Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 17 April 2024

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 Rodney Local Board:

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

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney 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: Warkworth's Men's Shed

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Barry Thompson from the Warkworth Men's Shed has requested a deputation to discuss the acquisition of council land for a replacement shed facility at the A and P Showgrounds in Warkworth.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Thompson for his attendance at the meeting.

8.2 Deputation: Falls Road Reserve

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Roger and Patte Williams on behalf of the Forest and Bird Warkworth Area have requested a deputation to discuss the value of the Falls Reserve to the expanded Warkworth Community.

2. A presentation has been provided an is available under Attachment A of this item (under separate cover).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr and Mrs Williams for their attendance and presentation at the meeting.

8.3 Deputation: Citizens Advice Bureau - Wellsford

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Brian Wright from the Citizens Advice Bureau - Wellsford has requested a deputation to discuss the aims of the Citizens Advice Bureau and the threats they face in order to support the community.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Wright for his attendance at the meeting.

8.4 Deputation: Dog Park in Kumeu / Huapai

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Eddie Charlet-Green has requested a deputation to discuss the need of a dog park in the Kumeū / Huapai area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Charlet-Green for his attendance at the meeting.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rodney Local Board

17 April 2024

Landowner approval from Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association for tree protection works at Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve, Whangateau

File No.: CP2024/03697

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to decline the landowner approval request from the Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association to undertake tree protection works at Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve, Whangateau.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The applicant, Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association seeks landowner approval to undertake tree protection works around six Pohutukawa trees threatened by coastal erosion on Auckland Council land at Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve, Whangateau.

3. The proposal would see the construction of stabilised sediment beams around each of the Pohutukawa.

4. Council anticipated the possibility of the Pohutukawa not surviving coastal erosion when obtaining resource consent for the Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve Reclamation project in 2012.

5. The approved 2012 resource consent includes conditions allowing the council to remove the Pohutukawa trees if damaged by coastal erosion and to plant replacement Pohutukawa trees.

6. The proposed sediment beams have a similar design to the existing concrete structures built around two additional Pohutukawa trees near the boat ramp at Whangateau Reserve.

7. The existing structures protecting the Pohutukawa trees near the boat ramp are not preventing erosion as there is evidence of soil displacement and exposed roots.

8. Staff have undertaken an assessment of the proposal and recommend the proposal to construct stabilised sediment beams around the Pohutukawa trees is declined due to concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed protection.

9. Staff support the alternative option of planting replacement trees on the landward side of the foreshore pathway. This option will avoid further modification of the shoreline, and better align with the intent of original Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve Reclamation Project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakahē / decline the landowner approval application from the Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association to undertake tree protection works at Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve, Whangateau.

Horopaki

Context

The land

10. Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve (Whangateau Reserve) is located 16 kilometres east of Warkworth at 511 Leigh Road, Whangateau (figure 1). The land is legally described as Allotment 156A, Parish of Omaha SO 6463 and is held by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Figure 1: Extent of Whangateau Reserve

11. The reserve features a car parking area, playground, boat ramp, public toilet, community hall, football field, rugby league field and the Rodney Rams Rugby League Club’s clubhouse building in the north-eastern area, a campground in the south-western area along with a coastal pathway and numerous trees along the foreshore.

12. The Rodney Local Parks Management Plan 2023 (RLPMP) provides a policy framework that will guide decision-making for parks in the Rodney Local Board area over the next 10 years. The RLPMP identifies coastal erosion as an issue at Whangateau Reserve, noting that areas of the reserve are vulnerable to coastal erosion. Over time, this may impact on recreational use, park assets and facilities.

Figure 2: View of Existing foreshore at Whangateau Reserve

Previous resource consent

13. In 2012, council’s Parks and Facilities department was granted a resource consent by an independent duty commissioner for reclamation of an area of approximately 920m², the construction of a stabilised sediment seawall and construction of two concrete protection bunds around the Pohutukawa trees near the boat ramp at Whangateau Reserve.

14. While this resource consent allowed the construction of a stabilised sediment wall and concrete bunds, it was approved on the basis that the ongoing management of the foreshore area at Whangateau Reserve will be based on a policy of managed retreat.

15. Council anticipated the possibility of the Pohutukawa trees affected by the current landowner approval application not surviving when preparing the resource consent application in 2012. Accordingly, the consent includes conditions allowing council to remove the Pohutukawa trees in the event they are damaged or undermined by ongoing coastal erosion and requires that replacement Pohutukawa trees are planted on the reserve side of the seawall.

16. Council’s Parks and Community Facilities staff have met on site with members of the Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association (WRRA) and the Rodney Rams Rugby League Club to discuss the planting of two 4-metre-tall replacement Pohutukawa trees at Whangateau Reserve. The two groups do not support this option as in their view, the only locations the council identified as suitable will block views and encroach into the ‘goal-line’ area of the rugby league field.

The proposal

17. The applicant is proposing works to protect the Pohutukawa on the foreshore at Whangateau Reserve (figure 3). The works would involve constructing small, stabilised sediment beams around the Pohutukawa trees, which will have a similar design to the existing promontories protecting two Pohutukawa trees at the eastern end of the reserve near the boat ramp (figure 4).

Figure 3: Location of the proposed tree protection and existing protection

18. The contractors undertaking the proposed works would gain vehicle access to the trees via the boat ramp. The proposed works would be undertaken during weekdays to minimise the impact on reserve users and neighbours. The estimated duration of the works is one week.

19. The proposal would not see any restrictions on pedestrian access to the reserve.

Figure 4: Proposed Design

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. The following council technical specialists have reviewed the proposal and the comments below reflect those received:

· Facilities Manager, Parks and Community Facilities

· Land Use Advisor, Parks and Community Facilities

· Manager Area Operations, Parks and Community Facilities

· Parks and Places Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities

· Senior Coastal Specialist, Resilient Land and Coasts

· Senior Urban Forest Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities.

Proposed structures and assets

21. Staff’s view is that the gradual erosion of the Pohutukawa trees is part of natural processes, and the management of the affected trees has been addressed through the approved resource consent.

22. There are also concerns about the effectiveness of the potential protection wall design as the existing structures built around the Pohutukawa trees near the boat ramp are not preventing erosion with evidence of soil displacement and exposed roots.

23. Due to location of the works in the coastal marine environment, the proposal would need to go through a resource consent process. Council’s coastal team is unlikely to support a resource consent application proposing further armouring on the foreshore, given the original project anticipated the possibility of these trees not surviving in the long term.

Preferred option

24. Staff do not support the proposal and support the alternative option involving the phased replacement of the Pohutukawa with new trees on the reserve side of the sea wall.

25. The two Pohutukawa with the least retention value would be replaced initially with two trees and additional replanting would follow as the remaining trees are gradually lost. The full cost of replacing the Pohutukawa trees is covered by Auckland Council’s operational budget.

26. Overall, this option will avoid further modification of the shoreline, and better aligns with the intent of original Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve Reclamation Project.

Ownership and maintenance

27. Staff’s preference is that the proposed sediment beams do not become council assets if the landowner application is approved and they are privately built and consented.

Plan alignment

28. The Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 acknowledges the risks associated with coastal inundation and erosion but does not set a directive for the installation of coastal protection measures. Such matters are generally addressed via environmental plans and strategies such as Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

29. The ‘Te Tāruke ā-Tāwhiri | Climate Action’ section of the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023, notes the importance of meeting the goals and directives set by Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. Auckland’s Climate Plan has facilitated the development of Shoreline Adaption Plans (SAPs). The Leigh to Algies Bay Shoreline Adaption Plan is yet to be produced. This SAP would identify the recommended management strategy for the area and detail whether new coastal structures are recommended.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

32. The Rodney Local Parks Management Plan 2023 notes that areas of the Whangateau parkland are vulnerable to coastal erosion. Over time, this can impact on recreational use, park assets and facilities. The vulnerability of the parkland to erosion is likely to be a challenge that will need to be managed appropriately.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. The following council technical specialists have reviewed the proposal and the comments below reflect those received:

· Facilities Manager, Parks and Community Facilities

· Land Use Advisor, Parks and Community Facilities

· Manager Area Operations, Parks and Community Facilities

· Parks and Places Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities

· Senior Coastal Specialist, Resilient Land and Coasts

· Senior Urban Forest Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities.

34. Auckland Council staff do not support the proposal due to concerns about the effectiveness of the potential protection wall design as the existing structures built around the Pohutukawa near the boat ramp at Whangateau Reserve are not preventing erosion with evidence of soil displacement and exposed roots. The proposal will also require further modification of the coastline which does not align with current council coastal specialist advice which favours managed retreat at Whangateau Reserve.

35. Staff support the alternative option of planting replacement trees on the landward side of the foreshore pathway. This option will avoid further modification of the shoreline, and better aligns with the intent of the original Whangateau Domain Recreation Reserve Reclamation Project.

36. Feedback from council-controlled organisations is not relevant and has not been sought for this proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

38. The Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 acknowledges the risks associated with coastal inundation and erosion but does not set a directive for the installation of coastal protection measures. Such matters are generally addressed via environmental plans and strategies such as Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

39. The ‘Te Tāruke ā-Tāwhiri | Climate Action’ section of the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023, notes the importance of meeting the goals and directives set by Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. Auckland’s Climate Plan has facilitated the development of Shoreline Adaption Plans (SAPs). The Leigh to Algies Bay Shoreline Adaption Plan yet to be produced. This SAP would identify the recommended management strategy for the area and detail whether new coastal structures are recommended.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context.

41. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata – Māori Responsiveness Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau – the Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework.

42. Staff are aware that the applicant has engaged with Ngati Manuhiri regarding this proposal but have not received any communication from the applicant advising whether mana whenua support the proposed stabilised sediment beam. There will be a requirement for further engagement if landowner approval is provided and the applicant applies for resource consent.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. The proposal would see the creation of new structures within the coastal marine area. While the structures would be expected to have a long lifespan, there is potential that the structures would need maintenance/remedial work in the future. This cost would be expected to be borne by the Whangateau Residents and Ratepayers Association.

44. Auckland Council staff support the alternative option which will initially involve planting two 4-metre replacement Pohutukawa trees on the landward side of the existing trees. The cost to Auckland Council for planting two trees will be approximately $7000 and would be paid out of operational budget along with any subsequent replacement trees at Whangateau Reserve. This cost includes transport, use of a crane and excavator, soil and soil mulch.

45. The only additional maintenance cost for the new trees would be watering the two trees if dry in the summer. General maintenance such as a mulch top-up beneath the trees and pruning are covered within the maintenance contracts, of which the cost is minimal.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Upon approval of the application

46. If the Rodney Local Board approves this application for landowner approval, the WRRA will need to obtain resource consent under the Auckland Unitary Plan for works in the coastal marine environment. It is unknown whether the applicant will be able to obtain resource consent given the proposal does not align with current council coastal specialist advice which favours managed retreat at Whangateau Reserve.

47. As the proposed works are not part of the Rodney Local Board Parks and Community Facilities work programme, the applicant will be responsible for maintenance of the stabilised sediment beams. This situation may set a precedent for having a community organisation maintaining coastal protection assets within a council reserve.

48. The Leigh to Algies Bay Shoreline Adaption Plan is yet to be produced. This SAP would identify the recommended management strategy for the area and detail whether new coastal structures are recommended. The risk in providing approval for the construction of protection walls ahead of the adoption of the SAP is that this proposal has not been assessed against broader coastal management objectives for the area.

Upon decline of the application

49. If the status quo was to be maintained (i.e. the local board declines the proposal), the lifespan of the Pohutukawa trees will likely be reduced.

50. The potential loss of the Pohutukawa may temporarily reduce visual amenity along the foreshore. The planting of replacement Pohutukawa will mitigate the loss of the existing trees, while generally maintaining residents’ outlook over the reserve. The trees can also be located to avoid encroachment of the rugby league playing field.

51. If there are works required to protect the shoreline at Whangateau Reserve, Auckland Council should undertake these in accordance with an approved work programme for the Rodney Local Board Area.

52. Decline of the application is the recommendation from staff for reasons previously discussed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lindsay Wilson - Land Use Advisor, Parks and Community Facilities

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 April 2024

Approval of the proposed concept design for wheel play upgrade and court renewals at Muriwai Village Green

File No.: CP2024/02221

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the proposed concept design for wheel play upgrade and court renewals at Muriwai Village Green, located on Coast Road, Muriwai, and to progress the project to detailed design and construction.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The renewal of the Muriwai Village Green open space assets (Work Programme ID 30608) was identified by staff as an asset renewal project based on very poor asset condition ratings.

3. The local board requested that staff look at upgrading the wheel play at the time of renewal to provide improved play value, user experience and park amenity for the local community.

4. The development was approved by the local board as part of the Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services three-year capital work programme 2023/2024 – 2025/2026 (RD/2023/95).

5. The local board has allocated $943,352 of ABS: Capex - Local Renewal including a contribution of $300,000 of Local Discretionary Initiatives Capex funding towards the wheel play upgrade and court renewals, and an increased level of service.

6. The project will support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 outcome – Our Community: Communities have great local options for indoor and outdoor sport and recreation that provide opportunities for all ages and abilities; and Rodney Local Board Strategic Parks Provision Assessment (July 2018) section 8.3 identified Muriwai and Waimauku as areas of opportunity to improve service provision.

7. Council’s design team has worked with a specialist wheel play designer to prepare a concept design for the upgrade of the wheel play and renewal of the courts at Muriwai Village Green. The concept design was presented to the local board at a workshop on 5 July 2023 where it was supported for community consultation.

8. Consultation with council stakeholders, and the Muriwai community, has been undertaken and the concept design now reflects the input and feedback received.

9. Staff now seek approval for the proposed concept design before progressing the project to detailed design, consenting and construction.

10. Project risks and mitigations include:

· Lack of mana whenua engagement (contacted but no engagement) with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara. However, there will be further opportunities for mana whenua to be involved in the project through the detailed design development phase and associated consultation process

· Resource Consent conditions (unknown at this stage). Council planners have been engaged throughout the design process to minimise potential costly consent conditions

· Muriwai community is still recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle. This project will provide an upgrade to the community hub at the Muriwai Village Green for active recreation and socialising.

11. Following the proposed concept design's approval, the consent process will begin in parallel with the detailed design. Physical work is expected to start in the 2024 calendar year's later months.

12. Progress updates on the project will be provided to the local board as part of the quarterly reports.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the proposed concept design for upgrade of the wheel play and renewal of the courts at Muriwai Village Green (Attachment A to the agenda report), and request staff progress the project to detailed design and construction.

Horopaki

Context

13. Muriwai Village Green is located on Coast Road in Muriwai as per the location plan shown below.

Figure 1: Location plan of Muriwai Village Green

14. As a part of the Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services three-year capital work programme 2023/2024 – 2025/2026 (RD/2023/95) the local board approved a project to develop and renew the open space assets at Muriwai Village Green.

15. The local board has allocated $943,352 of ABS: Capex - Local Renewal including $300,000 of Local Discretionary Initiatives (LDI) Capex funding towards the wheel play upgrade and court renewals. The project outcome will provide improved play value, user experience and park amenities for the local community.

16. The project was initiated due to the condition of the existing open space assets. The condition rating definitions are shown in Table 1 below:

Condition Rating	Rating Definition
1	Very good condition
2	Good condition
3	Moderate condition
4	Poor condition
5	Very poor condition

Table 1 – condition rating definitions

17. In October 2022, the open space assets listed below at the Muriwai Village Green were all assessed and rated 5 - in very poor condition:

a) carpark surface.

b) court fencing, surface, and gates.

c) skate pad and ramp.

18. Steps taken to date include:

a) Strategic Parks Provision Assessment 2018.

b) internal council stakeholder consultation.

c) focus group consultation with residents interested in the project.

d) engagement of specialist designers.

e) presentation to local board workshop (5 July 2023).

f) public consultation.

g) stakeholder input (focus group for skaters).

h) iwi have been contacted but have not yet engaged - Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara. Ongoing project and design updates for feedback will be issued moving forward.

i) design revision has been completed based on consultation feedback.

19. Design changes that reflect the consultation feedback include reduction of the basketball court to a half court, inclusion of a small flow skate bowl, increased provision of shade, additional wheel play activities. Full consultation feedback is attached to this report (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Link to strategic documents

Strategic Document	Strategies, polices, plans
Rodney Local Board Plan 2023	Outcome - Community: Communities have great local options for indoor and outdoor sport and recreation that provide opportunities for all ages and abilities
Rodney Local Board Strategic Parks Provision Assessment July 2018	Section 8.3 identified Muriwai and Waimauku as areas of opportunity to improve service provision
Muriwai Village Green Management Plan	Objective 1 (2) - To encourage the development of facilities on the reserve which cater for the needs and values of the community

Table 2 – Strategic document links

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. High level options for the layout of the proposed activities and assets were presented to the local board at a workshop on the 5 July 2023. These options were assessed against the intended outcomes for the project, which include:

a) Provide open space recreation facilities that cater to the local community. The scale of the project needs to be sensitive to the environment.

b) Cater to all age groups, including diverse levels of complexity for activities on the courts and within the wheel play areas.

c) Sensitive to the natural environment, repurpose materials where possible and respect the adjacent waterways and wetlands. Weed removal and native revegetation will be included in the project scope as recommended.

d) Connect to the wider community both physically and metaphorically. Improve pathway connection to the fire station, adjacent regional park, and car park.

e) Retain and improve visual connections. Include materials and signage that reflect Muriwai’s strong sense of place.

f) Employ the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to ensure user safety and enjoyment.

Consultation / Engagement

21. The local board supported the recommended design option on the 5 July workshop. The local board requested that the recommended option was shared with the local community and iwi / mana whenua, and that feedback be sought and considered.

22. The high-level concept design was circulated to Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngātiwai, in September 2023. Interest in being involved was expressed by Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāti Manuhiri (via Te Kawerau ā Maki & Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara). However, no further feedback or offer of engagement has been received after three follow up emails. We will continue to provide updates and the opportunity to engage.

23. Consultation with the local community took place in September and October 2023 through the Auckland Council Have Your Say webpage, drop-in event, online forum, the local board Facebook page and via email.

24. A community drop-in event was held on 1 February 2024, on site at Muriwai Village Green with a focus group who had expressed their interest in being involved in the design during the community consultation process and online forum with the Skate Design specialist.

25. The consultation process was also promoted through The Gannet, a local publication, and presented at the Muriwai Resident Association meeting in August 2023.

26. Consultation feedback is attached to the report as Attachment B.

Themes from engagement

27. Of the 132 submissions received, 92.4 per cent were in favour of the concept, while 7.6 per cent had a different view. The views received have been themed below:

· increase provision of activities for children and ensure facilities includes activities for all ages and abilities

· develop Muriwai Village Green facility as a community hub

· current facility is rundown

· facility is currently well used

· toilet required – approximately 35 submissions requesting a toilet be provided

· supportive of balance of priorities, top priority listed is the wheel play.

Preferred option

28. Community consultation was heavily in support of the concept design and proposed activities. The concept has now been revised to reflect the key aspects and preferred outcomes highlighted through the community engagement process. There was a lot of community support for providing a toilet at the Muriwai Village Green, but there is no provision of a toilet in the design. This is in line with the council policy for local park development and the current budget allocation.

29. The revised design includes reduction of the basketball court to a half court, inclusion of a small flow skate bowl, increased provision of shade and additional wheel play activities.

30. It is recommended that the local board approve the proposed concept design, as attached to this agenda report (Attachment A), to allow the project to continue to detail design, consenting, procurement and construction.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

32. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in carbon emission from construction, including contractor emissions. Staff will seek to minimise carbon and contractor emissions as much as possible when delivering the project.

33. Maximising the upcycling and recycling of existing material, aligned with the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recycle), will also be prioritised to ensure minimum impact. The timber posts removed from the existing fencing will be recycled to edge the gravel car park as wheel stops and maintenance edging.

34. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved through sourcing of low-carbon material options (including sourcing materials locally) and the use of products with environmental declarations for embodied carbon reductions.

35. Native plants planting has been included as part of the proposed concept design and will be eco-sourced.

36. The protection and revegetation of the Muriwai Stream is also part of the development, building on the work of local volunteers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Council staff from within the Customer and Community Services, (Parks and Community Facilities operational management and maintenance) and including the Regional Parks Team have been consulted. They support the renewal/upgrade as it will improve the park's quality and reduce maintenance costs.

38. The project will deliver significant improvements to the needs of the community surrounding the area, especially with the ongoing recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle.

39. Collaboration with staff will be ongoing to ensure that the development of the park is integrated appropriately into the operational maintenance and asset management systems once completed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. The Muriwai Village Green provides the Muriwai community with a social hub and is heavily used by several group fitness and social groups including the Muriwai Grom Squad, with up to 100 participants attending the site weekly during the summer months to use the wheel play area. The project will deliver benefits to the community by supporting active and social interaction.

41. A high-level concept design was initially presented to the local board on the 5 July 2023 workshop, along with the project constraints, risks, and estimated costs. The local board indicated support and requested the commencement of community consultation.

42. The proposed development of the Muriwai Village Green is in line with the Rodney Local Board’s strategies, policies and plans as provided in table 2 above.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan (operative in part), Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and local board plans.

44. The development discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community through the provision of court and wheel play facilities within the Muriwai community. Protection and revegetation of the Muriwai Stream is also part of the development, building on the work of local volunteers.

45. Engagement with mana whenua on this project has been attempted as part of the consultation process. The concept design was emailed to the local iwi in September 2023. Despite confirmation from Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāti Manuhiri (via Te Kawerau ā Maki & Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara) that they would like to be involved, no further communications have been received to follow up contact. However, there will be further opportunities for mana whenua to be involved in the project through the detailed design development phase and associated consultation process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. A total budget of $943,352 has been approved by the local board for this project in the following financial years:

Budget Sources	FY22/23 & prior	FY23/24	FY24/25	FY25/26	TOTAL
ABS: Capex - Local Renewal	$43,352	$300,000	$200,000	$100,000	$943,352
Locally driven initiatives - Capex				$300,000
Approved Budget	$43,352	$300,000	$200,000	$400,000	$943,352

Table 3 – Approved project budget and budget sources

47. This budget allocation is sufficient to pay for the multi-use court renewal, fencing renewal, and wheel play upgrade.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. Resource consent and building consent will be required, and the preparation and processing of the consents may have an impact on the period for construction.

49. Additional engagement with external stakeholders, iwi and the community will be undertaken as part of the resource consenting phase. It is unlikely, but there is a small risk that individuals or groups in the community may not support. This may delay the project and result in additional costs through the resource consent and engagement stages.

50. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Risks identified	Mitigation
Timeframe
Resource consent	Resource Consent will likely be triggered by a number of factors. Auckland Council planners are being consulted throughout the process to ensure all consenting requirements are considered. Resource Consent processing periods and Requests for Information can push out the delivery programme. The project budget is part of a Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) which provides a mechanism for early delivery of projects and management of the project programme
Building consent	Building consent may be required for any safety railing required by the skate facility and for the court fence and basketball hoop footing. Drainage required by the wheel play facility may also trigger a building consent. This may impact on project timeframes
Health & Safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during construction phase	Physical works will be contained with 1.8 high safety fencing to create an exclusion zone. All contractors on site will have to prepare and maintain a Site-Specific Safety Plan
Budget
Budget is not adequate	Budget is currently adequate to deliver the project but there is always a risk of unforeseen issues like ground conditions, weather delays, or funding levels through the Long-term Plan 2024–2034.
Construction
Poor weather during construction may hold up delivery	Construction methodology and programme to allow for wet weather. Works will be undertaken in the summer months if possible
Contamination
Possible risk of ground contamination (e.g., site was formerly agricultural land or landfill)	There are small contamination areas within the Muriwai Village Green, but none of these are close to the proposed development
Dependencies on any other project / department	There are ongoing clean-up projects from cyclone Gabrielle. Staff will coordinate works to reduce the possibility of any construction issues

Table 4 – Risks and mitigations

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. The table below summarises the anticipated next steps and estimated delivery times for the project. The estimated times assume successful and timely completion of each identified project step. Unforeseen delays in the procurement of a design and / or build partner or the resource consent process have the potential to delay completion of the project beyond the identified time.

Project phase	Planned completion timeframe
Resource consent application	July 2024
Detailed design Once the concept design is approved by the local board, the development of the detailed design can be progressed. Additional engagement with the internal council stakeholders, and collaboration with iwi will be undertaken as a part of this phase	July 2024
Building consent application	August 2024
Procure physical works contractor/build partner A tender will be submitted to a suitable contractor as per the procurement guidelines	August - September 2024
Physical works An accurate commencement date and the duration of the physical works is not known at this time and will be confirmed at a later stage but is envisaged between the dates specified	October 2024 – March 2025

Table 5 – Project phasing and timelines

52. Progress updates on the project will be provided to the local board as part of the quarterly reports.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Muriwai Village Green concept design (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Consultation feedback summary (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Claire Bodmin – Senior Project Manager, Parks and Community Facilities
Authorisers	Mark Townshend – Head of Project Specialisation Office, Parks and Community Facilities
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 April 2024

Review of the allocation table recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities

File No.: CP2024/04115

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board input into the current review of the allocation table, which records the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” document (Attachment A to the agenda report) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body. This document is also sometimes referred to as the “allocation table”.

3. The allocation table is being routinely reviewed as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process. In 2022, the allocation table was substantially reviewed to give local boards increased decision-making powers.

4. There does not appear to be any need for substantive changes to the allocation table at this time. Feedback suggests that some parts of the current allocations are not clear, and minor amendments can be made to support a better understanding of the respective governance roles and responsibilities between the Governing Body and local boards.

5. However, there is work needed on implementation actions to support the organisation to give better effect to the shared governance model. This is being advanced through the Joint Governance Working Party’s enquiry into the Mayor’s proposal for more empowered local boards.

6. Local boards are being asked to provide feedback on the review of the allocation table that will go to the Governing Body for consideration, prior to being adopted for inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide its input into the current review of the allocation table, recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) provides that both the Governing Body and local boards are responsible and democratically accountable for the decision-making of Auckland Council, and that where responsibility rests depends on the nature of the decision being made.

8. Section 15 of LGACA sets out the classes of decisions that the Governing Body make, and section 16 sets out the classes of decisions that local boards make. Both sections include a class of decisions in respect of non-regulatory activities of the council. LGACA requires that the Governing Body allocate decision-making responsibility for these non-regulatory decisions to either itself or local boards in accordance with the principles set out in section 17.

9. The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” (also known as the “allocation table”) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body. The allocation table is included in the long-term plan and each year’s annual plan. The current allocation table is attached at Attachment A.

10. The overarching intent of the document is to empower local boards to make decisions that reflect the needs and preferences of diverse local communities while ensuring that the Governing Body is able to fulfil its statutory decision-making responsibilities and make decisions regionally, where to do so will better promote the well-being of communities across Auckland.

11. The allocation table is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all allocated decision-making because of the broad range of Auckland Council’s activities and the nuances within those. Allocation of decision-making is therefore applied on a case-by-case basis, with the allocation table used as a starting point.

12. The allocation table was last reviewed in 2022 where substantial updates were made to provide local boards with increased decision-making powers, in alignment with the Governance Framework Review work.

13. The allocation table is routinely reviewed as part of every long-term plan process and included in the final long-term plan. However, changes to decision-making responsibilities can be made at any time via a new allocation decision (by the Governing Body) or a delegation.

Empowering Local Boards

14. Consequently, allocated decision-making will continue to be considered in the context of the “More Empowered Local Boards” workstream, which is being led by the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) and reported recently to local boards. This recognises that empowerment includes allocated decision-making, but that there are other levers to consider, including:

· delegated and statutory decision-making powers

· how well information and advice enable governors to utilise their powers

· the skills and knowledge staff need to give effect to the governance model

· whether updates are required to other policies, systems and processes to reflect more empowered local boards.

15. Local boards resolved their feedback related to empowerment at their March business meetings and this will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party’s 6 May meeting. Feedback related to the allocation of decision-making responsibility will be considered within the scope of this current review.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Informal feedback on the current allocation table from elected members and relevant business units was used to identify the scope of the review. Feedback suggests that the allocation table is still leading to confusion around governance roles and responsibilities. In practice many activities require both regional and local decisions, and there is actual and perceived complexity in giving effect to allocated decision-making.

17. Aside from an anomaly related to disposal decisions, the current review does not recommend any substantive changes to decision-making allocation. Some amendments are proposed to the text to help aid interpretation and flow. These include:

· refining the introductory text

· minor wording amendments to help make more explicit the governance roles and responsibilities

· closely aligning activity descriptions to the Groups of Activities in the long-term plan.

18. A key focus is on implementing the allocation table to help the organisation give better effect to allocated decision-making in practice. This includes:

· reviewing other relevant documents that may require updates

· considering training and guidance needs for staff

· awareness raising through communications and engagement.

19. Local board delegations are also scheduled to be reviewed separately.

Further consideration is required for some parks disposals

20. An issue has been raised with decision-making around some parks disposals. Table 1 shows the current position in terms of decision-making around different types of parks-related decisions.

Type of decision	Current decision-maker	Basis for decision-making	Current constraints / process
Acquisition
Acquisition of local community assets (e.g. local parks, local community facilities)	Local boards	Allocation	Subject to budget parameters agreed with Governing Body
Acquisition of regional assets (e.g. stormwater assets, regional parks, regional facilities)	Governing Body	Allocation	Decisions made by relevant committee (as per GB terms of reference)
Disposal
Disposal as part of land exchange	Needs to be clarified
Disposal of service properties	Local boards	Delegation (from GB – statutory responsibility)	Service property optimisation framework
Disposal of non-service properties	Governing Body	Statutory responsibility	Asset recycling programme

Table 1: Decision-making responsibility for asset acquisitions and disposals

21. The report to the Governing Body in 2021 [GB/2021/67] provided the policy intent of the changes to the current allocation table which was to allow local boards to make decisions relating to acquisition of new assets.

22. Historically, disposal decisions have been treated as sitting with the Governing Body (as a statutory responsibility). But this is difficult in practice where local boards make acquisition decisions as part of a land exchange, but not the related disposal decision.

23. Work is underway to consider whether, from a policy perspective, local boards should be able to make both the acquisition and disposal decision as part of land exchanges, and whether this should be allocated or delegated.

Clarifying decision-making over stormwater activities in relation to local parks activities

24. Current landowner approvals processes for council-led stormwater activities do not align with the existing allocation table and the LGACA. This has contributed to inefficiencies where a part of council wants to undertake a stormwater activity on council land.

25. Council’s stormwater, flood resilience and water quality activities are generally regional in nature. As per the current allocation table, decision-making for all these activities sits with the Governing Body to ensure a coordinated, consistent approach across the network and integration with other regulatory related decisions. This position remains the same regardless of how the land is held – whether as a regional or local asset.

26. Under the allocation table, local boards are allocated decision-making responsibilities for local parks. Staff are not proposing any changes to the allocated responsibilities of local boards and consider that the explanatory note in the allocation table adequately explains how the overlap in responsibilities will be managed. This states “[t]he decision-making of local boards in relation to local parks may be constrained where decisions relate to council stormwater management activities, including the stormwater network”.

27. Under the local board delegation protocols, Land Advisory staff have been delegated responsibility for land use consents. Staff have interpreted this mandate to be broad, because of the broad responsibilities of local boards for determining ‘use of and activities within local parks’. The delegation protocols require that staff consult with local boards before making these decisions and refer the matter to them if the local board calls the delegation in as the “landowner”.

28. However, this is contrary to the LGACA, where decision-making responsibilities are allocated for particular activities (as opposed to categories of land) and the land remains owned by Auckland Council.

29. Therefore, in line with the allocation table, Healthy Waters, instead of Land Advisory, will now seek the views of local boards before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed stormwater works. The experience of local boards should not be different to consultations over landowner approval applications. The only difference will be the local board’s ability to ‘call in’ a decision.

30. This revised process is consistent with the allocation of decision-making responsibility for stormwater activities to the Governing Body (and Healthy Waters under delegation).

31. When a stormwater activity is proposed to occur on a local park, staff will carefully consider the views and preferences of local boards and will be mindful of other local activities on parks when making decisions, consistent with the process previously undertaken by Land Advisory. Similarly, there is still potential for escalation of decision-making where the proposal is not supported by the relevant local board. Diagram 1 outlines this process.

Diagram 1: Decision-making process for stormwater activities

32. Staff recommend that this process be reviewed with local boards in six months’ time. Any issues arising will be considered through the next annual review of the allocation table or, through the local board delegation protocols which are due to be reviewed later this year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. There are no climate impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

34. Climate impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Feedback was sought from relevant business units who give effect to the allocation of non-regulatory activities through provision of advice.

36. Key themes from their feedback are as follows:

· the need to be more explicit on the extent of the local board / Governing Body role, where there are overlaps and limitations are not made clear

· some activities could be further specified e.g. priority locations for development, place-shaping vs place-making etc

· work to ensure staff understand where decision-making responsibility sits, and how best to give effect to the shared governance principles in practice

· more guidance and definitions would help to understand the nature of decision-making.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Local board views are being sought through this report.

38. Local impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. There are no Māori impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

40. Māori impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. There are no financial implications associated with local boards providing their feedback.

42. Financial implications for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. There are limited risks associated with local boards providing their feedback. The main risks are outlined in Table 2 below.

Main risks	Consequence	Likelihood	Comments and risks management strategies
Delay in adoption of the refreshed allocation table	Medium	Low	The allocation table must be adopted by the Governing Body by the end of May to meet the LTP timeframes. Careful project management is in place to ensure milestones are met.
Local boards are not satisfied with the scope of their decision-making powers	Medium	Medium	Local board views will continue to be considered as part of the “Empowering Local Boards” workstream. A range of levers will be considered as to how to empower local boards. This includes, but is not limited to, allocated decision-making.

Table 2: Risk identification and mitigation

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Local board feedback will be assessed to inform final recommendations on the review of the allocation table.

45. All feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for their consideration, before the Governing Body is asked to adopt the refreshed allocation table at their meeting on 30 May.

46. The allocation table will be included in volume two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

47. Staff will implement activities that support the organisation to give effect to the allocation table. These activities include developing guidance, considering learning and development needs, and outreach to relevant business units via communications and engagement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council's Governing Body and local boards	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christie McFadyen - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Brent Bailey
Deputy Chairperson	Louise Johnston
Members	Michelle Carmichael
	Mark Dennis
	Tim Holdgate
	Colin Smith
	Geoff Upson
	Ivan Wagstaff
	Guy Wishart

Local Board Member	Organisation	Position
Brent Bailey	Central Shooters Inc	President
	Auckland Shooting Club	Member
	Royal NZ Yacht Squadron	Member
Michelle Carmichael	Fight the Tip Tiaki te Whenua Inc	Deputy chairperson
Michelle Carmichael	Tapora School Board of Trustees	Staff representative
Mark Dennis	Helensville Tennis Club	Elected member
Mark Dennis	Parakai Springs Complex	Operations manager
Tim Holdgate	Landowners Contractors Association	Vice chairman
	Agricultural & Pastoral Society Warkworth	Committee member
	Rodney Co-Operative Lime Company Limited	Director
Louise Johnston	Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society	Treasurer
Colin Smith	Landowners Contractors Association	Committee member
Geoff Upson
Ivan Wagstaff
Guy Wishart	Huapai Kumeū Lions	Member
	Kaipara ki Mahurangi LEC	Member
	Kumeū Community Centre	Committee member
	Kumeū Small Landowners Assoc	Member
	Future Kumeū Inc Committee	Member
	Kumeū Live (Music Events)	Manager
	Kumeū Emergency Network	Member
	Kumeū Community Action	Member
	Kumeū Showgrounds Committee	Member

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop record 3 April	57
b ⇩	Workshop record 10 April	59

Author	Ignacio Quinteros - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager