Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 22 August 2024

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The Chairperson, A Atkinson, will open the meeting with a Karakia.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

At the close of the agenda an apology had been received from Member J Mclean.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 July 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 Upper Harbour 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 North Harbour BMX - Update.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from North Harbour BMX.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Logan Whitelaw, Vice President, North Harbour BMX, representing North Harbour BMX, will be in attendance to provide an update on the club and a potential future project to grow cycling for the community in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Logan Whitelaw, Vice President, North Harbour BMX, representing North Harbour BMX, and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

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.”

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Adoption of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy

File No.: CP2024/09112

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To whai / adopt the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy for the Upper Harbour Local Board’s consideration and adoption (Attachment A to the agenda report).

3. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy has been developed to give more specific direction towards prioritised pest plant and animal management in Upper Harbour, following the higher level location direction given in the Upper Harbour Ecological Connectivity Strategy.

4. The strategy also collates existing pest plant and pest animal activities into one location to assist in improving the understanding of existing work, maximise conservation efforts, and support a collaborative approach across the landscape.

5. In the 2022/2023 financial year, the local board allocated $30,000 from its locally driven initiatives operational budget towards the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Free Strategy, as part of the 2022/2023 local environment work programme (resolution number UH/2022/66).

6. A carry forward of $10,000 locally driven initiatives operational expenditure from 2022/2023 was approved for the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Free Strategy so that it could be completed within 2023/2024 financial year (resolution number UH/2023/81). The draft strategy required additional review to ensure it met the needs and expectations of the community, the local board and council guidelines. This review caused delays in finalising the strategy for adoption.

7. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023. Specifically, to the environmental objectives of ‘Our indigenous and culturally valued biodiversity is improved and protected by preserving and enhancing the habitats that support it’ and ‘Our communities practice te ao Māori kaitiakitanga (guardianship) principles.’

8. Staff sought local board feedback throughout the development of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy through workshops on 16 March 2023, 10 August 2023, and 21 September 2023. Two engagement workshops were also held on 24 May 2023 and 28 June 2023 with Upper Waitematā Ecology Network members, resulting in a greater focus on pest plant control.

9. Engagement also took place with iwi to inform the development of the strategy. Te Kawerau ā Maki provided priority cultural sites for pest management activities which are captured in the strategy.

10. Staff have been working with the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network Manager, new Pest Coordinator role and other Upper Waitematā Ecology Network leads to start planning for delivery of the strategy.

11. If the strategy is adopted by the local board, this work will continue with greater momentum, and new projects can be selected and funded through the local environmental work programme in financial year 2025/2026, specifically aligned to the strategy. The Pest Coordinator and Network Manager will take key roles in ensuring delivery and seek funding to sustain and grow their roles and new pest management activity delivery in line with the strategy.

12. Updates on the delivery of the strategy will be provided through the Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives quarterly local board work programme reports.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whai / adopt the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy (Attachment A to the agenda report).

b) tautapa / delegate to the Upper Harbour Local Board Chairperson the ability to approve minor amendments of the document ahead of publication.

Horopaki

Context

Upper Harbour local ecological programmes

13. The Upper Waitematā Ecology Network (formally known as the Upper Harbour Ecology Network) is a collection of conservation groups and initiatives working together to achieve conservation and biodiversity outcomes in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

14. Auckland Council staff assisted in the formation and development of the network, which began operating in 2016. Since its formation, the Upper Harbour Local Board has supported the network to build its capacity and capability to deliver pest plant and animal control activities to improve biodiversity outcomes in the local area.

15. The local board has provided funding for the network through their Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives Fund. This has enabled the network to:

· deliver workshops and training to upskill local conservation groups

· organise native planting and pest control events

· engage and encourage other community groups to take part in conservation activity

· educate the community on pest plants and local biodiversity

· distribute native plants and pest animal traps.

16. The local board’s support has enabled the network to deliver on its work for a period of more than seven years. The Upper Waitematā Ecology Network have also received funding through the Auckland Council natural environment targeted rate and Foundation North grants.

17. For the community network to affectively deliver landscape biodiversity outcomes for the area, a more strategic approach was required. Specialist advice was required to give direction to the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network to achieve strategic biodiversity outcomes for the landscape, community would also be in a better position to be considered for external funding in communicating their landscape approach using the direction provided in the strategy.

Local board funding for ecological strategies

18. In June 2019 the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $28,000 from its locally driven initiatives budget towards creating the Upper Harbour Ecological Connectivity Strategy (resolution UH/2019/71). This strategy identifies important areas and habitats for conservation activity, at a high level.

19. In June 2022 the Upper Harbour Local Board allocated $30,000 from its local driven initiatives budget towards the development of an ‘Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy’, as part of the board’s 2022/2023 local environment work programme (resolution UH/2022/66). This strategy focuses on the prioritisation of pest management activities, following the higher-level location direction given in the connectivity strategy.

20. Additional time was required in 2022/2023 to effectively plan for the project, so a carry forward of $10,000 LDI Opex from 2022/2023 was approved for the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Free Strategy so that it could be completed within 2023/2024 financial year (resolution UH/2023/81). The draft developed by technical specialists at Boffa Miskell was reviewed by Environmental Services staff to ensure it met the needs and expectations of the community, the local board and council guidelines. This review caused delays in finalising the strategy for adoption.

21. This funding supported the acquisition of specialist, strategic pest plant and pest animal management advice, to add further confidence to the prioritised approach.

22. The recommendations included in the strategy are proposed to support Auckland Council’s environmental plans and strategies including the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, Regional Pest Management Plan, Wai Ora Health Waterways Programme and Weed Management Policy.

Development of the strategy involved a range of partners

23. The development of the ‘Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy’ was workshopped with the local board for feedback on 16 March 2023, 10 August 2023 and 21 September 2023.

24. Development of the strategy involved engagement with a range of partners and stakeholders, including the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, iwi, internal council departments, local schools and Auckland Transport. Pest plant control and pest animal control delivery data was collated from these partners and stakeholders to understand where work was already being undertaken across the landscape.

25. Two engagement workshops were held on 24 May 2023 and 28 June 2023 with Upper Waitematā Ecology Network members, resulting in a greater focus on pest plant control.

26. Boffa Miskell finalised an early version of the strategy which was shared with the local board on 21 September 2023. This draft was then reviewed by subject matter experts in Environmental Services to ensure it gave clear advice and met the needs and expectations of the local community, the local board and council guidelines. The strategy details ecological prioritisation across the Upper Harbour landscape, and includes:

· a cohesive collation of the conservation delivery already occurring

· best practice pest plant and pest plant methodology

· guidance on creating feasible and area-specific pest plant and pest animal goals

· maps and details of priority areas for specific pest plant management

· information on target pest plants and animals, including their likeliness to spread and the risk they pose to important ecological areas and cultural heritage information including advice from Te Kawerau ā Maki. Subject matter experts in Environmental Services undertook a review of the draft by Boffa Miskell to ensure the strategy was in the appropriate council format. The review and subsequent updates took several months, delaying this report for adoption of the strategy.

27. The draft developed by technical specialists at Boffa Miskell was reviewed by Environmental Services staff to ensure it met the needs and expectations of the community, the local board and council guidelines. This review caused delays in finalising the strategy for adoption.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Staff recommend adoption of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy

28. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy focuses on the specifics of project design and delivery including goal setting, advice on specific pest plant and pest animal actions, and site prioritisation.

29. Adopting the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy will provide the Upper Harbour community with a resource to inform their pest control action, whether this be at the individual, household, or community group level. Adoption will also signal the board’s support for the prioritised approach to local pest management.

30. Adoption of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy will also provide:

· increased community awareness of the importance of protecting and enhancing biodiversity across Upper Harbour

· guidance for strategic and prioritised local group pest plant and pest animal goal setting, for ecological enhancement

· direction for local pest plant and pest animal control delivery and the creation and protection of habitat for safe movement of native species.

31. If the local board choose not to adopt the strategy, pest control actions in the area will not be coordinated for maximum efficiency and the local board will not have clear guidance for how to prioritise their advocacy and funding for pest management activities in future.

The strategy will be implemented through the Ecology Initiatives Assistance Programme

32. The intention of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy is for it to be implemented by the whole community. The Upper Waitematā Ecology Network will be the leaders in delivery and will be able to bring the community together strategically to work towards the environmental outcomes outlined in the strategy. The Network are well placed for this due to their knowledge base, experience, and reputation in the community.

33. The Upper Harbour Local Board have indicated that they will support the implementation of the strategy through continuing to fund the Ecology Initiatives Assistance Programme through their environmental work programme in future financial years, subject to budget availability.

34. The Pest Coordinator, established through funding from the Ecology Initiatives Assistance Programme in financial year 2023/2024, will continue to work with the Upper Harbour community and conservation groups to identify pest plant and animal control activities in priority areas as identified in the strategy.

35. The Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, who are funded through the Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives local board work programme line, will decide as a collective what funding requests to put forward based on their goals as a collective, and the priorities identified in the strategy. Staff will review the requests and approve requests to be funded. New projects requested to be funded through the Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives funding in financial year 2024/2025 will need to clearly align with the new Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy.

36. Updates on the delivery of the strategy will be provided through the Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives quarterly local board work programme reports. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy will be considered for a review before the 2026/2027 financial year to ensure the content remains up to date and fit for purpose.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. 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

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

38. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy will support the Natural Environment priority areas within the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan by supporting the resilience of indigenous biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems and growing our urban ngahere (forest).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. Staff from across the council group and other agencies contributed to the development of the strategy, including staff from Parks and Community Facilities, Auckland Transport, and the Department of Conservation. These parties will continue to be engaged as the strategy is reviewed and updated.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. The strategy supports the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 environmental objectives that:

· Our indigenous and culturally valued biodiversity is improved and protected by preserving and enhancing the habitats that support it,

· Our communities are resilient to climate change and care for their surrounding environment.

41. As part of development of the strategy, feedback was sought from the local board at workshops on 16 March 2023, 10 August 2023 and 21 September 2023. Two engagement workshops were held on 24 May 2023 and 28 June 2023 with Upper Waitematā Ecology Network members. Feedback from the local board was positive, and requested changes were incorporated into the strategy.

42. Key stakeholders identified in the Upper Harbour area were also directly engaged from the onset of the project. Groups that are not currently contributing to ecological restoration in Upper Harbour will be engaged with on the strategy going forward to encourage their participation.

43. The intention of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy is for it to be implemented by the whole community and led by the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network. If adopted, the Upper Harbour Local Board will support the implementation of the strategy through the Ecology Initiatives Programme that is funded through the Upper Harbour Local Board’s local environmental work programme.

44. The implementation of the strategy’s recommendations will contribute to high quality natural environments and community-led conservation initiatives in the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. This strategy looks to deliver for Māori at a local level and respects the rights of mana whenua as kaitiaki over taonga such as native species. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori in delivery of this strategy.

46. Thirteen different iwi/hapu have connections with the whenua (land) of Upper Harbour. All thirteen iwi were contacted during the development of this strategy.

47. Te Kawerau ā Maki refers to Upper Harbour as part of their heartland area. Staff worked closely with Te Kawerau ā Maki to incorporate their Te Ao Māori lens to the strategy.

48. Te Kawerau ā Maki have provided locations of cultural sites of significance in Upper Harbour, as well as sites of Treaty Assets. In addition, Te Kawerau ā Maki have provided some key cultural sites to support pest management prioritisation.

49. Te Kawerau ā Maki are being supported through the Upper Harbour Ecology Initiatives programme to host cultural induction sessions with community conservation groups this financial year. These sessions will foster an active relationship between the iwi and the community and support a partnership approach to achieving environmental outcomes in Upper Harbour.

50. Another two iwi, Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara expressed interest in engagement, however feedback was not able to be provided within the project timeframe.

51. Mana whenua engagement will be ongoing with the implementation and review of the strategy. Future work will continue to seek connection with all iwi/hapū that have interest in the area, and active engagement will continue with the three iwi/hapū that expressed particular interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

52. In the 2022/2023 financial year, the local board allocated $30,000 from its local driven initiatives budget towards the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy, as part of the board 2022/2023 local environment work programme (resolution UH/2022/66).

53. A carry forward of $10,000 was approved so that the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy so could be completed within the 2023/2024 financial year (resolution UH/2023/81).

54. The Upper Harbour Local Board currently provides funding for the Ecology Initiatives programme, which will contribute to the implementation of this strategy. The board has allocated $110,000 to this programme as part of its 2024/2025 Local Environmental Work Programme at their 27 June 2024 business meeting (resolution UH/2024/77).

55. Implementation of environmental activities aligned with the strategy, natural environment targeted rate outcomes and local board priorities are already funded (in part), along with funding from the Foundation North charity.

56. Implementing the strategy is not solely reliant on investment derived from Auckland Council-related funding. This strategy will further enable the Upper Waitematā Ecological Network and other volunteer groups to apply for funding from central government and conservation charities.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. Staff have identified the following risks, risk likelihood and mitigation, in relation to delivery of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy. Table 1 outlines these risks.

Table 1: Risks associated with the adoption of the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy

Risk	Mitigation	Likelihood
Financial / funding risk – funding may not be available to implement the strategy due to budget constraints	The Upper Waitematā Ecology Network has started pest control informed by the strategy, with additional funding received through the natural environment targeted rate and Foundation North in the 2023/2024 financial year. Staff can provide scalable and phased options for strategy activation for the board’s consideration during the 2025/2026 work programme planning process and future work programmes. When the strategy becomes available to the public, the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network and community will be able to reference the strategy in their applications to reinforce a strategic, prioritised approach.	Low- Medium
Priority projects outlined in the strategy may be subject to change, due to factors such as community interest, funding, and legislative changes	The strategy is designed to be evolving with a review date set in 2026/2027.	Medium
Delivery risk – where the strategy may not be referred to in delivery of conservation projects by community	Upper Waitematā Ecology Network (UWEN) have been engaged with the project before the project idea was fully formed, engaged throughout the planning and delivery stages. UWEN are very engaged and supportive of the strategy. The final strategy will be shared with UWEN and Environmental Services are continuing to support UWEN and Upper Harbour Community with delivery, once the strategy is published.	Low

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

58. If the strategy is adopted, Environmental Services staff will share the finalised strategy with mana whenua, community groups, council departments and external partners.

59. Further future updates on community-led pest control delivery, informed by the Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy, will be provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board through quarterly performance reports for the Upper Harbour Ecological Initiatives project.

60. The Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy will be considered for a review by 2026/2027, to ensure it remains up-to-date and fit for purpose.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Wai Roa ō Kahu / Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy. (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sinead Brimacombe – Conservation Advisor

Yasmin Hall - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Sam Hill – General Manager Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2024/09842

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Approve changes to the allocation of the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital funding to projects to be delivered in Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport manages the Local Board Transport Capital Fund on behalf of the Upper Harbour Local Board. Auckland Transport provides quality advice to support local board decision-making.

3. The local board approved the allocation of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund at the October 2023 business meeting https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2023/10/20231026_UH_MIN_11372_WEB.htm . This included the Oteha Valley Road share path cycleway project.

4. Auckland Transport have since confirmed alternate source of funding for the Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway project therefore the previously allocated Local Board Transport Capital funding can now be reallocated to other local board projects.

5. Auckland Transport has delivered the Kyle Road Footpath and Bush Road Shared Path, as approved Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects. Due to cost savings from the Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway project, Kyle Road Footpath and Bush Road Shared Path projects, there is a total available budget of $796,692.34 for the local board to allocate to local transport projects.

6. Auckland Transport held workshops with the local board on 2 May 2024 and 6 June 2024 to provide an update on the cost savings and seek direction on other transport projects to be investigated.

7. A report was presented to the local board at the 27 June 2024 business meeting however the report was deferred to the 22 August 2024 requesting further advice from Auckland Transport on the proposed projects. https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2024/06/20240627_UH_MIN_11379_WEB.htm

8. Additional workshops were held with the local board on 11 July 2024 and 1 August 2024.

9. This report has been updated to reflect the additional advice requested at the 27 June 2024 business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the allocation of an additional $178,000 from the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund for the completion of the Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project for lighting option 3.4A bringing the total allocation for this project to $478,000.

b) whakaae / approve the allocation of $460,000 from the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund for the Clark Road Upgrade including pedestrian crossing upgrade (Option 3).

c) whakaae / approve the allocation of $158,692.34 from the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund for Picasso Drive Pedestrian Improvements.

d) whakaae / approve the following projects as priorities for delivery should any cost savings be found, or additional funding become available:

i) $216,307.66 from the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund for the completion of Picasso Drive Pedestrian Improvements.

ii) $62,000 from the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund for the Wayfinding Signage project prioritising Fairview, Oteha Valley and Harrowglen.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) is an Auckland Transport (AT) fund established in 2012 to allow local boards to deliver small projects in their local area that would not normally be prioritised by Auckland Transport. In 2014, the LBTCF budget was set at $20 million spread across all local boards and distributed based on Auckland Council’s Local Board Funding Policy. Since 2020, when COVID-19 lockdowns impacted on Auckland Council’s revenue the LBTCF had been reduced.

11. Upper Harbour Local Board’s allocation of LBTCF for the 2022–2025 political term is $1,542,210.

12. The local board approved the allocation of the LBTCF at the October 2023 business meeting https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2023/10/20231026_UH_MIN_11372_WEB.htm

13. Due to cost savings from the Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway project, Kyle Road Footpath and Bush Road Shared Path projects, there is a total available budget of $796,692.34 for the local board to allocate to local transport projects.

14. Auckland Transport held a workshop with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 2 May 2024 to advise about the cost savings to the LBTCF and requested the local board provide ideas of projects for Auckland Transport to undertake rough estimate of costs (ROC) assessments.

15. At a further workshop on the 6 June 2024, Auckland Transport updated the local board that the Kyle Road Footpath and Bush Road Shared Path had been completed. Due to cost savings from the Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway project, Kyle Road Footpath and Bush Road Shared Path projects, there is a cost saving of $796,692.34. This updated savings figure differs from what was previously advised at the workshop of $806,939 due to final invoices for the completed projects had to be paid post workshop.

16. A report was presented to the local board at the 27 June 2024 business meeting however the report was deferred to the 22 August 2024 requesting further advice from Auckland Transport on the proposed projects. https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2024/06/20240627_UH_MIN_11379_WEB.htm

17. Additional workshops were held with the local board on 11 July 2024 and 1 August 2024.

18. This report has been updated to reflect the additional advice requested at the 27 June business meeting.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. Table One below outlines the project ideas that have been workshopped with the local board for consideration of LBTCF, including Auckland Transports recommended allocation of funding.

Project status	Projects	Approved Budget (Resolution:UH/2023/134)	Cost Savings	Recommended LBTCF allocation
Completed	Kyle Road Footpaths	$150,000 (AT approved budget)	$78,982.34	$0
	Bush Road Shared Path	$271,949 (AT approved budget) And $100,000(approved by the local board)		$0
	Bush Road Shared Path			$0
Cancelled	Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway	$720,260	$717,710.00	$0
Design	Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project Option 3.4A aluminium column with underground power (recommended)	$300,000	$0	$178,000 (Additional funds required to complete the project)
New Project Idea	Clark Road upgrade including pedestrian crossing upgrade - $460,000 (Option 3) (recommended)	-	-	$460,000
New Project Idea	Picasso Drive pedestrian improvements - $375,000 (recommended)	-	-	$158,692.34 (current available funding) recommend allocating balance of $216,307.66 as contingency should additional funding become available
New Project Idea	Wayfinding - $62,000 (recommended)	$62,000 (contingency)		$62,000 (contingency)
New Project Idea	Kyle Road safety barrier $200,000 (not recommended)	-	-	$0
New Project Idea	Launch Road pedestrian improvements - $375,000 (not recommended)	-	-	$0
New Project Idea	Scott Point School broken yellow lines (not recommended)	-	-	$0
		Total	$796,692.34

Table one: LBTCF project ideas

LBTCF proposed project considerations

Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project (recommended)

20. The Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project is to install street lighting on Kingsway Road providing lighting for pedestrians walking to/from Herald Island.

21. The local board allocated $300,000 at the October 2023 business meeting (resolution number UH/2023/134) to the Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project and is currently under investigation and design.

22. As of 30 June 2024 $23,000, has been spent on professional services including investigation and design for this project. This figure does not account for any additional services or work completed since as this project is still active and not all invoicing has been received.

23. At the 2 May 2024, 6 June 2024 and 1 August 2024 workshops; the local board were updated on the Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project noting that additional funding would be required to deliver the project. A copy of the workshop material for this project can be found in Attachment A of the agenda report.

24. Following investigation of services and trees along the road it is recommended that lighting is installed on the southern side of the road as outlined in image one below:

Image one: Indicative light locations on Kingsway Road (Causeway)

25. A number of lighting options were investigated to provide safety for pedestrians. These options are outlined in Attachment A and analysed in table two below:

Table two: Kingsway Road (causeway) lighting options

26. The cost estimates for the feasible options are outlined in table three below:

Table three: Kingsway Road (causeway) lighting options – cost estimates

27. An underground power supply for lighting is the recommended option at Kingsway Road, Herald Island.

28. A minimum of 15 columns would be required in order to achieve pedestrian safety outcomes.

29. Steel columns are expected to last approximately 25 years while aluminium columns are expected to last approximately 50 years.

30. Auckland Transport recommend progressing with option 3.4A underground powered aluminium columns and recommend allocating an additional $178,000 LBTCF bringing the project total to $478,000.

Clark Road upgrade including pedestrian crossing upgrade – Option 3 (recommended)

31. The recommended Clark Road Upgrade project proposal includes options for a 3-metre-wide path, drainage upgrades, indented parking spaces and an upgrade of the current courtesy crossing to a zebra crossing. These options are outlined further in Table two of this report.

32.

Image two below outlines the area for the proposed project.

Image two: Clark Road Upgrade including pedestrian crossing upgrade

33. The area marked in blue in Image One is a proposed roundabout at Clark/Scott Road including tactiles at the intersection to be installed by a private developer.

34. The area marked in orange in Image One is the proposed frontage upgrade while the area marked in red is the proposed zebra crossing upgrade.

35. Table four below details the options for the Clark Road Upgrade project including associated estimated budget required.

Option	Description	Estimated cost
Option 1 – Frontage Upgrade (marked in orange)	Upgrade the Keith Hay Retirement Village frontage and Church frontage up to the roundabout approx. 150m (shown in orange) including Indented parking spaces, drainage upgrade and a 3 m wide path.	$425,000
Option 2 – Zebra crossing upgrade (marked in red)	Upgrade the existing raised table courtesy crossing at 61a Clark Rd to a zebra crossing by upgrading lighting, signage and line marking (shown in red) which connects with The Kori shared path.	$90,000
Option 3 – road frontage and zebra crossing upgrade	Recommended option Includes both option 1 and option 2. Upgrade the Keith Hay Retirement Village frontage and Church frontage up to the roundabout (shown in orange) and upgrade the existing raised table courtesy crossing at 61a Clark Rd to a zebra crossing.	Recommended option $460,000

Table four: Clark Road Upgrade including pedestrian crossing upgrade options

Picasso Drive pedestrian improvements (recommended)

36. The proposed Picasso Drive Pedestrian Improvements project has come from requests received from Marina View School and public for a new pedestrian crossing across Picasso Drive. The proposed crossing is outlined in Image three below.

Image three: proposed area for Picasso Drive Zebra Crossing

37. The aim of the project is to improve the safety of school children and promote walking and cycling connections. There are also speeding concerns raised by the school and residents at this location.

38. The cost estimate of $375,000 is based on having a raised zebra crossing improvement at this location including investigation, design, consultation, staff hours and construction with contingency.

39. Auckland Transport recommended an allocation of $158,692.34 LBTCF towards this project due to limited available funding to be allocated. This allocation will support the investigation, design, and partial delivery of this project.

40. Once Auckland Transport has completed the full investigation on this project, Auckland Transport will present the possible pedestrian improvements solution to the local board for their consideration.

41. This report recommends that any shortfalls for the cost of the agreed pedestrian improvement solution for Picasso Drive come from any cost saving from other projects or if any additional funding becomes available to the local board.

Wayfinding signage project - (recommended)

42. Wayfinding signage projects can be scaled to use available funds, at a suburb-by-suburb level and have worked well in other local board areas.

43. This project would deliver wayfinding signs that go up walkways, cut throughs (street to street connections) and at park entrances where a path goes through and out to another road.

44. At the October 2023 business meeting the local board approved a contingency wayfinding signage project with a focus on Fairview, Oteha and Harrowglen areas (resolution number UH/2023/134).

45. It is recommended that the wayfinding signage project be reconfirmed as a priority contingency project should there be cost savings from other approved projects or if any additional funding becomes available to the local board.

Kyle Road safety barrier - (not recommended)

46.

This project is for a safety barrier at the bottom dip of Kyle Road where there are currently flexi posts installed as outlined in Image four below.

Image four: proposed area for safety barrier on Kyle Road

47. Kyle Road is a straight road with no reported crash history.

48. The current layout is a permanent design solution to address the overland flow path, while still creating visual awareness to road users of the road parameters.

49. The estimated cost for a standard safety barrier is approximately $200,000 however this estimate does not apply for this specific project. The clearance requirements for a safety barrier and the overland flow path at this location would necessitate significant rework of the road and alternate design solutions making the project unfeasible.

50. The estimated costs to deliver alternate overland flow path and design solutions, rework the road and deliver a safety barrier at this location are unknown and has not been investigated further due to the complexities outlined in this report.

51. Auckland Transport do not support installation of a safety barrier at this location.

52. Auckland Transport are currently investigating options to install reactive improvements at this location including replacing missing flexi-posts, line marking improvements and improving delineation for road users.

53. Auckland Transport will share the approved reactive improvement plan with the local board.

Launch Road pedestrian improvements - (not recommended)

54.

The Launch Road Pedestrian Improvements project is for a pedestrian crossing across Launch Road near the stairs for commuters using the Hobsonville Point Ferry Terminal. The area is outlined in Image five below.

Image five: proposed area for Launch Road Pedestrian Improvements

55. The estimated project cost for a raised zebra crossing is $375,000.

56. This project does not meet the LBTCF funding criteria as this section of Launch Road is currently owned by Auckland Council (Eke Panuku) and is not legally designated as a road.

57. Auckland Transport is collaborating with Eke Panuku to declare this land as a road and have also requested Eke Panuku to consider providing some pedestrian improvements at this location.

58. Auckland Transport recommend that the local board do not allocate funding towards this project until the land is officially declared a road during this three-year local board term however no timeframes can be provided at this stage.

Scott Point School broken yellow lines (not recommended)

59. The Scott Point School Broken Yellow Lines project includes parking restrictions outside Scott Point School on Joshua Carder Drive.

60. Auckland Transport will investigate and fund any additional broken yellow lines required on this road and therefore it is not recommended that this be funded from the LBTCF.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

61. Auckland Council has declared a climate emergency and has developed Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

62. Passenger transport related projects will contribute to AT’s climate change objectives.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

63. Any engagement required with other parts of the council group will be carried out on an individual-project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64. Upper Harbour Local Board discussed this programme of works at four workshops with AT in 2024. This report reflects the recommendations of Auckland Transport as presented at the workshop held on 6 June 2024, 11 July 2024 and 1 August 2024 for the local board to confirm the allocation of their LBTCF.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65. The actions being considered do not have specific impacts on Māori. Both AT and council are committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori. 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.

66. Any AT project that requires consultation with iwi will include that activity within its project plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

67. This report requires consideration of a significant financial commitment by the Upper Harbour Local Board.

68. The costs calculated above are based on high level estimates and it is possible that costs on some projects may be under or over the estimations.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There is a risk that some projects may cost more than is budgeted in this report, but equally some projects may reduce in scope after further investigation work is carried out.

70. As resources and budgets are constrained, delaying decision making means that there is less time for planning for the investigation, design, and subsequent delivery of the projects that the local board wishes to progress. Timely decision making will provide the best opportunity for these projects to be delivered in the current political term.

71. There is a risk that the local board approve projects that are not supported by Auckland Transport for delivery. If budget allocations are made to these projects; the allocated LBTCF will remain unspent due to technical infeasibility and the lack of ability from Auckland Transport to deliver. To mitigate this risk Auckland Transport recommended that the local board only consider projects that are feasible and recommended to be delivered.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72. Auckland Transport will take note of the local board’s confirmed projects and continue to work towards public consultation and delivery.

73. Throughout the process, Auckland Transport will keep the local board updated and when a decision is required, a report will be made to a public meeting so the local board can consider it and decide on next steps.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project - workshop presentation August 2024	29

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Joint traffic bylaw review feedback report

File No.: CP2024/11684

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on the review of the joint Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (AC) traffic-related bylaws.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council both have powers to make traffic-related rules in Auckland.

3. The current rules are set out in several documents: Auckland Transport’s Traffic Bylaw 2012 (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/bylaws/traffic-bylaw-2012), Auckland Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2015 (https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/bylaws/Pages/traffic-bylaw.aspx) and Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (covering use of vehicles on beaches) (https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/bylaws/Pages/public-safety-nuisance-bylaw.aspx).

4. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are conducting a review of these bylaws which has found that they are largely effective but that there could be efficiencies and improvements.

5. Auckland Transport seeks local board feedback on the proposed changes which will inform the proposals for future public consultation. Feedback is due by 19 September 2024.

6. After public consultation is completed, local boards will be provided with summaries of public feedback. Further feedback will be sought from local boards.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the proposed changes on the review of Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (AC) traffic-related bylaws outlined in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

Traffic bylaws

7. The use of Auckland’s road space, including some beaches and roads in parks, is regulated by national legislation (laws) and by local government rules through bylaws.

8. Both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have powers to make traffic-related rules in Auckland. The current rules are contained across the following bylaws:

a) Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012 (covering the requirements for parking and control of traffic on roads under the care, control, or management of Auckland Transport).

b) Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 (covering traffic management in public places, like parks, beaches, off-street parking facilities (like libraries and community centres) and council-owned car parking buildings).

c) Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (covering use of vehicles on beaches).

9. Responsibilities for bylaws are allocated by control of the land. Auckland Transport’s rules apply to Auckland’s transport system, while Auckland Council’s rules apply to council-controlled land such as parks and beaches.

10. The bylaws provide a “framework” for regulating vehicle use, traffic and parking on Auckland’s transport system and on council-controlled land. This means that they enable activities like bus lanes to be created. However, the exact locations of the bus lanes are not in the bylaw but are set through resolutions, made later. This works well where there are location-specific needs that change over time.

11. Some topics in the bylaws are not site-specific. This is used where Auckland Transport want the same rule applied everywhere, and do not need a site-specific resolution for instance, to prohibit vehicles from being abandoned on roads or in public places.

Reviewing Auckland’s traffic bylaws

12. A joint review of Auckland’s traffic-related bylaws is being undertaken to ensure they continue to meet the needs of Aucklanders. For example, there have been changes in legislation and technology, and feedback from subject matter experts has indicated that there are things Auckland Transport can do to improve how we use bylaws.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Auckland Transport subject matter experts met and discussed the traffic bylaw review with the Upper Harbour Local Board at a workshop on 8 August 2024.

14. Before that workshop, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council staff reviewed the bylaws across 18 different topics (listed in Attachment A to the agenda report) to identify if there were problems, whether the bylaws helped address those problems, and if there were any alternatives or improvements.

15. There were five possible options for each topic, which align with the statutory options to respond to the Bylaw review findings – retain, amend, replace and revoke. These are outlined in Attachment A to the agenda report.

16. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council advice to local boards can be summarised in the following set of key findings:

a) the current bylaws are generally effective, ensuring that Auckland’s land transport system connects people and places in a way that is safe, effective and efficient, and protects the environment

b) bylaws regulating vehicle use and parking controls by enabling controls to be set ‘if and where’ required to manage the use of the road space in Auckland have been particularly helpful (for example, to regulate the use of one-way streets, bus lanes and P60 parking spaces by resolution of a delegated authority) but could benefit from minor improvements

c) bylaws regulating vehicles on beaches and off-road parking could be improved to be more effective and efficient. For example, there are no infringement fines for vehicles on beaches and the process to enforce berm parking prohibitions is time consuming and costly

d) bylaws that regulate activities involving vehicles, machinery or equipment that is left, broken down, repaired, advertised or sold on roads or public places are not used. Additionally, reviewers found that other existing legislation and bylaws already address the problems better

e) a bylaw can no longer regulate new speed limits because speed management plans are required to be used instead

f) consideration should be given to the possible benefits of replacing the bylaws with a single bylaw made by both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. While most of Auckland’s roads are the responsibility of Auckland Transport, the boundaries with Auckland Council controlled roads or public places can be indistinguishable.

17. The summary of the discussion and proposed changes are in Attachment A to the agenda report.

18. At this stage of the review, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have not finalised any final recommendations and therefore encourage local boards to provide feedback. This feedback will be incorporated in the proposals for the upcoming public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council both support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and other council climate priorities.

20. During the development of the bylaws, climate impacts were considered because effective bylaws are tool that helps give effect to these strategic directives, for instance:

a) parking restrictions regulated by bylaws can be used to provide clearways and bus lanes that allow for quicker and more reliable public transport

b) controlling vehicle access and use on beaches protects coastal biodiversity

c) the ability to control access by heavy vehicles to unsuitable residential roads or town centres helps to minimise carbon emissions by encouraging them to use arterial routes designed for these vehicles to use efficiently.

21. The bylaws are an ‘enabler’ for climate goals providing the regulatory tools required to enforce a variety of controls that contribute to climate change goals.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. This review is being conducted jointly by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. Other council-controlled organisations provided staff to assist with the initial review to ensure that impacts and their views were considered.

23. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee discussed the review with staff and endorsed the Findings Report at a meeting on 02 July 2024.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. Auckland Transport are currently holding workshops with all local boards throughout the month of August. These workshops will provide local boards with an opportunity to receive quality advice about the review and its finding.

25. Further engagement with local boards will be conducted post-public consultation to enable local boards to provide feedback after consideration of the consultation data. The timeframe for this will be communicated later this year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

28. Using this framework for discussion, Auckland Transport informed iwi about the review in November 2023. The initial engagement was followed by a series of hui in July 2024 and August 2024 at which staff provided details of the review.

29. Māori have been informed and provided with opportunities to engage with the review and after public engagement is finished will be engaged with again.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The proposed decision does not carry specific risk for this local board. Bylaw application and enforcement is not a role of local boards and is not funded by local board budgets. This situation means that there is no legal or financial risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Local board feedback is due by 19 September 2024. After receiving this report, Auckland Transport will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

33. A further period of consideration is planned and on 8 October 2024, Auckland Council’s Regulatory and Community Safety Committee will review the bylaw review’s findings, options and recommendations and approve public engagement.

34. The Governing Body and the AT Board will also review the bylaw review’s findings, options and recommendations and approve public engagement on 24 October 2024 and 29 October 2024, respectively.

35. After public engagement, further local board feedback will be sought. Timelines for this engagement will be communicated after the committee decisions later this year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Schedule of Review Findings and Proposed Changes	57

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy, Principal Advisor Strategic Relationships, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Adoption of Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024/2025

File No.: CP2024/10478

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024/2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Eke Panuku Development Auckland is building a more structured and effective process to engage with the local board.

3. This engagement approach aims to tailor interactions based on project priorities and local relevance, ensuring efficient and effective partnerships across the Auckland region.

4. The Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024/2025 (Attachment A to the agenda report) records Eke Panuku Development Auckland and the local board’s commitment to work together. It includes:

· Eke Panuku Development Auckland responsibilities

· Local board commitments

· Detailed engagement approach

· A schedule of Eke Panuku Development Auckland activities in the local board area.

5. The engagement approach consists of:

· Annual review – Eke Panuku Development Auckland will conduct an annual review of the engagement plan, ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness.

· Ongoing engagement – Eke Panuku Development Auckland will provide a six-monthly memorandum update about the agreed list of activities.

· Reactive engagement - Eke Panuku Development Auckland commits to the free flow of information with the local board regarding issues of interest, responding to the local board’s queries and requests for information promptly.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whai / adopt the Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024/2025 (attachment A to the agenda report).

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that Eke Panuku Development Auckland will provide a six-monthly memorandum to update on the following items:

i) Lot 6 and part of lot 5 - Hobsonville Point

ii) Pump Station 6

iii) Launch Road

iv) Service Property Optimisation Investigation

c) whakamana / authorise the local board chairperson to sign this engagement plan on behalf of the local board.

Horopaki

Context

6. The council-controlled organisations (CCO) Joint Engagement Plans were adopted in July 2021 to align with recommendations in the CCO Review 2020 and direction in the CCO Statement of Expectations 2021.

7. The concept aimed to ensure that council-controlled organisations (CCO)s reported regularly and relevantly to local boards about their programmes of work in local areas.

8. These initial CCO Joint Engagement Plans expired in July 2023.

9. Local boards have reported that engagement plans are a useful tool to improve relations with CCOs and coordinate CCO actions at a local level.

10. Eke Panuku Development Auckland (Eke Panuku) is the council-controlled organisation that delivers urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. Urban regeneration is revitalising and improving urban areas to enhance their economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions.

11. Eke Panuku has two core functions:

· Leads urban regeneration across Tāmaki Makaurau, focusing on town centres and locations agreed with the council.

· Manages a property portfolio of $2.6 billion of council non-service properties and provides property-related services to the council group.

12. Eke Panuku is committed to giving effect to the Tamaki Makaurau shared governance model and to achieving outcomes for Aucklanders, as well as building and maintaining a culture of collaboration across the council group.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The revised engagement approach aims to tailor interactions based on project priorities and local relevance, ensuring efficient and effective partnerships between Eke Panuku and local boards.

14. The new approach is designed to be more efficient and scalable, allowing Eke Panuku to adjust engagement levels based on priorities and workload in each area.

Key principles for working together

15. A successful working relationship between the local board and Eke Panuku is founded on:

· a shared understanding and mutual respect for the roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority of the local board and Eke Panuku;

· transparent and timely communication with no surprises;

· understanding and acknowledgement of shared responsibilities between the parties;

· a commitment to early inclusion in the planning and decision-making process where issues have specific relevance to the local board;

· a commitment to flexibility in terms of engagement, recognising differing levels of interest and local relevance across the Auckland region.

16. The levels of engagement with the local board on the various activities are derived from the International Association for Public Participation framework, and are as follows:

	Commitment
Inform	We will keep you informed.
Consult	We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how your input influenced the decision. We will seek your feedback on drafts and proposals.
Collaborate	We will work together with you to formulate solutions and incorporate your input into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

17. Eke Panuku will deliver on the Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024/2025 (the engagement plan) as shown in the table below:

Annually	· Review the engagement plan. · Confirm the list of local activities to be included in the engagement plan. · Report to the local board to formally adopt the engagement plan.
Ongoing engagement	· Provide a six-monthly memorandum to update the agreed activities included in the recommendation of this agenda report. · Provide other memos and briefings as required.
Activity criteria	· Activities of governance interest to the local board. · Activities that require community engagement or consultation. · Activities in the local board area with high public and media interest.
Reactive	Eke Panuku commits to the free flow of information with the local board regarding issues of interest, promptly responding to the local board’s queries and requests for information.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The adoption of the engagement plan does not have a direct impact on climate.

19. Eke Panuku is committed to work within Te Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework and 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

20. The engagement plan will be shared with the relevant council and CCO staff and is expected to give staff a greater visibility of Eke Panuku activities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Eke Panuku will engage with the local board as per the agreed engagement approach.

22. The engagement plan provides an opportunity to keep the community and interested stakeholders up to date with Eke Panuku activities in the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. The adoption of the engagement plan does not have a direct impact on Māori. Eke Panuku has structured engagement processes with Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The adoption of the engagement plan between the local board and Eke Panuku does not have financial impacts on local boards.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. It is likely that there will be changes made to some items in the engagement plan during the year, or to the level of engagement with the local board. This risk is mitigated by ensuring that the local board is informed and involved promptly of any potential changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Eke Panuku will implement the new approach and provide a memorandum to the local board to update on its relevant activities.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Eke Panuku Development Auckland Upper Harbour Engagement Plan 2024-2025	67

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carlos Rahman - Principal Governance and Engagement Advisor

Authorisers

Angelika Cutler - Manager Governance Relationships

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Response to Ombudsman's recommendation to open workshops by default

File No.: CP2024/11189

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To respond to the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s report ‘Open for business’ in relation to transparency and workshop practices.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Local board workshops are informal, non-decision-making meetings used for discussions and refining options before formal board decisions.

3. The standard approach to workshops is that they are closed however, the decision to open a workshop can be made by each local board. Currently, six boards allow public observation, and eight release workshop materials proactively.

4. In October 2023, the Ombudsman released a report which found no evidence of decision-making occurring in workshops but noted practices that could undermine transparency. The Ombudsman recommended that workshops should be open by default, with any closures justified on a case-by-case basis.

5. Local boards generally follow best practices aligned with many of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, such as publishing workshop records and releasing information proactively. However, there is variation in how this is applied.

6. In light of the Ombudsman’s report, local board elected members and senior staff with experience in open workshops were asked to provide their views. They reported:

· risks to opening workshops, such as breaching confidentiality, discouraging free and frank discussions, causing public confusion about whether a decision is being made and potential disruption of subsequent community engagement and governance processes; public attendance is also very low for those local boards that do hold open workshops

· benefits of opening workshops, such as supporting transparency and holding elected members accountable, increasing public awareness of council matters, and enabling community connection; there is also a level of public expectation that the Ombudsman’s recommendations will be adopted.

7. To meet the Ombudsman’s expectations for transparency, it is recommended local board workshops default to being open. Staff will update the Best Practice Guidance for the 2025-28 term.

8. Some methods for opening workshops include in-person attendance, live streaming or recording. Staff will explore feasible options if workshops are open.

9. At its 27 June meeting, the Governing Body agreed that from 1 September 2024 the default setting for its workshops will be open to the public unless the relevant chairperson considers it is reasonable to close a workshop in a particular case. It also agreed that the way the workshop will be made open to the public is by recording the workshop and uploading that video to the council’s website.

10. If workshops default to being open, staff will need a period to implement it to ensure staff are properly briefed and systems are in place to deliver. Alternatively, the board may wish to implement this for the start of the 2025-2028 term.

11. The chairperson can open or close a workshop without a board resolution, as it is an informal meeting. However, a decision helps to confirm support of the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that to meet transparency, the Ombudsman expects workshops to be open by default.

b) whakaae / agree that workshops will be open to the public by default, unless the chairperson deems it reasonable to close a specific workshop.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that staff are preparing guidance to support an open by default approach into the Best Practice Guidance for the 2025 term.

Horopaki

Context

Defining workshops

12. The Governance Manual (Section 10.8) defines elected member workshops as:

· informal, non-decision-making meetings, which are generally closed to the public or media. Workshops support the decision-making process by informing elected members on items prior to making a formal decision.

· a mechanism for staff to seek informal guidance from elected members to improve future advice, including identifying information gaps and discussing options for policy development.

13. Local boards use workshops for informal discussions, brainstorming, scoping draft proposals, unpacking complex topics and refining options for a final decision. Workshops are typically used to enable discussion between elected members, and between elected members and staff. Workshops are also used for cross local board collaboration and for joint discussions between the Governing Body and local board members.

14. Workshops are not used for decision-making and this is made clear to members when elected.

LGOIMA requirements

15. The Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) promotes the open and public transaction of business at meetings of local authorities.

16. LGOIMA states that a meeting at which no resolutions or decisions are made, is not a meeting for the purposes of setting requirements for local authority meetings. Therefore, there is no statutory requirement that a non-decision-making workshop be open to the public, notified in advance and have minutes taken.

17. Although not required, local boards may hold non-decision-making workshops in open and invite members of the public, media or stakeholders to attend.

18. Through each term’s induction process, elected members are reminded of their obligations to be open and transparent in decision-making. It is made clear to elected members that closed workshops do not replace the decision-making meetings.

Current local board practice

19. Six local boards allow public observation at their workshops. They are Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Waitākere Ranges, Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney and Waitematā.

20. While the driver for this practice is to demonstrate a commitment to openness and transparency, public attendance has been low.

21. Eight local boards have adopted the practice of proactively releasing workshop materials. They are Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā.

Best practice guidance

22. At the start of the 2022-2025 term, the Local Board Services Best Practices Review 2022 recommended that workshops should be closed to the public because:

· a non-public setting can better facilitate and support free and frank exchanges between staff and elected members

· workshops do not provide opportunity for the public to give input (in the way that the business meeting provides for a public forum), so the role of the public in the workshop would only be to bear witness to the informal discussions

· attending a workshop may not provide a complete picture of council processes or may lead to some premature assumptions about decisions and projects

· workshops provide a safe space for elected members to assess the overall progress, measure the effectiveness of its work programme and reflect on their own effectiveness as a local board. This type of exercise is unlikely to be robust and less likely to be authentic if done with a public audience.

Ombudsman’s findings

23. In October 2023, the Ombudsman released a report, Open for business, detailing the investigation into the actions and decisions of eight councils regarding both council meetings held under LGOIMA and workshops (and other informal meetings) to which LGOIMA meeting provisions do not apply.

24. The Ombudsman’s review was carried out using their powers under the Ombudsman Act 1975 which allows the Ombudsman to review any act or omission by a local authority – except for a decision made by a full council (i.e., a decision by the Governing Body or a committee of the whole).

25. The purpose of the investigation was to test concerns that councils were using workshops and other informal meetings to make decisions.

26. The eight councils investigated were Rotorua Lakes Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Taupō District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Rangitīkei District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Timaru District Council and Clutha District Council.

27. The Ombudsman’s report highlights the requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) for a local authority to “conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner”. It also highlights the requirement in the LGOIMA that anything taking place or provided to any meeting is “official information” and subject to the principle of availability, unless there is a good reason to withhold it.

28. The Ombudsman found no evidence of decisions being made in workshops. They did see workshop practices that in their opinion were “counter to the principles of openness and could contribute to a public perception that workshops are not being used in the right way”. These examples included not advertising workshops or having all workshops closed to the public.

29. The Ombudsman also cautioned against using workshops to include a significant component of determination, such as a substantial narrowing of options prior to public consultation.

30. The Ombudsman has provided three principles of good administrative practice, which they consider should guide council workshops:

· Councils have a general discretion to advertise and undertake all meetings in public, and this is consistent with the principle in the LGA that councils should conduct their business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.

· A general policy of not publicising / closing all non-decision-making meetings, such as workshops, may be unreasonable and / or contrary to law. The Ombudsman can assess this on a case-by-case basis.

· Using closed workshops to do “everything but” make a final decision could be seen as undermining the principles in the LGA and purposes of the LGOIMA and may be unreasonable in terms of the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Aligning to the Ombudsman’s recommendation

31. The Ombudsman reports that workshops should be open by default as a matter of good practice. Open workshops are consistent with the principles of transparency, openness, and accountability.

32. The Ombudsman recognises there may be good reasons to close a workshop to the public, and that LGOIMA doesn’t require workshops to be open.

33. The six key recommendations made by the Ombudsman in respect of council workshops are:

· adopt a principle of openness by default for all workshops, including a clear commitment to record a clear basis for closure where justified, on a case-by-case basis

· publicise times, dates, venues, and subject matters of all workshops in advance, including a rationale for closing them, where applicable

· provide clear audit trails of all workshops and internal guidance for the keeping of records of workshop proceedings

· publish workshop records on the council website as soon as practicable

· formalise a process for considering the release of information from closed workshops

· consider sign-posting on the council website that members of the public can complain to the ombudsman in relation to the administration of workshops.

34. The Ombudsman’s report is not legally binding on the council. But the Ombudsman has made it clear that open by default is the best practice approach, and they will be closely monitoring decisions on these matters.

35. To meet the Ombudsman’s expectations that workshops are seen to be open, transparent and democratically accountable, it is recommended local boards have a default setting of open for workshops.

How local boards currently adhere to the recommendations

36. Local boards individually set their own meeting practices in accordance with LGOIMA.

37. Local Board Services identifies that many of the existing practices already meet the Ombudsman’s expectations. This includes:

· having a standing report on business meeting agendas which notes the record of any workshops held since the previous meeting

· posting agendas on the council’s website with as much advance notice as possible before meeting dates

· clear and robust practices for keeping of meeting minutes and drafting of public exclusion resolutions

· publication of workshop records on the council’s website as soon as practicable after the workshop

· actively releasing confidential information as soon as practicable, when the reason for withholding has passed

· restating information in subsequent open meetings and keeping records of the workshop.

38. In principle, the holding of closed workshops does not mean that workshops are secret or inconsistent with the principles of transparency and openness. Any lack of transparency can be addressed through the proactive release of workshop information (where possible), restating information in subsequent open meetings and keeping records of the workshop.

39. Governing Body workshops are currently closed to public observation. To address transparency, workshop records are proactively published as part of its next meeting agenda, including presentations and other documentation discussed or made accessible.

40. At its 27 June meeting, the Governing Body agreed that from 1 September 2024 the default setting for its workshops will be open to the public unless the relevant chairperson considers it is reasonable to close a workshop in a particular case. They also agreed that the way the workshop will be made open to the public is by recording the workshop and uploading that video to the council’s website.

41. Staff will incorporate the Ombudsman’s recommendations into the next Local Board Services Best Practice Review, which will inform induction for the 2025-2028 term.

How to implement open workshops

42. Options for open workshops include:

· opening the workshop so the public can attend in-person

· providing remote access via MS Teams link without the public present in the room

· recording workshops without the public present and making available on Auckland Council’s website.

43. Each method for conducting an open workshop has its own risks, benefits, and operational impacts. These are currently being investigated further for each option. The resulting guidance will be included in the 2025-2028 Best Practices Review.

44. Guidance will also include considerations for when to close workshops if operating under a default open workshop approach. The Ombudsman recognises that in some instances it will be reasonable to close workshops to the public and that this should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

45. Should any local boards choose to change to open workshops before the next term begins, staff will assist in this process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. The decisions in this report are not expected to have any significant impact on our climate objectives or targets. Staff have not quantified the impact of increased administrative requirements or the likely impact of increased travel requirements for in-person workshop observers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. As staff are seeking a political decision from local boards on their approach, there has not been a comprehensive consultation with the council group.

48. Senior Governance staff provided views which largely reflect the pros and cons highlighted by elected members with some additional concerns including:

· low public attendance: the benefits of transparency are limited

· communication challenges: keeping the public updated on workshop details can be difficult due to last-minute changes

· reduced input opportunity: local boards may miss the chance to provide early input on topics not ready for public release

· staff exposure: open workshops may make staff vulnerable to inappropriate behaviour, especially as their faces are visible to the public and their names may be published by the media.

49. The Ombudsman’s investigation had canvassed a few concerns and potential risks and concluded that while there are good reasons that exist for closing workshops, they did not consider controversy and complexity to be good reasons in themselves.

50. If the decision to open workshops is approved before next term, staff will need an implementation period to ensure the council group is properly briefed and supported.

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

Local impacts and local board views

51. Staff have gathered the views from some local board elected members with open workshops to understand their current experiences.

Benefits of open workshops

· Transparency and community connection: media access boosts public awareness of local board business, helps local board members gain recognition, and reduces reliance on social media.

· Access to information: even if public attendance is low, people appreciate the option which fosters a better understanding of decision-making and the ability to follow topics of interest.

Risks of open workshops

· Media sensationalism: can hinder effective governance by swaying decisions based on a few vocal individuals rather than the broader community.

· Public disruption: the presence of the public can alter interactions between board members and staff, leading to potential harassment of staff and reducing the willingness of staff to participate. Public interjections can derail workshop progress and disrupt important relationships, such as those with local iwi and community groups.

· Overemphasis: a small number of vocal attendees can gain disproportionate political influence, overshadowing the broader community's input.

52. Opinions on whether workshops should be open or closed varied. Some elected members preferred closed workshops to create a safe environment for staff, allowing for free and frank discussions in a more relaxed setting. They believed that open workshops often led to political posturing, which could harm the democratic process by giving undue influence to a small number of voices. And they noted negative impacts on subsequent community engagement, such as when the media prematurely releases information. Overall, they felt that the benefits were outweighed by the disadvantages.

53. Conversely, other elected members argued that workshops should be open to ensure transparency and public trust. They believed that the presence of the public generally did not pose significant issues. These chairs felt that board members should be prepared to handle the political environment and potential media exposure and public scrutiny.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Māori were not consulted on this report. There are no identified direct impacts on Māori arising from this report.

55. Open workshops would provide an opportunity for Māori to observe a workshop but would not provide for an opportunity to engage in the decision-making process and would not go beyond what is already available through invitation by a local board to engage directly on an issue.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. There will be financial implications to open workshops, depending on how they are conducted, including time and cost of enabling online access or potentially managing security at a physical meeting. These costs will vary by board, including what technology is currently used, so will need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. The Ombudsman’s recommendations are non-binding. However, there may be reputational and/or political consequences arising from a failure to act where needed to respond to recommendations from the Ombudsman.

58. The Best Practice Review 2022 notes some risks that should be considered when opening a workshop, such as:

· increasing likelihood of breaching the LGOIMA and the Auckland Council Confidential Information Policy and Protocols through wilful or advertent ‘disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold would exist’

· discouraging free and frank exchange of views between members and provision of advice from staff, which is often necessary in the early stages of a project or idea

· potentially creating misinformation or confusion in the community about the status of projects

· increasing potential for Code of Conduct complaints about predetermination and conflicts of interest if elected members indicate specific preferences in a workshop

· exposing staff to opportunities for harassment and complaints based on comments made when giving free and frank advice to elected members (note Auckland Council has obligations under the Health, Safety and Work Act 2015 to ensure staff are not put at risk while conducting their role).

59. There is also a risk that workshops can be called or cancelled at very short notice. This may impact on members of the public that may plan to attend. Staff will do all they can to keep advertised information about workshops current.

60. Local boards can review their approach in the future if opening workshops by default leads to unintended adverse consequences.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. If the local board decide to hold open workshops by default, staff will provide advice on practices, procedures, and information technology to support this decision.

62. If a local board requests to open their workshops before next term, staff will need an implementation period to ensure the council group is properly briefed and supported.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alyson Roach - Senior Advisor Business Planning & Projects

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Feedback on the representation review initial proposal

File No.: CP2024/11716

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal feedback from local boards on the initial representation review proposal.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body resolved the representation review initial proposal on 27 June 2024 for public notification and consultation outlined in the body of this report and provided in Attachment A to the agenda report.

3. Feedback on Auckland Council’s representation review initial proposal for the 2025 elections was received between 8 July 2024 and 8 August 2024.

4. Due to the proximity of the closing date for public feedback (8 August 2024) and local board business meeting dates, this report provides the high-level summary of key themes. The feedback analysis report produced by the Insights team will be provided separately prior to the Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting.

5. At the time of writing this report, approximately 1050 submissions have been received. The final submission numbers will be communicated via the feedback analysis report.

6. Key themes included general support for the proposed changes in the central Auckland wards, North Shore wards, the Howick Local Board subdivision arrangements, and the minor local board boundary changes. Submissions on the proposed changes to the Rodney Local Board subdivisions raised a number of issues to be addressed in the final proposal.

7. The initial proposal includes minor changes to local board boundaries between the Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, and Kaipātiki Local Board areas. At a high level, feedback is generally in support of the proposed changes, with the majority of feedback indicating that the changes are minor and logical.

8. The initial proposal also contains proposed changes to the North Shore and Albany ward boundaries. Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed boundary changes. Generally, those in support feel it is a logical proposal and those who do not support do not agree disagree with the need for any change.

9. The next stage is for the Joint Governance Working Party to review this feedback through a hearings process, which will close with deliberations on whether to recommend any changes to the initial proposal to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will then decide the final proposal on 26 September 2024.

10. Local board chairs who are members of the Joint Governance Working Party are requested to step aside from the development of their board’s formal feedback to enable them to fully participate in the work of the hearings panel.

11. If the local board wishes to provide feedback that the initial proposal should be amended, it is important to include sufficient reasoning for the Joint Governance Working Party to recommend an amendment. The reasoning should be in line with the requirement to consider the effective representation of communities of interest and fair representation (the 10 percent rule).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the summary of feedback on the representation review initial proposal via memo prior to the business meeting.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Joint Governance Working Party will hear submissions on the proposal including local board feedback, for a decision by the Governing Body on 26 September 2024.

c) whakarite / provide its formal feedback on the proposal.

d) tono / request to speak to its feedback in front of the Joint Governance Working Party at the hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Process

12. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) requires councils to follow a prescribed process within certain timeframes when undertaking a review of the representation arrangements. The proposed process and dates are provided below.

Action	Required timeframe	Planned timeframe
Resolution of initial proposal	By 31 July 2024	27 June 2024
Public notice of initial proposal	Within 14 days of resolving initial proposal	8 July 2024
Public consultation	Period of no less than 1 month	8 July – 8 August 2024
Hearings	-	2 – 13 September 2024
Resolve final proposal	-	26 September 2024
Public notice of final proposal	Within eight weeks of close of submissions	3 October 2024
Receive objections or appeals to final proposal	Period of no less than 1 month	3 October – 3 November 2024
Forward objections or appeals to the LGC for final determination	As soon as practicable but no later than 1 December 2024	4 November 2024
Final determination on proposal from the LGC	No later than 11 April 2025	-

13. The Governing Body confirmed the scope of the initial proposal for the 2025 representation review at its 30 May meeting before finalising and confirming the content of the associated public consultation material at its 27 June 2024 meeting. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 July 2024 to 8 August 2024.

14. This report provides a summary of the key themes from feedback (including local board feedback, if made) and enables local boards to make a formal response to the initial proposal and other feedback via business meeting resolutions.

15. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the council to ensure that any person who makes a submission on the initial proposal is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the council.

16. The Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) has been appointed as the panel to hear those that wish to speak to their written submissions over four days in September 2024, including the 6 September 2024 to hear local board feedback and 13 September 2024 to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

17. The JGWP recommendations will be reported to the 26 September 2024 Governing Body meeting, which will make a final decision on the proposal. If any objections or appeals are received, they will be assessed by the Local Government Commission.

18. A range of engagement events were held during the consultation period, some with a regional focus and some with a focus on local changes being proposed. These events were promoted through local communications, social media, and through the AK Have Your Say website. A full record of all events held during the consultation period is available on akhaveyoursay.nz/represent under ‘drop-in sessions’ and ‘webinars’. The webinar recordings are also available on the webpage.

19. All information relevant to the representation review has been made available through the AK Have Your Say website. In addition to providing access to the initial proposal and consultation documents, the website provided an interactive map with the ability to zoom in to inspect boundary locations. It also provided the events above and all the reports to the Governing Body and local boards, setting out the issues and options.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Representation review initial proposal

20. The Governing Body resolved the representation review initial proposal on 27 June 2024 for public notification and consultation outlined below and provided in Attachment A to the agenda report.

a) Ward boundary / representation changes

i) changes to the Central Auckland ward boundaries (Waitematā and Gulf, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa wards) so they match the proposed local board boundary changes while still following the fairness of representation rule, as shown in maps 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

ii) enlarge the North Shore Ward to include an area around Bayview, reducing noncompliance with the fairness of representation rule. These changes align the North Shore and Albany ward boundary with boundary changes to Upper Harbour and Kaipātiki local boards, as shown in map 1.5.

iii) Non-compliance of the North Shore Ward, with a -13.82 per cent variance, as compliance would split a community of interest.

b) Local board boundary / representation changes

i) the Rodney Local Board subdivisions will be, as shown in maps 2.1 and 2.2:

A) North Rural, 2 members

B) South Rural, 2 members

C) Warkworth, 2 members

D) Kumeū, 2 members

E) Dairy Flat, 1 member

ii) the total number of members on the Howick Local Board will increase from 9 to 11 members. The subdivisions will be, as shown in map 3:

A) Howick, 3 members (no change)

B) Pakuranga, 3 members (no change)

C) Botany, 2 members (changed area)

D) Flat Bush, 3 members (new subdivision)

iii) minor changes to local board boundaries:

A) the boundary between the Upper Harbour and Devonport-Takapuna local boards will be changed so that all of Saunders Reserve is in the Upper Harbour Local Board area (Map 4.1)

B) the boundary between Kaipātiki and Upper Harbour local boards will run along Sunset Road (Map 4.1)

C) the boundary between Kaipātiki and Upper Harbour local boards in the vicinity of Kereru Reserve will be adjusted such that the parcel of land, Lot 3 DP 142477 (R 14 Kereru Grove), becomes part of the Upper Harbour Local Board area (Map 4.1).

D) the boundary between Kaipātiki and Upper Harbour local boards will be adjusted to include the residential area of Bayview that is north of Glendhu Road in the Kaipātiki Local Board area, noting that meshblocks will need to be adjusted to avoid affecting any reserve area in the Upper Harbour Local Board area (Map 4.1).

E) the boundary between the Puketāpapa and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards will be adjusted such that all Taumanu Reserve lies within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area (Map 4.2)

iv) noncompliance with the 10 per cent rule for the following local boards for the reasons given in Attachment A to the agenda report:

A) Hibiscus and Bays

B) Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

C) Ōtara-Papatoetoe

D) Franklin

Feedback on the representation review initial proposal

21. Feedback on Auckland Council’s representation review initial proposal for the 2025 elections was received between 8 July 2024 and 8 August 2024.

22. The consultation document, feedback questions and maps are provided in Attachment A to the agenda report.

23. Due to the proximity of the closing date for public feedback (8 August 2024) and local board business meeting dates, this report provides the high-level summary of key themes. The feedback analysis report produced by the Insights team will be provided separately prior to the Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting.

High level summary of feedback

24. At the time of writing this report, approximately 1050 submissions have been received however the final submission numbers will be confirmed at a later date and communicated via the feedback analysis report.

25. Key themes included general support for the proposed changes in the central Auckland wards, North Shore wards, the Howick Local Board subdivision arrangements, and the minor local board boundary changes. Submissions on the proposed changes to the Rodney Local Board subdivisions raised a number of issues to be addressed in the final proposal. Table A summarises key feedback themes.

1. Table A – proposed changes and summary of feedback

Change type	Change detail	Feedback
Ward boundaries	Central Auckland ward boundaries (Waitematā and Gulf, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa wards)	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed boundary changes. Those in support generally feel the proposal will improve representation and those opposed generally feel the proposal will divide communities.
Ward boundaries	North Shore ward boundaries (North Shore and Albany wards)	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed boundary changes. Generally, those in support feel it is a logical proposal and those who do not support disagree with the need for any change.
Ward noncompliance	North Shore ward	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed noncompliance.
Local board subdivisions	Rodney Local Board. Four subdivisions to five. New ‘North’ and ‘South’ rural subdivisions.	Feedback is mixed on the proposed subdivision changes, with the majority in support and the remainder split fairly evenly between ‘do not support’ and ‘I don’t know’. Generally, those in support agree with rural representation and those who do not support disagree with the proposal subdivision boundaries.
Local board subdivisions	Howick Local Board. Three subdivisions to four. Additional subdivision for Flat Bush area.	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed subdivision changes. Generally, those in support agree with creation of Flat Bush subdivision and those who do not support disagree with the need for any change.
Local board members	Howick Local Board. Additional two members for the proposed Flat Bush subdivision.	Feedback included a small number of submissions in support of Flat Bush subdivision, but not the additional members.
Local board boundaries	Minor changes to boundaries across Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and Puketāpapa local boards	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed minor local board boundary changes. Generally, those in support agree with the minor shifts and those who do not support feel there is not enough information.
Local board noncompliance	Hibiscus and Bays, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Franklin local boards.	Feedback is mostly in support of the proposed local board noncompliance.

26. Through the consultation on the representation review initial proposal, the council received feedback on matters that are not covered by the representation review scope under the LEA. The key themes for out-of-scope feedback include, but are not limited to:

· support for wider review (including reverting to pre-amalgamation)

· feedback on Māori representation for Auckland Council

· support for a change from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Vote

· requests for more civic education opportunities to better understand council.

Local Board feedback on initial proposal

27. This report provides the mechanism through which local boards may receive both high level feedback and the full analysis report to inform their own feedback on the initial proposal.

28. Local board members who are also members of the JGWP are advised to stand aside from their local board feedback discussions to mitigate the risk of a perceived conflict of interest.

29. Local boards will have an opportunity to present their feedback during a hearing on the 6 September 2024. Further information will be communicated to the local boards who wish to speak to their submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from this report or its implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. The representation review proposes a number of relatively minor changes to representation arrangements, including to ward and subdivision boundaries, and in the case of the Howick Local Board, two additional members.

32. Should these or any further changes be confirmed, there will be some impact on council staff resourcing, which will mostly be absorbed within the local election work programme.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. Local boards have been involved throughout the representation review process via their representatives on the JGWP, via workshops and business meeting resolutions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. The Houkura chair sits on the JGWP and engagement with Māori and mataawaka has been ongoing as part of the process of developing the initial proposal, including the local board reorganisation plan, which is not proceeding.

35. Separate engagement sessions on the consultation material were held with Māori and mataawaka during early July.

36. Feedback from Māori has focused less on the changes proposed through the representation review initial proposal and more on the need for specific Māori representation both on local boards and the Governing Body.

37. The current legislation only contains provisions for Māori representation on the Governing Body, not local boards. On 26 October 2023, the Governing Body decided to not establish Māori wards for the 2025 local elections, acknowledging the need for further work to be undertaken through the JGWP and reported back to the Governing Body by 31 December 2024.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no specific or direct financial implications resulting from this report. Should the proposed representation changes proceed at the 2025 local elections, there will be some impact on council budgets.

39. Direct costs associated with election process changes, modification of election material etc will be absorbed within the local election work programme. There will also be consequential costs on council’s systems and processes where matters are shifted from one ward or local board to another. Again, it is expected these would be absorbed within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. No specific risks have been identified with this report, which is simply seeking local board views on the representation review. Whatever representation arrangement changes occur as a result of this review will be assessed for risks as part of implementing those changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Local board feedback will be considered by the JGWP which has been appointed as the panel to hear feedback in early September 2024 and included as appropriate in the working party’s report to the Governing Body.

42. The Governing Body will make decisions on the representation review at it 26 September 2024 meeting. Any submitters may lodge objections or appeals to these decisions with the Local Government Commission from 3 October 2024 – 3 November 2024, which will make final decisions.

43. Approved representation arrangements will be implemented as part of the October 2025 local elections.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Initial proposal document and feedback form	89

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Libby Hetet - Senior Policy Project Manager - Representation Project

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter four 2023/2024

File No.: CP2024/10605

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter four, 1 April 2024 - 30 June 2024, and the overall performance for the financial year against the approved 2023/2024 Upper Harbour Local Board work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a retrospective overview of the financial and non-financial performance of Auckland Council against the agreed 2023/2024 Upper Harbour Local Board work programmes for quarter four (1 April 2024 - 30 June 2024), and the overall performance, of the 2023/2024 financial year.

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. Out of the 97 activities within the agreed work programme:

· 90 activities within the agreed work programmes have a Green RAG status including activities that were completed and multi-year projects that have progressed as expected

· four activities have an Amber RAG status which includes three activities that were expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2023/2024 and one multi-year activity that was on hold during 2023/2024

· three activities have a Grey RAG status and were cancelled or deferred.

5. Key activity achievements from the 2023/2024 work programme include:

· the delivery of the Volunteer Recognition event (Activity ID 413)

· the completion of Caribbean Drive – renew sports field and toilet project (Activity ID 23782)

· the completion of the Rosedale Park tree management plan for (Activity ID 42277)

· the renewal of the walkway and wayfinding signage at Fernhill Escarpment (Activity ID 20417)

· The adoption of the Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan (Activity ID 1326)

6. Key activities not delivered / not progressed as expected include:

· the Albany Plan (Activity ID 4014) has been cancelled due to lack of capacity within the organisation to support the project

· The geotechnical report on the Albany Pool site as part of investigation into a new library building has been completed (Activity ID 1501) and the report will be presented to the local board in quarter one of 2024/2025 financial year

· the Pest free Upper Harbour strategy (Activity ID 3015) has experienced delays and will be considered for approval in quarter one of the 2024/2025 financial year.

7. The financial performance report is attached but is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on releasing annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX (high level summary only) – on or about 29 August 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) Whiwhi / receive the performance report for quarter four ending 30 June 2024.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group results for 2023/2024 are released to the New Zealand’s Exchange (NZX) which are expected to be made public on or about 29 August 2024.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2023/2024 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Auckland Emergency Management (AEM)

· Local Governance.

9. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

10. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity.

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

11. The definitions of the Red, Amber Green and Grey for the quarter four / end of year report outlined in table 1 below.

Table 1: RAG status definitions for quarter four / end of year report

Red	· activities that were not delivered, · activities that were expected to be completed in 2023/2024 which are not expected to be completed until after the first quarter in 2024/2025, · multi-year projects that are significantly delayed · activities that are on hold with significant issues.
Amber	· activities that were expected to be completed in 2023/2024 which are now expected to be completed in the first quarter in 2024/2025, · multi-year projects that have not progressed as expected · activities that are on hold.
Green	· activities that were completed by the end of the financial year · multi-year projects that have progressed as expected.
Grey	· activities have been cancelled or deferred in the period April to June 2024.

12. The graph below shows activity status of activities in each departments’ work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

13. The key achievements in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2023/2024 during quarter four include:

· Upper Harbour - Play Advocacy (Activity ID 3833) – an adventurous nature space was constructed on Tamiro Road Reserve in Whenuapai

· Diverse Participation: Age friendly inclusion and diversity (Activity ID 396) – Digital Seniors opened new hubs in Greenhithe and Hobsonville Point which are on a rotating timetable alongside the Albany Library hub

· Connected and Resilient Communities: Albany (Activity ID 398) – Harbour Sport recruited a Community Resilience Activator which will drive the Albany community resilience work and support the development of an Albany emergency resilience group

· Activation of community led venue partners Upper Harbour (Activity ID 404) – Albany Community Hub, Meadowood Community House, Sunderland Lounge – Te Rere and Headquarters – Te Mahere have all provided a quarterly activation report; additionally, Sunderland Lounge – Te Rere and Headquarters – Te Mahere, provided programming reports which are included in this report as Attachments C, D, E, F, G, and H to the agenda report

· Volunteer recognition Upper Harbour (Activity ID 413) – the Volunteer Recognition event was held at Albany Tennis Park Lounge where the voluntary efforts of 45 people and organisations from the community were celebrated.

· Caribbean Drive – renew sports field and toilet project (Activity ID 23782) – all physical works have been completed and the park is opened for public use

· Upper Harbour - Storm Capex Damage – Renewal (Activity ID 45727) – physical works have commenced for Sanders Bike walk/ tracks, Gills Reserve storm remediation and Meadowood Community Centre car park, while the North Shore BMX carpark project and the Rawiri Stream Footpath project have been completed.

· Upper Harbour - Auckland Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy - Planting Plan (Activity ID 23967) – 48 trees across Hugh Green Drive and Hobsonville War Memorial Park have been planted

· Rosedale Park - develop tree management plan (Activity ID 42277) – this project was completed and the final plan was presented to the local board at a workshop – included as Attachment I of this report

· Upper Harbour – Kauri Dieback Local Parks Projects (Activity ID 29331) – the physical works for the Paremoremo Scenic Reserve track upgrade to Kauri Dieback standards and the bridge over the waterfall have been completed, however the track remains closed until the hygiene station is installed.

Changes to the local board work programme in quarter four

Activities with changes

14. The following work programmes activities have changes which have been formally approved by the local board.

Table 1: Work programmes change formally approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Summary of Change	Resolution number
4014	Customer and Community Services	The Albany Plan	Following staff recommendations, the Albany Plan was cancelled and the associated $50,000 of LDI Opex was reallocated to other projects to be spent before 30 June 2024 – Community Grants Upper Harbour 2023/2024 (Activity ID 410), Restoration of Waiarohia Stream (Activity ID 720) and Upper Harbour Ecological volunteers and environmental programme (Activity ID 595)	UH/2024/58
410	Customer and Community Services	Community Grants Upper Harbour 2023/2024	A total of $32,625.68 of LDI Opex was reallocated to this project in quarter four. $23,127.18 was reallocated to Grants from the Albany Plan (Activity ID 4014) following cancelation of the project. $9,498.50 was returned from previous grant rounds to community grants round two, bringing the total amount available to $77,435.44.	UH/2024/58 and UH/2024/59
720	Infrastructure and Environmental Services	Restoration of the Waiarohia Stream	$10,000 of LDI Opex was reallocated to this project for prepping planting areas. The additional budget was reallocated from the Albany Plan (Activity ID 4014) following the cancelation of the project	UH/2024/58
595	Customer and Community Services	Upper Harbour Ecological volunteers and environmental programme FY24	A total of $16,872.82 LDI Opex was reallocated to this project from the cancelled Albany Plan project (Activity ID 4014). $12,000 for contractor support $3,214 for Burnside Escarpment traps $1,658.82 for Rosedale Park traps	UH/2024/58
2989	Customer and Community Services	Whenuapai Park Service Guide	A minor change to the Activity Description and Further Decision Point of this project was formally approved by the local board to include the following wording: Activity Description: Deliver a refresh of the Whenuapai section of the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan 2019 including targeted community engagement. Further Decision Points for LB: October 2024 – Workshop updated Parks and Service Guidance and greenways planning; May 2025 – Local board to approve the Whenuapai section review to be included in the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan.	UH/2024/58

Key activity achievements from the 2023/2024 work programme

15. The key achievements in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2023/2024 includes the delivery and completion of the following projects:

· Bushlands Park project (Activity ID 30456) – this project was completed in quarter one

· Observation Green – develop neighbourhood park – this project was completed in quarter one (Activity ID 29151) and an opening celebration was delivered in quarter two (Activity ID 411)

· Sanders House - refurbish building (Activity ID 36492) – this project was completed in quarter two

· Greenhithe and Hobsonville War Memorial fountain (Activity 27866) was completed in quarter two

· Fernhill Escarpment – renew walkway and wayfinding signage (Activity ID 20417) – was completed in quarter three

· the replacement of lights at Wainoni Park (Activity ID 30661) – this project was completed during quarter three

· Movies in Parks - Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1278) – this event was delivered during quarter three

· Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan (Activity ID 1326) – the local park management plan was approved in quarter three

· Devonshire Reserve – Playground Renewal (Activity ID 23972) – this project was completed in quarter four

· Herald Island Domain Hall - refurbish building (Activity ID 30237) – this project was completed in quarter four

· Starlight Park – renew play space (Activity ID 27886) – this project was completed in quarter four

· Community grants Upper Harbour (Activity ID 410) - the community grant funding has been allocated and the programme is completed for 2023/2024.

Overview of work programme performance

Customer and Community Services work programme

16. In the Customer and Community Services work programme 2023/2024, there are a total of 89 activities including:

· 50 activities that were completed by end of June 2024 with a Green RAG status

· 27 multiyear activities that were in progress but on track at the end of June 2024 with a Green RAG status

· one activity that is in progress but delayed with an Amber RAG status

· one activity that is on hold with an Amber RAG status

· one activity has been deferred and has a Grey RAG status.

· two activities have been cancelled and have a Grey RAG status

· six activities that are approved or approved in principle to commence in future years with a Green RAG status

· one activity that is proposed for a future work programme with a Green Rag status.

Table 3: Customer and Community Services activities with significant impact

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
Upper Harbour - implement actions from the Greenways Plan (Activity ID: 20709)	Amber	On Hold	This Project is currently on hold, and it will come off hold in early FY2024/2025 for the planning and delivery of the Wharf Reserve path extension and the progression of other paths prioritised in the Activity Description.
Continue to monitor opportunities for Albany library service provision (Activity ID 1501)	Amber	In Progress	The geotechnical report on the Albany Pool has been completed, findings have been summarised and next steps will be reported to the local board in September 2024. As the report will be presented to the local board in quarter one of FY24/25 this project has been given an Amber RAG status.
Albany Plan (Activity ID 4014)	Grey	Cancelled	This project has been cancelled due to lack of organisational capacity to support at appropriate level and the associated budget has been reallocated to other projects on the Upper Harbour Local Board 2023/2024 work programmes.
Upper Harbour – remediate storm and cyclone affected assets (Activity ID 40192)	Grey	Cancelled	The approved CAPEX renewal budget for this project is no longer required and is replaced with Upper Harbour - Storm Capex Damage – Renewals (Activity ID 45727) which has been centrally approved as a storm response budget and will be used towards remediating the storm damaged assets.
Rahui Reserve - Tauhinu Sea Scouts – New lease (Activity ID 3730)	Grey	Deferred	This project has been deferred until the 2025/2026 work programme to account for the impact on providing a future lease for the site when the sea scouts coastal permit expires in 2029. Officers’ recommendation is to defer the lease at Rahui Reserve for the sea scouts until later work programmes in consideration of the expiry of their coastal permit in 2029 and any potential issues that may arise.

Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme

17. In the Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 2023/2024, there are a total of six activities including:

· five activities that were completed by the end of June 2024 with a Green RAG status

· one activity that is in progress but is delayed with an Amber RAG status.

Table 4: Infrastructure and Environmental Services activities with significant impact

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
Pest free Upper Harbour strategy (Activity ID 3015)	Amber	In Progress	A contractor version of the Upper Harbour Pest Management Strategy was completed in quarter two and due to the time taken to finalise suggested changes the strategy will now be considered for final approval by the local board at the August 2024 business meeting.

Auckland Emergency Management work programme

18. In the Auckland Emergency Management work programme 2023/2024, there is one activity which is a multiyear project currently in progress and has a Green RAG status.

Local Governance

19. In the Local Governance work programme 2023/2024, there is one activity that is in progress but delayed with an Amber RAG status.

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
Auckland Transport – Application and initial assessment road stopping Waimarie Road unformed legal road, Whenuapai (Activity ID 3)	Amber	In Progress	The review with internal Auckland Transport and Auckland Council departments has been completed and the final outcomes are currently undergoing peer review. This project has an Amber RAG status as the findings will be made available to the local board during quarter one of the 2024/2025 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

21. The local board has invested in a number of sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around sustainable practices, and support changing behaviour at a local level, which include:

· Upper Harbour Ecological volunteers and environmental programme FY24 (Activity ID 595) – during quarter four a total of 2832 hours are estimated to have been worked and since the start of planting season there have been nine events with 3,154 plants planted

· Industrial Pollution Prevention Programme – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 4017) – aims to inform industry about the impacts that their activities may be having on local waterways and in quarter four, due to frequent pollution events at the Rosedale East stormwater pond on Douglas Alexander Parade, a camera sensor was installed, funded out of a regional Healthy Waters pilot, to better understand the type of contamination and the duration of the event

· Our Local Streams Sustainable Schools (Activity ID 727) – provides expertise and assistance in stream care to schools and by the end of quarter four the programme has met the KPI's set out at the start of the financial year, and has been delivered to five schools over 26 sessions

· Construction Waste Education and Leadership Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1441) – has established a construction and demolition waste advisor to work with developers to improve site practices; during quarter four 86 site visits and five illegal dumping incidents have been reported with over 200 site visits taking place over the financial year.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the local boards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for quarter four ending 30 June 2024 and the performance for the 2023/2024 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s work programme contains a number of activities aimed at delivering on Māori outcomes for the 2023/2024 financial year.

25. Highlights for the quarter two reporting period on activities with a direct focus on Māori outcomes are outlined below:

· Library services - Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1110) – Albany Village Library provide community-based services and programmes that promote te reo Māori and during quarter four events included a flax weaving workshop, Te reo Māori/English Storytime and family Poi making

· Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (Activity ID 403) – aims to support local Māori in delivering social and economic outcomes and during quarter four a Matariki celebration was held in collaboration between Te Ohu o Onekiritea, Te Kawerau ā Maki and Hobsonville Point Secondary School (HPSS). Te Kawerau ā Maki shared stories of the artworks that have been completed by HPSS students and the artworks were then unveiled and will sit permanently on Te Kawerau whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. This report is provided to enable the Upper Harbour Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2023/2024 work programme. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

27. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the New Zealand, Singapore and Swiss Debt Markets (Quoted Bonds). As a result, the Council is subject to continuous disclosure obligations, which it must comply with under the listing rules of the NZX (Listing Rules), the listing rules of other exchanges and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA).

28. These obligations restrict the release of annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX – on or about 29 August 2024.

29. Due to these obligations the financial performance attachment to this report (Attachment B) is excluded from the public and is under confidential cover.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Overview of work programme performance’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Work programmes for 2024/2025 were approved at the board’s business meeting in June 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Upper Harbour Local Board work programme 2023/2024 update	139
b	Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Report to 30 June 2024 - Confidential
c	Q4 report Albany Community Hub - Activation	165
d	Q4 report Meadowood Community Centre - Activation	171
e	Q4 report Sunderland Lounge - Activation	179
f	Q4 report Headquarters - Activation	187
g	Q4 report Sunderland Lounge - Programming	195
h	Q4 report Headquarters - Programming	201
i	Rosedale Park Tree Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 August 2024

Upper Harbour Local Board input into the Auckland Council submission on New Zealand's Second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP2)

File No.: CP2024/11661

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Upper Harbour Local Board’s input into the Auckland Council submission on New Zealand’s Second Emission Reduction Plan (ERP2) made under urgent decision on 8 August 2024 as set out in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment - Manatū Mō Te Taiao (MfE) opened consultation on New Zealand’s Second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP2), which closed on 21 August 2024. The final New Zealand’s Second Emission Reduction Plan (ERP2) needs to be published by the end of 2024 and must outline the strategy and actions that the Government will take across all sectors of the economy to meet emissions reduction targets.

3. The New Zealand’s Second Emission Reduction Plan (ERP2) focuses on sectors that are the key drivers of emissions: energy, transport, agriculture, forestry and waste. The aim of the plan is to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions at least cost to New Zealanders, while adapting to a changing climate.

4. The Government is also formally consulting on amendments to New Zealand’s First Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP1). These are intended to reflect changes in the government’s approach to emissions reduction and to align with their broader climate response strategy.

5. The New Zealand’s Second Emission Reduction Plan (ERP2) is likely to affect the Auckland region in the following ways:

· It will set specific sectoral direction regarding actions to be taken to reduce emissions, particularly for public transport, waste and energy transition.

· It will result in increased reliance on the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and private sector investments to finance mitigation actions with a reduction in central government funding and incentives (e.g. Climate Emergency Response Fund, Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI), incentives for electric vehicles).

· There will be a reduced focus on gross emissions mitigation and a stronger reliance on forestry sequestration and market-led initiatives (including capture and storage systems, even if most of them are not commercially viable and will also take many years to evolve).

· Indirectly, this would jeopardize Auckland Council's climate interventions and outreach efforts aimed at empowering the community and businesses to significantly lower their carbon footprints while promoting the many co-benefits such as saving money and enhancing resilience in the face of climate events.

6. The deadline for local board feedback to be considered for incorporation into the Auckland Council submission was 8 August 2024 and for feedback to be appended to the submission was 16 August 2024. This time frame meant the item could not be bought to a business meeting and the feedback was approved using the following urgent decision process:

Arrangements for making urgent decisions

The Local Area Manager, Lesley Jenkins, and the Senior Local Board Advisor, Heather Skinner, were in attendance to support the item.

Resolution number UH/2022/137

MOVED by Member C Blair, seconded by Member K Parker:

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board, if the local board is unable to meet.

b) confirm that the Local Area Manager, chairperson, and deputy chairperson (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the use of the local board’s urgent decision mechanism by approving the request for an urgent decision in writing.

c) note that all urgent decisions made, including written advice which supported these decisions, will be included on the agenda of the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

CARRIED

7. A copy of the Upper Harbour Local Board formal feedback, submitted on 8 August 2024, is available under Attachment A to the agenda report.

8. The supporting information provided to inform the Upper Harbour Local Board’s formal feedback process included Auckland Council’s MEMO – Emissions Reduction Pan 2 (ERP2) (Attachment B to the agenda report) and the Local Board Members Briefing: Emissions Reductions Plan, that was held on 5 August 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the Upper Harbour Local Board input into the Auckland Council submission on New Zealand's Second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP2) made under urgent decision on 8 August 2024 as set out in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	UH - Urgent decision - AC submission to New Zealand’s Second Emissions Reduction Plan	207
b ⇩	MEMO - Emissions Reduction Plan 2 (ERP2)	211

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Anna Atkinson
Deputy Chairperson	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
Members	Callum Blair	Kyle Parker
	John Mclean	Sylvia Yang

Author	Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Traffic bylaws

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