive or coastal inundation zone.

25.     Any formal development of park infrastructure will contribute to climate change through carbon emissions, particularly during the construction and renewal phases, and through ongoing maintenance. This needs to be carefully considered when creating new park assets. Consideration has been given to this and it is noted that the materials being utilised are sustainable and based on nature play that promotes longevity.

26.     It is anticipated that the proposed planting methodology and species proposed for this drainage reserve will over time absorb and store a portion of the carbon dioxide emissions created by human activities in relation to construction and travel to and from the reserve.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27.     Specialist staff from within council, including Healthy Waters, Parks and Community Facilities Area Operations, Parks Planning, Landscape Architects and Parks and Places have collaborated on this development proposal.

28.     Staff have directly engaged with the developer through the subdivision consent application process. The IFA team has engaged with the developer and are anticipating entering into an IFA to manage the funding of this development.

29.     Staff support the development proposal as it will help meet informal recreational needs of future residents of the Sunny Heights area and the wider community.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     ​The proposed development of land will provide recreation opportunities for the local community and is in line with required service provisions in the area while ensuring stormwater management within the drainage reserve is not compromised. 

31.     ​A local board workshop was held with staff in November 2023 to discuss the proposal and assets to be developed. Queries raised by the local board related to the connectivity of the overall development and the size of the area of drainage reserve to be developed both of which were appropriately addressed by the developer

32.     The local board indicated general support for parks service outcomes proposed for the site and actions requested related to the wider development and its connectivity and clarification on the size of the developed area of the drainage reserve. Both these pieces of information have been provided by the applicant and are as follows.

33.     The development of the concept plan aligns with the following Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes and objectives:

Area

Objective

Our Community

There is nowhere better than our local parks and reserves for a picnic, a sports game or meeting friends.

We have more opportunities to connect for recreation, play and to help others in our community than ever before.

Our Places and Our Economy

People embrace and enjoy living, working, playing, and travelling locally.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The proposed park does not contain any known sites of significance to Māori identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Any Māori significance would have been assessed during the resource consent stage.

35.     During the processing of the original consent for the overall development, mana whenua engagement was undertaken (Council Ref: SLC-67956 BUN20455171).

36.     The issues pertinent to mana whenua during this process related to the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) to the west of the drainage reserve and the closed landfill to the south of the development. The reporting planner concluded that the overall development enhanced and protected mana whenua values.

37.     The development of the drainage reserve with play assets is therefore considered in this light and no further engagement was undertaken in this regard.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38.     There are no financial CAPEX implications directly related to actions, recommendations or decisions required for Parks and Community Facilities other than consequential OPEX of maintaining the reserves and assets in the future. The open space is being developed at the sole cost of the developer.

39.     Pursuant to the developer entering into an IFA, they will cover the entire capital expenditure to develop the open spaces and are obliged to maintain the assets until two years following practical completion.

40.     Funding will be required to ensure ongoing maintenance of new assets and landscaping constructed within the reserve at the conclusion of the maintenance periods agreed in accordance with an IFA.

41.     Input and support for this section of the report has been provided by specialist staff from the Asset Decision Support team in Parks and Community Facilities and Financial and Business Performance team.

42.    Operational expenditure will commence following practical completion and conclusion of maintenance periods in accordance with an IFA. Practical completion for all stages of the development is currently expected to be in the 2024 financial year.

43.     The Lead Financial Advisor from the Financial Strategy and Planning department expressed their support regarding the consequential operating expenses that will be created by this proposal. If approved annual maintenance will be funded by consequential OPEX budget administered by Parks and Community Facilities (Attachment B to the agenda report) after commencing 2026.

​Table 2: Estimated consequential Opex costs per annum for maintenance of the acquired land

 

​Service Area 

​Service Category 

​Estimated ​Consequential

​Opex 

Rubbish Bin

1 x Litter Bin

$560

Recreational and Play Equipment

Stepper Logs, Crosswalk, Logs

$3,710

Playground Undersurface Area

Playground Surface (Mulch)

$2,200

Furniture and Fixtures Maintenance and Repairs

1 x Seat Wall

$70

Furniture and Fixtures Maintenance and Repairs

Bollards

$120

Furniture and Fixtures Maintenance and Repairs

2 x Picnic Tables

$130

​Total OPEX Cost 

 

​$7,080

​Scheduled work for the whole site estimated additional 10% 

​Plant pest removal, dead animal/carcass removal, loose litter collection, garden irrigation repairs and maintenance, drain clearing and repair, electrical maintenance service 

​$780

​Response work - estimated additional 15% 

​$1,062

​General Ecological Maintenance – estimated additional 5% 

​$390

​Grand Total 

​$9,312

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44.     There is an increasing need for council to consider development of open spaces, solutions, and budgets, as continued urban development places increased pressure on available budget to maintain assets placed on open space.

45.     There are two potential issues that may arise during the delivery of the open space development: cost escalation and inadequate handover. To address these concerns, an IFA will be established.

46.     This agreement will be signed by both the developer’s representative and Auckland Council to ensure that all relevant documents, warranties, as-builts, and producer statements are properly handed over. Additionally, all assets entrusted to the council will receive engineering plan approval prior to the commencement of construction.

47.     The IFA will be entered into by both the developer’s representative and council to ensure that proper handover of all documents, warrantees, as-builts and producer statements occurs. The IFA will also place all responsibility for delivery of the reserve on the developer who will be responsible for absorbing any and all cost escalations in order to deliver the complete park development.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48.     Subject to local board approval of the concept plan, the developer wishes to develop the open space network as soon as the engineering plan approval has been obtained and the IFA has been signed.

49.     The plans will progress to the engineering plan approval (EPA) stage and council staff will assess and endorse engineering detail based on the local board’s decision on this business case. All assets to vest with the council will require sign-off via the EPA process.

50.     Should the local board approve the concept plan, staff will finalise the IFA with the developer.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Drainage Reserve Package

17

b

Park cost estimate

19

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Louise Thomas - Senior Parks Planner

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property and Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Ōrewa Recreation Reserve Future Management

File No.: CP2024/02201

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide background to the coastal management challenges at Ōrewa Recreation Reserve.

2.       To outline the technical work to date in developing a future management direction for Ōrewa Recreation Reserve, including:

·        the Ōrewa Reserve Service Assessment (2020-2021)

·        the Ōrewa Reserve Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment (2020)

·        the Ōrewa Reserve Landscape Concept Report (2021-2022).

3.       To update on recent engagement with mana whenua (2023).

4.       To seek endorsement of naturalisation as an adaptive future management strategy for Ōrewa Reserve.

5.       To seek endorsement of four high-level design concepts, which have been developed with a focus on naturalisation, to manage Ōrewa Recreation Reserve in future.

6.       To seek endorsement to further investigate the design concepts, including costing analysis and consultation with key stakeholders and the community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

7.       There are current and historical coastal management challenges along the entire length of Ōrewa Beach. Some of these management challenges have been exacerbated by recent storm events, resulting in accelerated erosion directly impacting several sections of Ōrewa Beach.

8.       This report focusses on Ōrewa Recreation Reserve (Ōrewa Reserve) which is the area of land situated north of the Ōrewa Beach Holiday Park and south of Riverside Road.

9.       The Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Plan directs that a range of coastal management options should be implemented along the length of Ōrewa Beach. Management options promoted include a mix of hard defences (seawalls) through to naturalisation and dune enhancement where at all possible.

10.     This approach to coastal management for Ōrewa Beach is supported via the key directives of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) and was further set out in staff evidence submitted to the Environment Court (2020), supporting Auckland Council’s application for a seawall to be constructed between Marine Parade and Kohu Street.

11.     The Environment Court granted approval for the seawall project in 2020 with reference to supporting evidence that confirmed Auckland Council would consider a balance of other management techniques (including naturalisation) along Ōrewa Beach, where the width of remaining esplanade reserve made this a viable option.

12.     Naturalisation is a coastal adaptive strategy which involves the managed realignment of the coastal edge and restoration of the dune landscape and its ecosystems to build natural resilience to coastal processes and storm events.

13.     On developed reserves, such as Ōrewa Reserve, it is necessary to relocate key park assets, setting them back from the predicted coastal hazard area. This can be phased in with the established asset renewal programme.

14.     In 2020 a programme of visitor research was carried out at Ōrewa Reserve, to understand the range of experiences the reserve provided, and the value placed on these experiences by the community. A summary of key findings is included in the ‘context’ section of this report. 

15.     This research was documented in the Ōrewa Reserve Service Assessment and was adopted by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in 2021. It provided four service outcomes which would guide the development of a feasible and cost-effective management approach for Ōrewa Reserve.

16.     In 2020 Tonkin and Taylor produced the Ōrewa Reserve Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment which mapped areas of the reserve which will be susceptible to coastal erosion in future years. This work was primarily intended to assist with planning the surf club relocation but also served to outline the broader coastal process and natural hazard considerations for Ōrewa Reserve.  

17.     In 2021 Bespoke Landscape Architects were engaged to analyse the information available and come up with a management approach for Ōrewa Reserve. One requirement was that the four service outcomes adopted by the local board were incorporated, and another was that the management direction should be achievable cost effectively.

18.     In 2022 Bespoke Landscape Architects produced four high-level concept options which configured the park assets in different ways. All the concepts were aligned with a naturalisation strategy as this was found to be the most cost-effective approach in this location. The concept designs provided different weightings to various activities within the reserve. For example, some allowed for more formalised parking, and others prioritised open space and play outcomes.

19.     A mana whenua consultation process was carried out with Ngāti Manuhiri in 2023. Feedback received confirmed their preference for management of Ōrewa Reserve within a naturalisation context. They communicated the need for sound environmental stewardship and environmental restoration where possible. Other considerations included the use of native planting, protection of wai (water), protection of wāhi tapu (sacred space), enhancing the natural environment, having the opportunity to input into future play environments for tamariki (children) and the inclusion of cultural safety induction for contractors. Mana whenua feedback did not rule out any of the four concept options.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      ohia / endorse naturalisation as an adaptive strategy for Ōrewa Reserve

b)      ohia / endorse four candidate high-level design concepts, from the Bespoke Landscape Architects report, as future management options at Ōrewa Recreation Reserve (Attachment C to the agenda report)

c)      ohia / endorse further investigation of these design options, including the development of high-level costings and public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

Ōrewa Beach coastal management context

20.     Ōrewa Beach is one of the most popular beachside destinations in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. It is valued by locals and visitors from across the Auckland region. It is a place of natural beauty and highly valued as a recreational resource.

21.     The coastal edge of Ōrewa Beach is exposed to the ongoing processes of tide, wind, and wave energy. More recently climate change impacts such as sea level rise and extreme weather events have led to greater impacts on the coastal environment.

Coastal policy

22.     At times these impacts have created hazards on the reserve. Cyclone Gabrielle (Feb 2023) was one example. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the Auckland Region Coastal Management Framework (2017) require that hazards in developed areas of the coastal environment be adequately managed.

23.     The NZCPS gives direction on coastal management. It recommends the application of a range of coastal management techniques, depending on localised factors. Some situations will require the construction of coastal defence structures such as sea walls. Other situations will be more suited to the restoration of natural coastal buffers such as dunes, wetlands and mangroves as natural defences against erosion and storm impacts.

24.     Auckland Council has developed a range of approaches for managing land within its control along the length of Ōrewa Beach. The Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Plan 2014 (OBEEP) directs that a range of coastal management options should be implemented along the length of Ōrewa Beach. Management options include a mix of hard defences (seawalls) and naturalisation with dune enhancement where possible.

Northern seawall

25.     Planning, design, and consenting has recently been carried out on the northern seawall project, located between Marine Parade and Kohu Street in Ōrewa. Due to the narrow and vulnerable section of coastal reserve in this location, an engineered sea-wall structure was determined to be the most appropriate management option. The Environment Court granted approval for this project in 2020 with reference to supporting evidence that confirmed Auckland Council would consider other management techniques (including naturalisation) along Ōrewa Beach, where the width of remaining esplanade reserve made this a viable option.

Ōrewa Recreation Reserve

26.     This report focuses on Ōrewa Recreation Reserve (Ōrewa Reserve), which is the area of land situated north of the Ōrewa Beach Holiday Park and south of Riverside Road.

 

Fig 1: Location map of Ōrewa Reserve

Coastal processes and management issues at Ōrewa Reserve

27.     The scouring of the reserve frontage during king tides and storm events results in a hazardous change in levels between the reserve and the beach below. This is especially evident in the area adjacent to the Norfolk Island pine trees at the northern end of the reserve where the tree roots are exposed due to additional turbulence and scour. The prominent seaward location of the rock revetment (retaining structure) located in front of the property immediately to the north of the reserve further exacerbates these processes with ‘end effects’ at the transition between the structure and reserve edge.

28.     With ongoing storm events and sea-level rise, the natural beach response is to ‘roll-back’ (find a high tide equilibrium further inland) to maintain a wide buffer of dry high tide beach. However, at this location the trees are effectively ‘holding the line’ of the reserve at a seaward position. Management of the subsequent tree root exposure and the cliffing of the reserve edge has prompted a requirement of ongoing active management by mechanical sand transfer work, to manage the transition from the reserve down to beach level.

29.     Further commentary on the beachfront trees is included below in the ‘Analysis and Advice’ section.

 

Fig 2: Storm damage at the northern end of the reserve following Cyclone Gabrielle, Feb 2023

 

 

Fig 3: The northern end of the reserve after sand transfer work

30.     The current management practice of sand transfer restores the dry high tide beach gradient and usability of the beach-reserve interface. Its success is temporary and limited because of the ongoing coastal management pressures described above, with future significant high tide and storm events having the potential to remove sand offshore again.

31.     Windblown sand is a common issue during strong east and north-easterly winds resulting in further management challenges within the reserve and to residential properties along the Hibiscus Coast Highway. The current location of the reserve edge does not have sufficient width from the mean high-water mark to enable dune planting and stabilisation of the windblown sand.

32.     Another driver for a defined future management direction is that reserve assets are ageing and require renewal. An example is the basketball court which is located close to the coastal edge and is increasingly vulnerable to erosion and undercutting. Its current location is not sustainable in the long term, and it needs to be relocated away from the coastal edge, as part of holistic planning for the reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 4: The basketball court located near the coastal edge

.

       

Fig 5: Picnic table located near the coastal edge

Service assessment and parks service outcomes for Ōrewa Reserve

33.     In 2020 a programme of visitor research and data collection was undertaken at Ōrewa Reserve to understand the range of experiences the reserve provided, and the value placed on these experiences by the community. This work was important to ensure that the experiences valued by the community are retained and protected with any future management approach.

34.     Key insights on the use of Ōrewa Reserve were:

·        there is a greater number of visitors to Ōrewa Reserve and beach than was anticipated

·        the experiences provided by the interface between Ōrewa Beach and reserve are key to the community choosing to recreate at this location

·        the predominant activity undertaken by visitors is active recreation (walking), with comparable numbers undertaking secondary activities of passive recreation (sitting/relaxing) and play on Ōrewa Reserve

·        Ōrewa Beach is favoured by visitors undertaking the primary activity of active recreation

·        Ōrewa Beach is more popular than the grassed areas with visitors undertaking passive recreation

·        most visitors undertaking active recreation on Ōrewa Reserve used the paths

·        the playgrounds were the most used assets on Ōrewa Reserve followed by the basketball court.

35.     Conclusions drawn from the visitor analytics work were used to identify four service outcomes for Ōrewa Reserve through the development of an adaptive, cost effective and sustainable management approach. These service outcomes are:

·        enhance opportunities for beach-related recreational experiences on an extended dry Ōrewa Beach

·        improve access to Ōrewa Beach along the length of the Ōrewa Reserve, to help facilitate beach-related recreational activities, including walking along the beach

·        retain current play value within the wider Ōrewa Beach setting, with a particular focus on providing pockets of play experiences for young children on Ōrewa Reserve and basketball/beach volleyball experiences within the wider reserve

·        enhance opportunities for north-south pedestrian and cycling movements along the reserve, which are integrated with the existing coastal walking/cycling experience throughout the Ōrewa Beach setting.

36.     These outcomes were endorsed by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at their July 2021 meeting (Attachment A to the agenda report) and informed the brief for the Ōrewa Reserve Landscape Concept Report undertaken by Bespoke Landscape Architects 2021-2022 (refer below).

Hazard Susceptibility Assessment for Ōrewa Reserve

37.     In 2012, Tonkin and Taylor undertook a high-level erosion and inundation susceptibility study for the Ōrewa Surf Club. Recognising the passage of time, and updated climate change science available, Auckland Council commissioned Tonkin and Taylor, in 2020, to update the Ōrewa Reserve Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment. The assessment focussed on calculating the ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion’ (ASCE) within the reserve. It mapped the present-day context and provided estimations for 2080 and 2130 impacts (including climate change impacts) to provide a scientific basis for land management decisions, including further determining the future location for the Ōrewa Surf Club.

38.     The results of the Tonkin and Taylor work have been mapped below, with the length of the reserve broken down into three main coastal cells considering the factors influencing coastal change along the frontage. For example, the role of the rock revetment in front of the surf club in interrupting the coast between cell ‘A’ and ‘C’.

39.     The full Ōrewa Reserve Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment has been included as Attachment B to the agenda report.

 

Fig 6: Tonkin and Taylor future ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion’ (ASCE) calculations, 2020

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Future management options for Ōrewa Reserve

40.     Figure 6 shows that by 2080 coastal erosion will impact between one third and half of the reserve (yellow line), depending on the location along the length of the reserve.

41.     To support long-term, sustainable coastal management, there is a need to consider how Ōrewa Reserve will look and be managed in the future, while ensuring that the key recreational experiences can be retained. In achieving this, it is important to demonstrate how the results of the coastal hazard assessment are given effect to, as required by the NZCPS.

Naturalisation

42.     Naturalisation is a coastal adaptive strategy which involves the strategic and managed realignment of the coastal edge, relocating assets outside of the coastal hazard area and working with the natural coastal environment to create a more resilient coastal edge. At Ōrewa Beach, opportunities include enhancing the width of dry high tide beach and restoration of the dune landscape and its ecosystems to provide a natural buffer to coastal processes and storm events.

43.     Benefits of naturalisation include:

·        working with natural coastal processes and beach functioning

·        low visual impact and maintaining the natural character of the coast

·        allows for beach-related recreational experiences on a restored and extended dry high tide beach and back dune, through the full range of the tides

·        offers a graduated experience and improved access from the reserve to the beach via defined footpaths within the dune landscape

·        lower enduring capital and operational maintenance costs related to dune and plant maintenance versus coastal structure maintenance, repairs and renewals

·        restores the dune landscape and its ecosystems to build natural resilience to coastal processes.

44.     Where assets are located too close to the coastal edge and subject to ongoing management and maintenance pressure, sustainable future management practices prompt the need to relocate assets landward from the defined coastal hazard area. At Ōrewa Reserve, this can be achieved within the established asset renewal programme and can be informed by the maps within the Tonkin and Taylor Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment.

45.     This adaptive strategy can only be implemented where there is sufficient reserve land to allow for the managed retreat of park assets. This was tested by Bespoke Landscape Architects during their landscape concept work which will be set out in the following section of this report. High-level planning indicates that Ōrewa Reserve is of suitable length and width for naturalisation to be implemented and function successfully.

46.     Staff are recommending that Ōrewa Reserve is a suitable site for a naturalisation strategy to manage the reserve in future.

Naturalisation precedents

47.     Auckland Council has implemented similar naturalisation strategies across the region in the past.

48.     In 2009, significant erosion at the south of Muriwai Beach on Auckland’s west coast triggered the realignment of the southern car park approximately 40m landward, with substantial regrading and replanting of the coastal edge. The project enabled safe access to the beach to be restored and provided a resilient dune system and dry high tide beach that offered improved amenity to the area. The works also prompted the independent relocation of the surf club from immediately behind the eroding dune face to some 300m inland, where an improved facility was rebuilt.

49.     More recently, naturalisation by dune restoration was implemented successfully at the eastern end of Stanmore Bay, immediately following the January 2018 storm events. Unconsented, legacy rock armour material that was exposed during the storm was removed, and the eroded reserve edge reprofiled to a safe gradient and replanted.

50.     Another successful example of dune restoration is the southern end of Ōrewa Beach, in front of the camping ground, which was established approximately 25 years ago.

Fig 7: Storm damage at the eastern end of Stanmore Bay, Jan 2018

 

Fig 8: Dune restoration implemented at Stanmore Bay 2018-19.

 

Fig 9 Beach access incorporated into dune restoration work at Stanmore Bay 2018-19.

Ōrewa Reserve landscape concept report

51.     In 2021 Bespoke Landscape Architects were engaged to analyse the technical information available, and work with coastal engineers Tonkin and Taylor to help inform a management approach for Ōrewa Reserve that was sympathetic to the results of the Coastal Hazard Assessment. The brief set out that the endorsed four service outcomes should be incorporated, and that the proposed management direction should be cost effective for Auckland Council.

52.     In 2022 Bespoke Landscape Architects produced four high-level concept options which configured the existing park assets and activities in different ways. All concepts were aligned with a naturalisation strategy but included provision to retain a surf club boat accessway in front of the relocated surf club building. The concept designs gave different weightings to different uses within the reserve.

53.     The Bespoke Landscape Concept Report presented four concept design options for the reserve. All options share the following characteristics:

·        follow a naturalisation approach to future management on the reserve

·        allow for coastal retreat based on a 2080 planning horizon scenario

·        provide for improved access between the beach and the reserve

·        include provision for playgrounds, sporting courts, public toilets, carparking and other recreational activities

·        allow for a shared path connection running north-south along the Hibiscus Coast Highway

·        include space for the Ōrewa Surf Life Saving Club, in a new location, set back from its existing location

·        all options envisage the eventual removal of Norfolk Island pine trees and some Pohutukawa trees from the beachfront of the reserve, noting that other trees were planted landward within in the reserve, approximately 20 years ago

·        all options will reduce the requirement and associated costs for sand transfers to this location post storm events.

Tree discussion

54.     The beachfront trees at the northern end of Ōrewa Reserve are scheduled as notable trees within the Auckland Unitary Plan. These are mostly Norfolk Island pine trees and include some Pohutukawa. These trees are valued by the community for cultural and environmental reasons. Due to their size and age, they are a valuable source of carbon sequestration, pollutant adsorption, stormwater runoff interception and oxygen production.

55.     The Urban Forest Specialist has communicated that these trees are in good health, are stable in their current position and will remain so in the short-medium term. Generally, Norfolk Island pine and Pohutukawa species have a long-life expectancy. However, their location and the likely impacts of coastal processes place some uncertainty on their long-term health.

56.     Their location on the foredune is within the current area susceptible to coastal erosion. Their root mass is acting as a ‘wall’ which is preventing the beach from establishing a wide buffer of dry high tide beach landward of the trees. Consequently, their root zones become scoured during storms and king tides.

57.     As coastal processes take their course, increased root zone erosion may undermine the root plate and the stability or health of the trees. It is difficult to quantify when or to what extent this may occur. Electronic monitoring devices have been fitted to the trunks of these trees, recording tree movements and rotation. Currently this information shows the trees to be stable even after a weather event where sand has subsided.

58.     Another consideration is that after a weather event where sand subsides leaving a steep escarpment, health and safety risks must be managed. There is a risk of falls from height, collapse of the sand bank and potential entrapment. There will be a requirement for council to manage these risks which may result in fencing off the area within the vicinity of the root zones to isolate the hazard.

59.     The current management methodology involving sand transfer offers protection to the trees and minimises health and safety issues around the roots and escarpment. It involves closing the areas of beach affected, using machinery to load sand at the southern end of the beach. Sand is transported and graded down from the reserve level to the beach level. This work is covered by a consent and has associated operational costs of $150,000 - $200,000 each time, based on a medium to large scale storm event. In 2023 there were two large scale storm events, requiring two transfers and other minor reshaping work.

60.     The Resilient Land and Coasts team have advised that the requirement for sand transfers will increase in future years due to sea level rise, climate change and weather events. The local board will need to consider these costs, and whether this management practice is financially sustainable in the long term.

61.     While the trees remain in situ, and while funding remains available, Parks and Community Facilities will continue to carry out sand transfer operations after storm events, to support the health of the beachfront trees and manage health and safety concerns.

62.     To achieve a successful planted, naturalised dune system, with high tide beach experience through the range of the tides as described within this report, the removal of the beachfront trees will be required. A resource consent will be necessary to do this, and more project work is required to inform timeframes. This could include removal of all trees at once or a more staggered approach, retaining some trees where possible whilst allowing for naturalisation in other areas depending on desired outcomes.

63.     Each of the four concept design options, outlined below, involve the eventual removal of the beachfront trees (Attachment C). The current ecosystem service value of the existing trees should be taken into account and appropriate replanting incorporated into any future design to remedy their loss.

A map of a beach

Description automatically generated

Concept A aims to achieve existing carparking numbers with formalised parking zones placed within the reserve. A full basketball court and shelter near the proposed Auckland Transport bus stop is included. Pockets of play distributed throughout the reserve can accommodate various age groups.

Fig 10: Bespoke Concept A

 

Concept B aims to achieve formalised parking near the Surf Life Saving Club with an ‘overflow’ parking zone within the grassed open space. Two medium scale play spaces can accommodate two distinct age groups, as well as two opportunities for fitness zones - one along the promenade and one along the dune planting at the southern end.

A map of a beach

Description automatically generated

Fig 11: Bespoke Concept B

 

Concept C provides a centralised hub with formalised parking near the Surf Life Saving Club with an ‘overflow’ parking zone within the grassed open space. The central hub provides active use with a basketball court, volleyball court, and fitness equipment. Play is divided into two zones with opportunity to target two user groups.

A map of a beach

Description automatically generated

Fig 12: Bespoke Concept C

 

A map of a beach

Description automatically generated

Concept D provides a centralised hub with formalised parking near the Surf Life Saving Club. The central hub provides active use with a basketball court, volleyball court, and fitness equipment. The removal of overflow parking allows for a large-scale ‘destination’ play space opportunity aiming to target multiple user groups and an all-inclusive space.

Fig 13: Bespoke Concept D

 

64.     Staff recommend that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board endorse concept options A-D, from the Bespoke Landscape Concept report, as an appropriate suite of options for further investigation, which would include development of high-level costings and public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

65.     This work is directly linked to minimising climate change impacts and building resilience to coastal hazards, including sea-level rise, at Ōrewa Reserve.

66.     Dune naturalisation and planting of this section of beachfront will improve the beachfront’s natural resilience to king tides, coastal storms and sea level rise, while providing ecological and environmental benefits that are also key to mitigate future climate change.

67.     It is anticipated that a more natural management strategy will also reduce future active operational management requirements.

68.     In contrast, hard management solutions such as provision of further seawalls or rock revetments along Ōrewa Beach would require careful management to mitigate potential adverse effects and the higher carbon emissions associated with construction.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

69.     This project and the recommendations in this report are supported by key departments across the council family including Parks and Community Facilities (as the asset manager) and Resilient Land and Coasts Department (as technical specialists in coastal hazards, climate change and engineering). The Urban Tree Specialist has been involved in discussions regarding the beachfront trees.

70.     This project does not impact the work of council-controlled organisations. We are not proposing any changes to the on-street parking provided by Auckland Transport, or the relocation of any public transport facilities. The shared path that runs through Ōrewa Reserve is managed and maintained by council.

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

Local impacts and local board views

71.     This is a high priority project for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, and it is anticipated that there will be a high degree of local board and public interest in the information contained within this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

History and background

72.     This project was first introduced to mana whenua in 2021 at a North-West Forum hui. Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki representatives were in attendance.

73.     Ōrewa Reserve coastal management challenges were presented and discussed. It was outlined that this project has similar themes to the Whangaparāoa Shoreline Adaptation Plan: i.e., accepting reversal of infrastructure to rectify hazard issues, naturalisation (letting nature take its course), protection of biodiversity and protection of heritage.

74.     This meeting introduced the Ōrewa Reserve Service Assessment work and sought direction from the iwi representatives on who should be involved. Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki and Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara were put forward to contribute to this work.

75.     In 2023 these iwi were invited to provide input into this project. A response was received from Ngāti Manuhiri indicating that this work was a priority within their rohe and allocated a team member to work with the Parks and Places Specialist.

Ngāti Manuhiri hui and briefing

76.     An initial hui was held with Ngāti Manuhiri at Ōrewa Reserve (Nov 2023) to introduce the project. A second hui was held at the Ngāti Manuhiri offices in Warkworth (Dec 2023). A subsequent site meeting was held at Stanmore Bay to observe the coastal edge naturalisation work that was completed in 2019.

77.     Throughout this period relevant supporting documents were shared with Ngāti Manuhiri. These included the Whangaparāoa Shoreline Adaptation Plan, the Ōrewa Reserve Service Assessment, the Ōrewa Reserve Coastal Hazard Susceptibility Assessment, and the Landscape Concept Report. This information, in addition to the hui with council staff, enabled Ngāti Manuhiri to consider their position and management preferences for Ōrewa Reserve.

Ngāti Manuhiri position

78.     Ngāti Manuhiri have indicated support for the project proposals based on demonstration of cultural sensitivity (respecting cultural values), environmental stewardship (incorporating measures to protect and enhance the natural surroundings) and the collaborative approach taken by the project team in consulting with mana whenua toward an inclusive and culturally sensitive development.

79.     Ngāti Manuhiri have offered specific recommendations for further enhancement of the project. The following is an excerpt from their position statement:

 

i.    Encourage Native Planting: We strongly recommend encouraging the planting of native species throughout the development area. Native vegetation not only enhances the natural beauty of the landscape but also contributes to biodiversity and ecosystem health.

ii.    Protection of Wai: Waterways can become severely degraded due to poor management of waste, stormwater, earthworks, and other pollutants that significantly decrease their mauri. The importance of the coastal area to Ngāti Manuhiri over many generations is reflected by ancient whakataukī and waiata, traditions associated with the ocean, the sailing and navigational skills. These cultural practices highlight the interconnectivity between humans and nature, emphasizing the need to preserve water sources for future generations. All measures and opportunities to improve, protect and enhance waterways should be taken.

iii.   Protection of Wāhi Tapu: Ngāti Manuhiri believes that the inherent mana of their tupuna lives on through whakapapa and their successive generations and considers the wāhi tapu (sacred space) and urupā (cemeteries) where their tupuna lie as places that are tapu (sacred) requiring both kaitiakitanga (protection) and utu (reverence). There are known archaeological sites, some of these culturally significant sites in the area are recorded on Auckland Council’s website and there will be undiscovered sites in the area. As such any future development needs to be completed with Accidental Discovery Protocols in place.

iv.  Opportunities to Enhance the Natural Environment: Whilst we understand that some of the purpose of this project is to create recreational space and access points where people can enjoy the natural feeling and mauri (life-force) of the area, we also appreciate that efforts are made firstly to ensure the environment is restored to how it would naturally form from the elements that interface with Ōrewa. We recommend that wherever possible, all enhancements are approached with a naturalised framework, using sustainable resources.

v.   Play value for our Tamariki: Looking into future, we understand that climate change and sea level rising will impact the current play experiences for our Tamariki. We recognise that while these features are not currently at risk that they remain in place and maintained until necessary retreat measures are required. As this space develops, we would like to be kept well informed and involved with future planning.

vi.  Cultural safety: All contractors and sub-contractors are required to complete a cultural induction prior to works commencement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

80.     There are no direct financial implications to the local board endorsing the recommendations within this report. Costings of the high-level concept designs are yet to be determined, but a cost-effective solution will be sought to respond to the current management challenges at Ōrewa Reserve. High level costings for all options will be prepared, including the envisaged consequential opex requirements and brought back to the local board at a future date.

81.     From Auckland Council’s experience evaluating the cost of implementing a range of coastal management solutions across the region, it is anticipated that the recommended naturalisation of the coast will be of lower capital and ongoing operational cost than alternative ‘hard’ options.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

82.     The coast holds intrinsic value to iwi, the community and Aucklanders. This includes environmental, recreational and amenity, cultural, aesthetic and economic values. Some of the values attributed to Ōrewa Beach and Reserve are likely to be contradictory. Trade-offs in identifying a preferred management option will be managed through comprehensive engagement and partnership with iwi, key stakeholders and the community.

83.     All concept designs are high level at this stage. There is risk that further design investigation may reveal unexpected costs or site constraints, which may require trade-offs, and flexibility in approach, to achieve one preferred management option for the reserve.

84.     Stakeholder and community expectations may not align with available funding. Expectations on what is possible with the available council budget will need to be clearly communicated during the community and stakeholder engagement sessions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

85.     Endorsed design concepts will be further investigated by staff to inform local board decision making, including:

·        developing costings for all design concepts, including anticipated consequential opex requirements

·        consulting with stakeholders and the wider community to get feedback on the design concepts

·        reporting back to the local board on a preferred design concept for their endorsement.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board service outcome resolution HB/2021/80 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Tonkin and Taylor: Ōrewa Reserve coastal hazard susceptibility assessment (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Bespoke Landscape Architects: Landscape concept report (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Matt Woodside - Parks and Places Specialist

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/01703

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4.       Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the local board on 14 November 2023 and 20 February 2024 to aid developing views on priorities.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus & Bays Local Board:

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

i)        collaborate about the following Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects:

A)      raised pedestrian crossing, footpath on the island, driver feedback sign at the corner of Whangaparāoa Road and Hibiscus Coast Highway and a new footpath crossing to 57A Hibiscus Coast Highway project

B)      raised pedestrian crossing at Saddleback Rise, Murrays Bay project

C)     safety improvements for East Coast Bays Schools project

D)     Torbay Plaza enhancement project

E)      pedestrian crossing at 141 Deep Creek Road, Torbay project

F)      new pedestrian refuge island on Whangaparāoa Road, Manly, near the Fire Station project.

ii)       consult about the following projects or programmes: 

A)      Browns Bay Town Centre improved pedestrian facilities project

B)      Silverdale Town Centre improved pedestrian facilities project

C)     East Coast Road, from Rosedale Road to Constellation Drive, cycleway protections and installation of separation project, in conjunction with Upper Harbour Local Board.

iii)      inform the local board about these projects or programmes:

A)      Murrays Bay Sailing Club new footpath and pedestrian crossing project

B)      Beach Road pedestrian refuge project

C)     Sunrise Ave raised zebra crossing project

D)     Wade River Road, Arkles Bay new footpath project

E)      Gulf Harbour Drive Astrolabe Place to Regency Park Drive new footpath project

F)      94 Brightside Road raised zebra crossing project

G)     any hit sticks installations.

b)      whakarite / provide any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes:

i)        safer pedestrian facility outside Wentworth Primary School on Gulf Harbour Drive

ii)       safer pedestrian facility outside Gulf Harbour School rear entrance to Gulf Harbour Drive

iii)      Glenvar Road upgrade

iv)      East Coast Road improvements

v)      Vaughans Road upgrade

vi)      Okura River Road upgrade

vii)     improved Public Transport to Whangaparāoa Peninsula including Gulf Harbour ferries

viii)    construction of the Whangaparāoa Bus Station.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

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

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

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

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

·        increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

·        providing local board insights in all project engagement

·        participating in Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations (CCO) Engagement Plan reporting.

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

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

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

 

 

Collaboration

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

Consultation

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

Informing

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     Auckland Transport first provided quality advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 14 November 2023 (Attachment A to the agenda report).

13.     The local board has continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 20 February 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.     Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

29.     The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 14 November 2023 to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. They have been specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by AT executive leaders.

30.     There was an additional workshop on 20 February 2024 with the AT Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

32.     Auckland Transport’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 AT website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     This decision has no financial implications for Hibiscus and Bays Local Board because AT funds all projects and programmes.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Works Programme Brief (Under Separate Cover)

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Ben Stallworthy - Principal Advisor Stakeholder Relations, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02081

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback 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 statutory deadline for council to notify a freshwater plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan was 31 December 2024. The government has since signalled an intent to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and has moved the plan change deadline to December 2027. A revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 is anticipated by the end of 2025.

6.       While there may be a longer-term impact on 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 to the agenda report), a summary of feedback (Attachment B to the agenda report) and a local board members’ briefing that was held on 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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, council is required to actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) and to engage with communities.

About the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

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 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

17.     When the consultation was held, 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 2023, 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) council sought feedback to develop a vision and values for freshwater in Auckland.

26.     This time (3 November 2023 - 4 December 2023), 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 (4 – 5 November 2023), Clevedon A&P Show (4 – November 2023), Auckland Regional Waka Ama Regatta (18 November 2023) and Grey Lynn Park Festival (18 November 2023).

·        an online information webinar presented by subject matter experts (15 November 2023), 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:

·        ‘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

·        ‘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

34.     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].

35.     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.

36.     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.

37.     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.

38.     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.

39.     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

40.     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.

41.     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.

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

Potential management approaches

43.     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.

44.     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.

45.     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.

46.     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 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 vision

47.     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.

48.     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.

49.     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

50.     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

51.     For each freshwater value 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’

52.     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

53.     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.

54.     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

55.     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.

56.     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.

57.     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

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

59.     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.

60.     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.

61.     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

62.     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.

63.     In some cases, 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

64.     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.

65.     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.

66.     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.

67.     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

68.     Attachment B contains 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.

69.     There were 3,873 submissions from individuals and 36 from organisations.

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

71.     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.

72.     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.

73.     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.

74.     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

75.     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”.

76.     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.

77.     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.

78.     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

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

80.     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

81.     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

82.     The NPS-FM currently states that 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.

83.     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.

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

86.     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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

88.     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 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

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

 

     


 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Raewyn Curran – Senior Policy Planner Plans and Places

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 


Hibiscus and Bays 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.: CP2024/02443

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide 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 (Attachment A to the agenda report) for public consultation, replacing the draft Government Policy Statement 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 to the agenda report).

3.       The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 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 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 is the government’s direction on how $20 billion in funding from the National Land Transport Fund 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 Government Policy Statement 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 Government Policy Statements 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 Government Policy Statement. The proposed approaches to transport emissions reduction and road safety also differ significantly from the previous edition of the Government Policy Statement as well as Auckland Council group’s plans and strategies.

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

9.       A template for local board feedback has been provided (Attachment C to the agenda report).

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 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide local board 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 to the Ministry of Transport.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Consultation memo on the new draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Local board feedback template (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02678

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide 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 local 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 the 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 local board workshops in February 2024 to the Joint Governance Working Party meeting in March 2024 and the six local board representatives will share the working party’s consideration of that with the local board clusters they represent.

9.       Local board feedback from the March 2024 business meeting 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakarite / 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 an 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 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. Currently 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 review community leases more easily to free up space currently tied up in peppercorn leases with low-value, low-participation activities on valuable council land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.     An approach going forward might include to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other implications

22.     Staff have also noted that local boards need to be remunerated and have work hours commensurate with their intended role – understanding that this is a decision of the Remuneration Authority (the 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 Socio-economic 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 Joint Governance Working Party (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 the 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. Region-wide 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 JGWP meeting in April 2024.

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 chairperson 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 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, Executive Leadership Team oversight will be needed. This will be required of council-controlled organisation 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 workshop 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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02673

 

  

 

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 with developing council’s initial proposal for the representation review and developing options for the reorganisation plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakarite / 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)      whakarite / 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)      tautoko / 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 Joint Governance Working Party (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 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

·        local 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 local 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 to 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. 

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 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 local 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 local boards that are not affected are:

·        The two island local boards: Aotea / Gt Barrier, Waiheke

·        The two rural local boards: Rodney, Franklin

·        Some isthmus local 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 local boards that are affected (amalgamated) or not affected.


40.     There are sound arguments that rural local boards should not amalgamate (they already have very large geographic areas and their communities have different issues to urban communities). The island local boards are geographically separate. The Howick Local Board is already one large board in a two-councillor ward. All the remaining local 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 local 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 local boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

New local boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

Hibiscus & Bays

East Coast Bays 4

8

Albany

East Coast Bays 3

12

Hibiscus Coast  4

Hibiscus Coast 4

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 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 local 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.

Local 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 local 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 local boards and wards (apart from the island local 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 the 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 the 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 mayors 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 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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Representation project - issues specific to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

File No.: CP2024/02108

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The representation project comprises the review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections, which Auckland 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. The key issue is the non-compliance of subdivisions with the 10 per cent rule which applies to a representation review. This report presents alternative options to correcting the non-compliance.

5.       The non-compliance is very minor, and the council is able to decide to not comply with the 10 per cent rule if compliance would compromise communities of interest (for example by splitting a community of interest or joining disparate communities of interest). A decision to not comply is determined by the Local Government Commission. A decision to not comply should not be made unless it is clear the communities of interest will be compromised.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      kohuki / consider its feedback on options to address non-compliance of the two subdivisions with the 10 per cent rule, including whether the council should decide to not comply with this rule on the basis that compliance would compromise communities of interest.

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 per cent.

7.       A council may decide to not comply with the requirement for population to member to not vary by more than 10 per cent 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is as follows:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

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

 

10.     The statistics are provided by Stats NZ and distributed to all councils by the Local Government Commission. They are an estimate based on the 2018 census.

11.     A map of current subdivisions is as follows:

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     In order to correct the non-compliance, the East Coast Bays subdivision needs to gain population and the Hibiscus Coast subdivision needs to lose population. This implies moving the East Coast Bays subdivision northern boundary into Hibiscus Coast.

13.     Staff considered two options. Option 1 below provides minimal compliance with the 10 per cent rule with the variance for the subdivisions being 9.92 per cent and -9.92 per cent. The boundary change does not affect Stillwater.

14.     Option 2 achieves better compliance (7.69 per cent and -7.69 per cent), but Stillwater moves from Hibiscus Coast to East Coast Bays.

Option 1 – minimal change

15.     Maps of Option 1 are as follows:

A map of the united states

Description automatically generated

A map of a river

Description automatically generated

 

16.     The population table for Option 1 is:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area

Hibiscus Coast Subdivision

64,360

4

16,090

1,453

9.92

East Coast Bays Subdivision

52,740

4

13,185

-1,453

-9.92

Total

117,100

8

14,638

 

Option 2 – better compliance

17.     Maps of Option 2 are as follows:

A map of the united states

Description automatically generated

A map of a river

Description automatically generated

 

18.     The population table for Option 2 is:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area

Hibiscus Coast Subdivision

63,050

4

15,763

1,125

7.69

East Coast Bays Subdivision

54,050

4

13,513

-1,125

-7.69

Total

117,100

8

14,638

 

 

Effective representation of communities of interest

19.     Each of the two options addresses the non-compliance with the 10 per cent rule. The local board needs to consider which, if any, best provides for effective representation of communities of interest.

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

21.     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?

22.     A key difference between the two options is the effect on the Stillwater area. It is not affected by Option 1 but is affected by Option 2. 

23.     A key question therefore is whether Stillwater has a strong community of interest with Hibiscus Coast which should not be split. The local board is in a better position to consider this than staff.

24.     Staff note that the criterion is not just the identification of a community of interest but is the effective representation of communities of interest.

25.     Applying the guide from the Local Government Commission, relevant questions might be:

·        do people in Stillwater identify more with Hibiscus Coast or East Coast Bays?

·        where do people in Stillwater go for services? – northwards or southwards?

·        if Stillwater moved to the East Coast Bays subdivision, would it still be effectively represented?

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26.     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

27.     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

28.     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 per cent rule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.     Small adjustments to subdivision boundaries do not impact on Māori communities differently to other communities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.     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 per cent rule, the commission makes the determination in any case.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32.     The local 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 Governance Services

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays 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.: CP2024/02006

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan-Mar 2024) as well as a general update on the council-controlled organisation Engagement Plans.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       Council-controlled organisations provide local boards with their 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 Council-controlled organisation 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 council-controlled organisation quarterly report will be provided in June 2024.  

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays 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 Council-controlled organisation Local Board Joint Engagement Plans?

11.     The 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations recommended that council-controlled organisations (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.

Council-controlled organisation work programme items

14.     Council-controlled organisations 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.

Council-controlled organisation 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 in quarter three (January to March 2024).

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

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

·    No changes to engagement levels.

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

         Watercare

·    Waiwera Upgrades: ground surveys to inform design expected to be completed;

·    Hobbs Road Pumpstation - targeted asset renewals: investigations are expected to be completed;

·    Browns Bay Pump Station - targeted asset renewals: geotechnically investigations to inform the works were undertaken in December 2023; work on the renewals expected to start in February 2024;

·    Scott Road Reservoir duplication project: construction expected in 2025;

·    Mairangi Bay gravity wastewater sewer upgrade: investigation was completed by the end of 2023 and design of new pipeline is underway;

·    Mairangi Bay Pump Station replacement: construction is expected to be completed with commissioning to follow.

28.     Watercare’s work programme is 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 mid-2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Eke Panuku Development Auckland work programme update

97

b

Watercare work programme update

99

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Amendment to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board business meeting schedule for 2024

File No.: CP2024/02943

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for an additional meeting date to be added to the 2024 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting schedule to adopt the 2024 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.         A report to the October 2023 business meeting recommended the adoption of a meeting schedule for the period February 2024 to December 2024.

3.         An additional business meeting is now required on 11 June 2024 to adopt the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement.

4.         An amended meeting schedule for the period April 2024 to December 2024 has been developed and is included for adoption by the local board to replace the meeting schedule adopted by resolution number HB/2023/165.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whakaae / approve the amended meeting schedule outlined below for the period April 2024 to December 2024

Year

Date

Time

Venue

2024

Tuesday 23 April

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 28 May

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 11 June

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 25 June

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 23 July

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 27 August

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 24 September

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 22 October

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 26 November

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

Tuesday 10 December

10.00am

Local board office, 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Louise Healy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Hōtaka Kaupapa - Policy Schedule for March 2024

File No.: CP2024/00043

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with the Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule for March 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report contains the Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule, a schedule of items that will come before the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at business meetings over the coming months.

3.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is included as attachment A to the agenda report.

4.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on agendas is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

5.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule 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, and the schedule is subject to change.  Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule for March 2024

105

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Louise Healy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2024/00060

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop records for March 2024.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the workshop records for March 2024.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop records for March 2024

109

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Louise Healy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 


 


 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

a)      whakaae / agree to exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Holiday Parks update

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains site-specific commercial information, which if released would impact the ability to reasonably negotiate (which is a possible outcome of the report).

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    One Nudge presentation                               Page 117

Item 8.2      Attachment a    North Harbour Budgeting presentation         Page 121


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 




Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

26 March 2024

 

 







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