Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board - Tuesday, 22 October 2024

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Tuesday 24 September 2024, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Sherwood Primary School

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Kiran Mackay, Millie Wendt and Karla Anderson have requested a deputation to update the local board on Sherwood Primary Schools activities as part of the Enviroschools Programme.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Kiran Mackay, Millie Wendt and Karla Anderson for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Sherwood Primary School Enviroschools presentation............................... 115

8.2 Deputation - Claridge Court Owners Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Martin Adlington has requested a deputation to address the local board in relation to the proposed works by Auckland Transport on Glen Road, Browns Bay.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Martin Adlington for his presentation and attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Supporting information................................................................................. 117

8.3 Deputation - Forest and Bird North Shore

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Nicholas Mayne and Richard Hursthouse have requested a deputation to address the local board in relation to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and Bylaws.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Nicholas Mayne and Richard Hursthouse for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Auckland Council review of dog management bylaw and policy presentation.................................................................................................. 121

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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.”

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One, Legacy Rates Grants, and Local Economic and Business Grants 2024/2025 grant allocations

File No.: CP2024/14681

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree to fund, part-fund, or decline applications to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2024/2025 Contestable Local Grants Round One, Legacy Rates Grants, and Local Economic and Business Grants.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Hibiscus and Bays Contestable Local Grants Round One (Attachment A to the agenda report), Legacy Rates Grants (Attachment B to the agenda report), and Local Economic and Business Grants 2024/2025 (Attachment C to the agenda report).

3. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grants Programme 2024/2025, and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Local Economic and Business Grant Programme on 25 June 2024 (Attachments D and E to the agenda report). These documents set application guidelines for grants.

4. The local board has set a community grants budget of $81,116, a Legacy Rates Grants budget of $57,472, a Local Economic and Business Grants budget of $50,000, and a Facilities grant budget of $150,000.

5. Forty-nine applications were received for the Local Grants Round One 2024/2025, requesting a total of $281,121.26. Five Local Economic and Business Grants applications were received, requesting a total of $57,704.00. Five Legacy Rates Grants applications were also received, requesting a total of $47,314.55.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakaae / agree to fund, part-fund, or decline each application in Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2024/2025, listed in Table One:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2506-101	Age Concern Auckland Trust	Community	Towards operating expenses including postage, photocopying, stationary, utilities, and website costs	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-102	Kaipatiki Project Incorporated	Community	Towards disbursements, operational support, and project delivery, including engagement, communications, evaluation, promotion, travel, and network expenses	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-103	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Inc	Community	Towards operating expenses for North Shore CMA friendship centres in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-106	Hibiscus Coast Senior Citizens Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the cost of venue hire at Orewa community hall	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-107	Silverdale United Rugby & Sports Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards signage and sports equipment	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG2506-108	The Sustainable North Trust	Environment	Towards community volunteer koha for Zero Waste Events across 2024-2025	$6,535.00	Eligible
LG2506-111	Kiwiora Community Trust	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire and workshop delivery expenses	$1,150.00	Eligible
LG2506-116	Stoney Homestead Trust	Community	Towards tree planting, flooring, and a laptop	$8,209.28	Ineligible
LG2506-117	Orewa College	Community	Towards the purchase of an AED for community use	$2,590.00	Eligible
LG2506-119	Youth in Transition Charitable Trust	Community	Towards counsellor salaries for specialised support services for youths in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area	$8,000.00	Ineligible
LG2506-121	Rodney Aphasia Group	Community	Towards costs of an interactive drumming course	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-123	Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	Environment	Towards a part-time volunteer co-ordinator for weeding and planting programmes on Council reserves in the Okura-Weiti-Karepiro Bay- Stillwater area	$9,300.00	Ineligible
LG2506-126	Sea Cadet Association of New Zealand Inc	Community	Towards marketing for a recruitment programme	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-128	Mairangi Bay Business Assn	Community	Towards a series of Easter events and activities at the Mairangi Bay Village	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-129	Long Bay Chinese Association Incorporate	Community	Towards operational costs including venue hire, wages, and sport items, for weekly activities	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-130	Silverdale & Districts Historical Society Inc	Historic Heritage	Towards the reparation of a Gazebo's shingle roof	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-132	Mairangi Bay Bowling Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards greenkeepers contract fee to maintain and prepare two grass greens	$6,332.00	Ineligible
LG2506-133	Age Concern Rodney Inc Charitable Trust	Community	Towards an annual Christmas concert for an elderly community	$2,313.50	Eligible
LG2506-134	Torbay Friendship Club	Community	Towards monthly excursions and a Christmas lunch for the elderly	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-135	IMAGEN8 Limited	Environment	Towards nature photography workshops for children and an exhibition of kids' images at Mairangi arts centre	$4,400.00	Eligible
LG2506-136	Hibiscus Mens Shed Trust	Community	Towards a centralised compressed air circuit at the Hibiscus Mens Shed	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-138	New Zealand Baiyun Beijing Opera Society Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards operational expenses, projector, and screen	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-140	North Harbour Budgeting Services Inc.	Community	Towards cost of free financial mentoring/budgeting within the community, including wages, marketing, and travel	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-141	AUCKLAND CHINESE FAMILIES NETWORK INCORPORTED	Arts and culture	Towards the New Zealand Children Chinese Cultural Day celebration in Browns Bay	$7,976.54	Eligible
LG2506-144	Red Beach School	Sport and recreation	Towards an opal canopy shade structure	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-145	Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Board	Environment	Towards new tables and chairs for Sir Peter Blake MERC	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-146	New Zealand Guitar Ensemble Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards catering and venue hire at Peter Snell Youth Village	$3,935.21	Eligible
LG2506-148	Manly Bowling Club Incorporation	Sport and recreation	Towards wages for a greenkeeper at Manly Bowling Club	$4,500.00	Ineligible
LG2506-149	Whangaparaoa Hub Community Trust	Events	Towards marketing, stage and concert set up, performer fees, wages, venue dressing and waste management costs at 719 Whangaparāoa Rd	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-150	The Operating Theatre Trust T/A Tim Bray Theatre Company	Arts and culture	Towards ticket purchases at the Pumphouse Theatre from	$7,989.13	Eligible
LG2506-151	Pearl of the Islands Foundation Inc	Arts and culture	Towards cost of lamps for mosaic lamp-making workshops	$7,140.00	Eligible
LG2506-152	Coast Community Trust	Community	Towards a free community dinner	$2,500.00	Eligible
LG2506-153	Harbour Sport Trust	Events	Towards event costs for the Harbours Cooper & Co Shore to Shore 2025 fun run	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-154	OPEN AND CONNECT NZ	Community	Towards costs of a project to support North Shore Chinese migrant families, including management cost, marketing, venue hire for the event and volunteer training	$5,410.00	Eligible
LG2506-155	TORBAY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED	Community	Towards promotions and events to support business development and attract visitors and business to the Torbay Village	$10,000.00	Ineligible
LG2506-156	Marist North Harbour Rugby Club	Sport and recreation	Towards operational costs including club administrator and insurance	$6,500.00	Eligible
LG2506-157	MAIRANGI ARTS CENTRE TRUST	Arts and culture	Towards costs of a Matariki exhibition, including communication fees, workshops, art and display resources and technician	$5,435.00	Eligible
LG2506-158	Pet Refuge New Zealand Charitable Trust	Community	Towards operating costs of the Pet Refuge shelter, to temporarily house pets affected by domestic violence	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-159	Hibiscus Coast Harriers and Triathlon Club	Sport and recreation	Towards a gazebo for use at local events	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-161	PHAB Association INC	Community	Towards operational costs for running the programme of the PHAB Peers club for young disabled people at the Salvation Army in Red Beach	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG2506-162	Long Bay Residents Association	Community	Towards installation of CCTV cameras in areas that are becoming an issue of safety and security	$6,513.60	Eligible
LG2506-163	Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi Incorporated	Environment	Towards labour to create a lighthouse museum at the Tiritiri Matangi island	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-164	Hibiscus Coast Softball Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards costs of a School Softball Programme, and equipment including storage solutions, bats, balls, side nets	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-165	Bellyful New Zealand Trust	Community	Towards operational costs of providing meals for whanau in need of support throughout Hibiscus Coast and North Shore	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-167	Abuse Prevention Services Inc	Community	Towards facilitator costs for a programme for children living with family violence	$8,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-169	New Zealand Blue Light Ventures Inc	Community	Towards the production and distribution of the 2024 Street Smart Magazine and App	$4,632.00	Eligible
LG2506-170	The Helping Paws Charitable Trust	Environment	Towards desexing unwanted cats and kittens	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-171	Rainbow Youth Incorporated	Community	Towards queer, intersex and gender diverse peer support groups	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG2506-172	Alliance Française d'Auckland	Arts and culture	Towards French lessons for children in Murrays Bay Primary School	$760.00	Eligible
Total				$281,121.26

b) whakaae / agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Hibiscus and Bays Legacy Rates Grant 2024/2025, listed in Table Two:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2506-109	Browns Bay Bowling Club Inc	Sport and recreation	Towards a Legacy Rates Grant for 2024/2025	$18,097.15	Eligible
LG2506-110	Rothesay Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association	Community	Towards a Legacy Rates Grant for 2024/2025	$5,780.61	Eligible
LG2506-122	Nippon Judo Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards a Legacy Rates Grant for 2024/2025	$3,353.48	Eligible
LG2506-131	GirlGuiding NZ	Community	Towards a Legacy Rates Grant for 2024/2025	$3,878.18	Eligible
LG2506-137	MBSC Current Account	Sport and recreation	Towards a Legacy Rates Grant for 2024/2025	$16,205.13	Eligible
Total				$47,314.55

c) whakaae / agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Hibiscus and Bays Local Economic and Business Grants 2024/2025, listed in Table Three:

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LEBG242501	Mairangi Bay Business Association Incorporated	Towards a Local Economic and Business Grant for 2024/2025	$15,000.00	Eligible
LEBG242502	Browns Bay Business Association	Towards a Local Economic and Business Grant for 2024/2025	$8,704.00	Eligible
LEBG242503	Mainstreet Orewa Incorporated T/a Destination Orewa	Towards a Local Economic and Business Grant for 2024/2025	$5,000.00	Eligible
LEBG242504	Torbay Business Association Incorporated	Towards a Local Economic and Business Grant for 2024/2025	$9,000.00	Eligible
LEBG242505	Business Whangaparaoa Incorporated	Towards a Local Economic and Business Grant for 2024/2025	$20,000.00	Eligible
Total			$57,704.00

Horopaki

Context

6. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7. Auckland Council Community Grant Policy supports each local board to adopt a grant programme.

8. The local board grant programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted its grants programme for 2024/2025 on 25 June 2024 (Attachments D and E). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grant.

10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grant Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grant Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

14. The grant programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Community Grants Programme 2024/2025, and in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Local Economic and Business Grants Programme 2024/2025.

16. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grant Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. The local board has set a Local Grants budget of $81,116, a Legacy Rates Grants budget of $57,472, a Local Economic and Business Grants budget of $50,000, and a Facilities grant budget of $150,000.

19. Forty-nine applications were received for the Local Grants Round One 2024/2025, requesting a total of $281,121.26. Five Local Economic and Business Grants applications were received, requesting a total of $57,704.00. Five Legacy Rates Grants applications were also received, requesting a total of $47,314.55.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grant Policy and the local board grant programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for Local Grants Round One and Legacy Rates Grants, and Local Economic and Business Grant 2024/2025, the grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round One 2024-2025 application summary (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Legacy Rates Grants 2024-2025 application summary (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Economic and Business Grants 2024-2025 application summary (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grants Programme 2024-2025 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Local Economic and Business Grants Programme 2024-2025 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vincent Marshall - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Pierre Fourie - Grants and Incentives Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Time of Use Charging - Local board feedback

File No.: CP2024/15426

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on aspects of the Time of Use Charging policy development.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Time of Use Charging programme is developing policy settings and options analysis to inform the Auckland Council group what a successful scheme in Auckland could look like and what enabling legislation would be required for this. This will inform a council group submission to the Select Committee process once legislation has been drafted and contribute to a detailed design process.

3. Feedback received from local boards will inform policy and scheme designs, along with the submission to Select Committee.

4. This report invites feedback from local boards for the first round of engagement for the project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback and insights on issues related to Time of Use Charging policy development, based on discussions held at local board workshops during August / September 2024.

Horopaki

Context

5. In 2020, the Auckland Transport Alignment Project partners investigated the potential for congestion charging in Auckland and The Congestion Question (TCQ) report. The report studied different types of congestion charging and approaches to implementation. The full report is available here: www.transport.govt.nz/area-of-interest/auckland/the-congestion-question

6. In August 2021, Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee recommended that government legislate to allow New Zealand cities to use congestion pricing as a tool in transport planning.

7. In November 2023, Auckland Council’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee (TIC) asked Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (AC) to establish a time of use charging programme (“the programme”) to further develop policies and investigate scheme designs for a potential scheme in Auckland.

8. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have developed a programme of work to investigate what a scheme could look like in Auckland with the aim to have it implemented following legislation enactment.

9. In June 2024, TIC endorsed the programme’s primary objective, “to manage travel demand to achieve an improvement in road network performance by reducing congestion, increasing the throughput of people and goods, and improving the reliability of the road network”. In addition, TIC noted that the programme will undertake detailed analysis of the recommended options from TCQ, which included a city centre cordon, and strategic corridors on the inner isthmus; as well as highly congested locations across the motorway and arterial network.

10. In August 2024, the Minister of Transport announced that enabling legislation for Time of Use Charging was being developed, with an aim to introduce it to parliament in late 2024, with Select Committee and enactment in 2025.

11. The programme intends to take advice to the Auckland Council Transport, Resilience and Infrastructure Committee (TRIC) in late 2024 or early 2025. This advice would also form the basis of an Auckland Council Group submission to Select Committee.

12. Feedback from early engagement with partners and key stakeholders, including mana whenua, local boards, key stakeholders and community panels, will be considered in the advice given to TRIC.

13. Future stages of scheme development are subject to legislative development. Extensive engagement is planned to be undertaken throughout the process, including public consultation and with local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Policy and option development

14. Time of Use Charging is a method used to help ease congestion by charging road users to travel at specific times and/or locations to encourage some users to change the time, route or way in which they travel.

15. The TCQ report is the primary reference for the discussion of congestion pricing. Analysis showed that Auckland’s congestion is getting worse, noting in 2020 that an average weekday motorway trip took almost 10 per cent more time than it did in 2016, and that motorists needed to allow an additional 40 to 55 per cent longer for their trips to be assured of arriving on time.

16. Additionally, congestion was increasingly a problem throughout the day and at weekends, not just at peak times. The TCQ report found that without congestion pricing, congestion was expected to become more widespread, even after significant investment in roading, public transport and active transport modes. It is a situation that compromises Aucklanders’ access to jobs, education and other opportunities and makes it more difficult to travel around the region, thereby negatively impacting both the productivity and liveability of the city. It found:

· international evidence from several cities shows congestion pricing is being used successfully to influence travel demand and ease congestion

· Auckland’s widespread congestion, heavy car dependency and dispersed commuting patterns present unique challenges for a congestion pricing solution

· technology exists to enable a wide range of solutions

· it was better to investigate smaller scale options that could be used as ‘stepping stones’ for developing a wider system. An evolving system would allow for close monitoring and the effective management of issues that arise

· building public understanding and acceptance will be critical to successfully implementing any congestion pricing solution.

17. To understand what a successful time of use charging scheme could look like in Auckland, the programme is considering policy settings and an assessment of different scheme design options against the following assessment criteria: network (including public transport alternatives), social impact, economic impact, practical, cost benefit analysis and environmental impact.

18. While seeking to reduce congestion, it is recognised that those gains need to be considered against wider impacts on the transport network, people and businesses. Informed by the TCQ report and feedback from TIC, the programme recommends the following core policy principles for any proposed scheme to be successful:

· effective: improve network performance

· fair: minimise and mitigate adverse social impacts and ensure benefits and costs are fairly distributed across users

· simple: be easy to understand and avoid complexity

· feasible: able to be implemented.

19. The introduction of a time of use charge will result in secondary outcomes. These will be measured but are not factors that will drive how a scheme is designed:

· revenue generation

· public transport mode shift

· public health through emissions reduction.

20. Additionally, the current work programme aims to minimise the impact of the following undesirable consequences, while ensuring viable public transport options are available to support the implementation of a scheme:

· diversion impacts i.e., managing traffic created by people avoiding routes that incur charges

· community severance i.e., the potential impact on social relationships and cohesiveness created by charging for travel on some roads

· major differences in user net costs and benefits, ensuring that road users are getting value for money

· exacerbated transport deprivation; to ensure the fair distribution of costs and benefits across all communities. Specifically considering that charges do not further reduce transport options in areas without adequate public transport alternatives.

21. The programme has identified three broad options and will assess them against these objectives to develop more detailed options that can be discussed further during engagement.

22. The programme is not seeking to finalise a single option at this stage. Instead, work is focused on understanding the situation and the complexities associated with different scheme designs.

Engagement Activities

23. An essential part of this process is understanding the expectations of Auckland communities. The programme is currently engaging early with local boards, mana whenua and key stakeholders. The aim is to understand the views of a broad range of stakeholders and communities so that this information can inform the policy design work, the council’s submission to Select Committee and further engagement phases prior to public consultation.

24. Local boards are encouraged to provide feedback, and a feedback submission form has been included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

25. Future engagement and consultation activities are to be confirmed through the legislative development process, with the expectation that extensive engagement will be undertaken in the future, including public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

27. Impacts to water, air and emissions are expected as secondary outcomes of a time of use charging scheme. These factors will be measured and expanded upon in the development of scheme design options.

28. Time of use charging is an ‘enabler’ for climate goals promoting more efficient use of the existing network and encouraging use of less polluting modes of travel.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. This programme is being delivered jointly by AT and AC.

30. Auckland Council’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee has endorsed in principle a congestion pricing scheme in Auckland and understand the benefits and disbenefits of a scheme, along with the need to have public transport services and projects in place across Auckland on an equitable basis to allow road users to switch to alternative modes where appropriate.

31. Auckland Council’s Governing Body was involved in developing the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan which studied congestion charging and led to the commissioning of the TCQ report. The Governing Body was also engaged during the development of the TCQ report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. A workshop was held with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 13 August 2024 providing an introduction to the work underway. A copy of the presentation and memo is included as Attachments B and C to the agenda report.

33. Local board workshops provided an opportunity for the programme to understand local boards’ initial views which included the importance of good public transport options, concerns about impacts on lower socio-economic communities and a desire to see any revenue raised reinvested into transport in Auckland.

34. This report provides the local board with an opportunity to provide feedback either using the attached feedback form or via a resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well as broader legal obligations to be responsive to Māori.

36. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines its commitment to 19 mana whenua iwi 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

37. Using this framework for discussion, AT began engagement with mana whenua via hui in June 2024. This initial engagement will be followed by engagement at ongoing hui at governance and operational levels. Further opportunities for engagement are currently being identified in alignment with programme deliverables.

38. As the programme progresses, the impact of a time of use charge on Māori will be analysed in increasing detail, providing a full understanding of what these charges will mean for Māori communities in Tāmaki Makaurau.

39. Māori will be informed and provided with opportunities to engage with the programme so their views can inform the policy and scheme designs.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. Funding for Time of Use Charging has been included in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

41. Government co-funding is subject to legislation and the National Land Transport Fund.

42. Further information on financial implications will be provided during future stages of the programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. Providing feedback on time use charging currently does not carry any legal or financial risk to the local board.

44. This process is to seek initial views only. If local boards have concerns about resolving feedback before understanding the views of their community, they may choose to delay providing feedback until formal engagement takes place in 2025.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. The programme will review all feedback from local boards. Feedback will help inform the programme of work prior to reporting to TRIC in December 2024, followed by the Select Committee in 2025.

46. Further engagement with local boards will be sought as policy settings and scheme design progresses in conjunction with legislation development.

47. Once legislation is passed in 2025, AT and AC expect to work closely with New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi to develop a scheme for Auckland. Part of this process will include broad engagement and consultation with local boards, stakeholders and the public.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback form	25
b ⇩	Workshop presentation	31
c ⇩	Workshop memo	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy – Principal Advisor Strategic Relationships, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

John Gillespie – Head of Stakeholder / Elected Member Management, Auckland Transport

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Local board views on draft changes to dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2024/15677

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on draft proposed changes to Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on draft proposed changes to the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 (policy) and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (bylaw), staff have prepared a summary in Attachment A to the agenda report.

3. The changes are in response to a statutory review by the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee and preferred options of an Elected Member Working Group.

4. Key draft proposed changes are to:

· set a limit on the number of dogs one person may walk both on-leash and off-leash

· amend or clarify the dog access rules in 14 regional parks

· clarify some existing rules in the policy and bylaw

· reorganise and reformat existing policy content.

5. Staff recommend the local board provide its views on the draft proposed changes. Taking this approach will help develop a proposal to improve the policy and bylaw.

6. There is a reputational risk that the proposed changes or the local board’s views do not reflect the views of people in their local board area. This risk would be partly mitigated by the opportunity for the local board to provide views on public feedback prior to deliberations.

7. The Regulatory and Safety Committee will consider the local board views in December 2024 and recommend a proposal to the Governing Body. Public consultation on the proposal is scheduled for early 2025, deliberations in June 2025 and final Governing Body decision in July 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on draft proposed changes to the Auckland Council’s Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 summerised in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

Council is required to have and review a policy on dogs and bylaw to implement the policy

8. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires Auckland Council to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to give effect to it by specifying rules that dog owners must comply with.

9. The Auckland Council’s Kaupapa no ngā Kurī / Policy on Dogs 2019 (policy) and Ture ā Rohe Tiakina Kurī / Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (bylaw) were originally made in 2012 (GB/2012/157). The policy was amended, and the bylaw replaced in 2019 (GB/2019/71).

The policy and bylaw aim to keep dogs as a positive part of Aucklanders’ lives

10. The policy and bylaw seek to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders by:

· focusing on registration, classification, education and information, a balanced approach to dog access in shared spaces and problem response and reduction

· Animal Management staff using a modern regulator approach to compliance (information, education, enforcement)

· being part of a wider regulatory framework.^{^[1]}

A recent policy and bylaw review identified improvements

11. In June 2024, the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee completed a review of the policy and bylaw and requested the development of options for improvements and a proposal on the preferred option (RSCCC/2024/47).

12. A Joint Working Group^{^[2]} provided guidance on the preferred options to enable the development of a proposal for consultation.

13. A summary of the draft proposed changes is contained in Attachment A.

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposed changes

14. The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on the draft proposed changes in Attachment A by resolution to the Regulatory and Safety Committee before a final proposal is adopted for public consultation.

15. For example, the local board could support the draft proposed changes for public consultation, recommend changes or defer comment until it has considered public feedback on the proposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft proposed changes seek to improve the current policy and bylaw

16. The draft proposed changes seek to improve the current policy and bylaw across five topics.

17. The table below summarises the key draft proposed changes. Attachment A contains more details, including other options considered by the working group.

Proposed key change	Reasons for proposal
· set a limit on the number of dogs a person may walk at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three dogs are allowed under control off-leash at any one time).	· proportionately addresses evidence of nuisance and distress and provides for the needs of dogs and their owner · provides consistent guidance to the public which is easy to understand and comply with.
Changes to dog access rules at: · Auckland Botanic Gardens off-leash area, busy community areas and waterways · Te Ārai Regional Park to prohibit dogs from Te Ari Beach South (including Forestry Beach) · Hunua Ranges Regional Park to prohibit dogs from connecting roads and tracks, and single-use mountain bike tracks · Mahurangi Regional Park to prohibit dogs from Cudlip Point Loop Track and simplify rules to align with operational practices · Pākiri Regional Park to prohibit dogs on the associated beach · Scott Point (Mahurangi Regional Park) to prohibit dogs from the homestead grounds and change Scott Point and associated beaches time and season rule · Shakespear Regional Park to clarify the Army and Okoramai Bays prohibition rules and change the grassland area rule · Tāpapakanga Regional Park to clarify lambing season rule · Waitawa Regional Park to change off-leash rule to on-leash, the current on-leash on the Eastern end of Mataitai Beach, and the off-leash rule on the eastern end of Mataitai Beach. Prohibit dogs from single use mountain bike tracks, clarify lambing rule · Whakanewha Regional Park to allow on-leash dog access on western most tracks.	· minimises conflicts over space between dogs and people · prevents environmental damage · minimises health and safety risks on people or other animals in busy areas (such as popular beaches and mountain bike tracks) · protects ecological areas or endangered wildlife · makes the rules clearer, consistent, and easier for the public to understand and follow · updates the rule to reflect change in land-use (such as land no longer used for farming) · provides more practical access to dog access areas.
Clarify dog access rules at six regional parks: · Te Ārai Regional Park for access to the quarry off-leash area · Long Bay Regional Park for access to the beach · Wenderholm Regional Park no change to current dog access · Ambury Regional Park, no change to current dog access · Muriwai Regional Park, no change to current dog access · Tāwharanui Regional Park, no change to current dog access.	· protects ecological areas or endangered wildlife · makes the rules clearer, consistent, and easier for the public to understand and follow · provides more practical access to dog access areas.
Clarify the requirements to neuter menacing dogs, who can provide a menacing dog behavioural assessment and term ‘urban residential’ and align Policy objective statement and methods.	· improves certainty by making rules clearer, easy to understand and comply with.
Clarify the shared use of public space access principle and better define ‘public place’, include reference to ‘private ways’, better recognise wildlife in access principles, update and remove outdated information in Schedule 2 for example removing references to Maunga and outdated landmarks, include a statement about compliance, better define the Policy objective and focus areas, clarify the link between Policy methods and Policy schedules.	· improves certainty by making rules clearer, easy to understand and comply with · removes duplicate and out of date information.
Clarify the application of region-wide dog access rules such as rules for council carparks and camping grounds and rules and exemptions for working dogs and dogs in vehicles, clarify how the Bylaw implements default on-leash rules in the Policy.	· improves certainty by making rules clearer, easy to understand and comply with.
Reorganise, reformat, and remove duplicated information in the current Policy.	· removes duplicate and out of date information · easier to read and understand.

Staff recommend the local board consider providing its views on the draft proposal

18. Staff recommend that the local board consider the draft proposed changes and whether it wishes to provide its views by resolution to the Regulatory and Safety Committee. Taking this approach will help develop a proposal to improve the policy and bylaw.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. There are no implications for climate change arising from this decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The draft proposed changes impact the Animal Management, Biodiversity, Regional Operations (Regional Parks) and Natural Environment departments of council.

21. Relevant staff input was sought to inform the draft proposed changes, and staff are aware of the impacts of the changes and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The Policy and Bylaw impact local governance and are of high interest (8,028 public submissions received in response to proposed changes in 2019).

23. Local board representatives on an Elected Member Working Group in August 2024, helped identify preferred options to inform development of the draft proposed changes.

24. All local boards held workshops on the draft proposed changes to inform any views in response to this report.

25. Local boards will have a further opportunity to provide views on any local public feedback to any proposed changes prior to deliberations in June 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. The policy and bylaw support manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga in Houkura | the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulations that help protect people and the environment from harm caused by dogs.

27. Feedback by Māori generally aligns with the other feedback received as part of the review. Mana whenua and mataawaka feedback will be sought on any proposed changes as part of the public consultative process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decisions on the draft proposed changes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. The following risks have been identified:

If…

Then…

Mitigation

… the views of the local board on the draft proposed changes may differ from the views of people in the community.

… there may be negative attention to council regarding the policy and bylaw.

(medium reputational risk)

The local board will have an opportunity to consider any public feedback and provide its formal views to a Panel prior to the final decision being made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Staff will present the local board views and a Statement of Proposal of proposed changes to the policy and bylaw to the Regulatory and Safety Committee on 3 December 2024.

31. Public consultation on the proposal is scheduled for early 2025, deliberations for June 2025 and final Governing Body decision in July 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of the draft proposed changes to the Auckland Council Policy and Bylaw on Dogs	53

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Two new private road names at 20 Melia Place, Stanmore Bay (Melia Place Development)

File No.: CP2024/14972

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the names for two new private roads, being commonly owned access lots created by way of a subdivision development at 20 Melia Place, Stanmore Bay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The developer and applicant, Kvest Investment Partners Group, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

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

5. The proposed names for the new private roads at 20 Melia Place, Stanmore Bay are:

	Applicant’s preference	Alternatives
Road 1	Rimurehia Rise	Pūrepere Rise
Road 2	Maita Mā Place	Pōro Place

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following names for the two new private roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Kvest Investment Partners Group at 20 Melia Place, Stanmore Bay, by section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references FTC000046, road naming reference RDN90117547):

i) Rimurehia Rise (Road 1)

ii) Maita Mā Place (Road 2).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference FTC000046 was issued in June 2022 by an expert panel under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, for 59 dwellings and subdivision, including the creation of two commonly owned access lots.

7. The site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

8. In accordance with the standards, every public road and any private way, commonly owned access lot (COAL), or right of way, that serves more than five lots generally requires a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

9. In this development, there are two COAL’s that require road names as they each serve more than five lots. These can be seen in Attachment A, where the roads that require a name are highlighted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

12. Theme: the proposed names reflect a particular environmental/landscape link to the local area and a historical or existing feature of the site:

Road reference number	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
1	Rimurehia Rise (applicant’s preference)	‘Rimurehia’ in Te Reo Māori means ‘eelgrass, seagrass’ – native marine plants throughout New Zealand. Rimurehia is a prominent feature of the local marine ecosystem
1	Pūrepere Rise (alternative)	‘Pūrepere’ in Te Reo Māori means ‘seagrass’ Gifted from Ngāti Manuhiri
2	Maita Mā Place (applicant’s preference)	‘Maita Mā’ in Te Reo Māori means ‘lawn bowls’. This name refers to the historical lawn bowls rink within the site
2	Pōro Place (alternative)	‘Pōro’ in Te Reo Māori means ‘ball’. This name refers to the historical lawn bowls rink within the site Gifted from Ngāti Manuhiri

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

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

15. Road Type: ‘Rise’ and ‘Place’ are acceptable road types for the new private roads, suiting their form and layout.

16. Consultation: mana whenua was consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

21. On 4 July 2024, the applicant’s agent sought feedback from mana whenua on the proposed road names. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust)

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Ngātiwai Trust Board

· Ngāti Whanaunga (Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated)

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Te Patukirikiri (Te Patukirikiri Incorporated).

22. Ngāti Manuhiri has confirmed their support of the proposed preferred names and gifted the applicant two names, which they have adopted as their alternative options.

23. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), no other responses had been received.

24. Having received feedback and support from Ngāti Manuhiri, the applicant now wishes to present those names for a decision from the local board.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. Land Information New Zealand provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Roading plan	69
b ⇩	Location map	71

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Qiuan Wang, Align

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

New public and private road names at 2 Goldwater Drive, Silverdale

File No.: CP2024/15161

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the name of one public road and one private road being a commonly owned access lot, created by way of a subdivision development at 2 Goldwater Drive, Silverdale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

5. The proposed names for the new public and private roads at 2 Goldwater Drive are:

Road Number

Applicant’s Preference

Alternatives

Road 1

(public road)

Tack Road

Waihape Road

Tūrama Crescent

Road 2

(private road)

Wīra Lane

Muka Lane

Silver Harvest Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following names for a public road and a private road created by way of subdivision undertaken by Build Rich Limited at 2 Goldwater Drive, Silverdale, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (road naming reference RDN90115327, resource consent reference FTC000082455):

i) Tack Road (Road 1)

ii) Wīra Lane (Road 2)

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference FTC000082455 was issued on 19 October 2023 for Stage 5 of the East Coast Heights development consisting of 65 residential units, associated subdivision, and the creation of a new public road and commonly owned access lots.

7. Site and location plans of the development can be found in attachments A and B to the agenda report.

9. The public road (Road 1, Lot 70) therefore requires a name and also one private road (Road 2, Lot 71), as it serves more than five lots. The other COAL (Lot 73) within the development does not require a name because the lots it serves can be addressed from either existing roads or the new public road.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

12. Theme: The proposed names either reflect the history and landscape features of the area or are a continuation of the existing road name themes in the area.

Road number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 1

(public road)

Tack Road

(applicant’s preference)

The name is proposed in acknowledgement of the history of boat making in Silverdale and sailing in the Weiti River

Waihape Road

(alternative)

‘Waihape’ means tack in Māori. This name is suggested by Ngāti Manuhiri

Tūrama Crescent

(alternative)

The name ‘Lantern’ was originally suggested by the developer with the reasoning being it is a source of light or a guide for brightness. ‘Tūrama’ has a similar meaning in Māori. This name is suggested by Ngāti Manuhiri

Road 2

(private road)

Wīra Lane

(applicant’s preference)

The name is suggested by Ngāti Manuhiri, the meaning of the name is:

Wīra is the transliteration of the element, gold. Keeping in theme with some of the other road naming in this development whilst also promoting the use of te reo Māori

Muka Lane

(alternative)

Muka is the fibre from harakeke (flax)

Silver Harvest Lane

(alternative)

The name is inspired by the silver poplar and orchardists historic to the area

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

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

15. Road Type ‘Road’, ‘Lane’, and ‘Crescent’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting their form and layout.

16. Consultation: Community groups and mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. The naming of roads does not affect climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. On 12 April 2024, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the resource consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. The names proposed at that time were limited to a suite of European names. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Wai.

22. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), a response had been received from Ngāti Manuhiri, indicating that they did not support the European names that were initially proposed by the applicant.

23. Following the initial consultation, the applicant contacted Ngāti Manuhiri for suggestions. Ngāti Manuhiri suggested several names which are now included in the options put forward. The applicant and Ngāti Manuhiri are mostly in agreement on the names proposed, except that Ngāti Manuhiri prefers the name ‘Waihape’ for Road 1.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. Land Information New Zealand provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan	79
b ⇩	Location map	81

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Qiuan Wang, Align

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Appointment of delegated local board member to provide feedback on stormwater activities

File No.: CP2024/15680

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint a local board lead to provide local board views and preferences on council’s stormwater activities that take place over local parks.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Section 17 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires that decision-making for activities that impact beyond a single local board area, and which are beneficial and effective to be managed and coordinated on an Auckland-wide basis must be exercised by the Governing Body. As such, decision-making responsibility for stormwater management and the stormwater network is allocated to the Governing Body.

3. Local boards are responsible for a wide range of non-regulatory activities of the council that are deemed to be local in nature. This includes the use of and activities in local parks and reserves. However, as parks and reserves are crucial to the stormwater network, council’s allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities acknowledges that local board decision-making over parks and reserves may be constrained where decisions relate to council stormwater management activities.

4. Prior to June 2024, staff treated all stormwater management activities on local parks as subject to local board approval. However, as part of the Long-term Plan (LTP), it was clarified that it is not appropriate to require a landowner approval from local boards for activities of the council that are required for the management of stormwater activities. This is because council’s own activities are to be undertake under the authority that already rests with the Governing Body.

5. Although a landowner approval will not be required for the council’s own stormwater activities, LGACA requires that the Governing Body (including staff acting under delegation) consider the views and preferences of local boards when making its decisions (section 15 LGACA). Therefore, the new process now requires Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience staff to liaise directly with local boards and consider the views and preferences of local boards when making decisions (under delegation from the Governing Body). If a local board wishes to object to any decision made by staff under delegation, they can consider raising an objection with the Governing Body via the Policy and Planning Committee.

6. Staff recommend local boards appoint a lead who can identify and communicate each local board’s views and preferences over stormwater management-related decisions that impact local parks.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) kopou / appoint a lead, and an alternate, for stormwater activities feedback and delegate authority to these members to:

(i) identify and community the local board views and preferences on proposed council stormwater management activities in local parks

(ii) represent the local board at the Policy and Planning Committee, if required, to discuss any objections to proposed council stormwater management activities in local parks.

Horopaki

Context

7. As per their legislative role and council’s allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities (pursuant to section 17 of LGACA), local boards are accountable for the range of non-regulatory activities of the council deemed to be ‘local’ in nature.

8. On the other hand, the Governing Body is responsible for decision-making over activities that are ‘regional’ in nature i.e. that extend beyond local board areas, and which are beneficial and effective to be managed and coordinated on an Auckland-wide basis.

9. Staff who manage local parks and reserves have relied on council’s allocation of decision-making responsibilities over local parks to require local board approval (referred to as landowner approval or landowner consents) for most activities that take place over local parks. This means that staff have been treating all stormwater management works that occur on parks, including those that the Governing Body has been allocated decision-making responsibilities for, as being subject to landowner approvals.

10. Although local boards have generally managed to accommodate council’s stormwater management activities in local parks, a recent case where landowner approval was likely to be withheld highlighted a misalignment between council’s agreed allocation of responsibilities and operational process assumptions.

11. Staff have now provided advice to local boards clarifying that activities allocated to the Governing Body, i.e. council’s own stormwater management activities, should not be subject to a landowner approval. They have clarified that the operational processes that facilitated this misunderstanding have been changed.

12. This change does not affect third-party applications for works over local parks that relate to or connect to the stormwater network. Those applications will continue to require landowner approval from local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Auckland Council’s allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities acknowledges that the decision making of local boards in relation to local parks may be constrained when such decisions intersect with council stormwater management activities, including the stormwater network. This provision ensures the Governing Body’s decision-making, and the effectiveness of the stormwater network, are not compromised.

14. A well-functioning stormwater system enhances flood resilience, reduces waterway contamination, and ensures local beaches are safer for swimming. Parks and reserves play a crucial role in this system, acting as flood plains, hosting waterways, and providing essential facilities for the effective functioning of the council’s stormwater network.

15. Decisions relating to the maintenance of the stormwater network have been delegated by the Governing Body to staff in Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience via the Chief Executive.

Process for giving input to stormwater network decisions

16. Local boards have been advised of the new process that will see Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, instead of Land Advisory, seeking the views of local boards before making decisions (under delegation from the Governing Body) on whether to proceed with any proposed council-led stormwater projects in local parks.

17. The experience of local boards should not differ from the previous process, where consultations occurred over landowner approval applications while final decision-making is exercised by (Land Advisory) staff under delegation from local boards. Figure 1 shows the comparison between the current and updated processes.

Figure 1: Current and updated decision-making processes for stormwater activities on local parks

Appointment of a lead to provide input to stormwater network decisions

18. To enable the effective and efficient conduct of a local board’s business, LGACA provides that a local board may delegate to a committee, subcommittee, or member of the local board, or to an officer of council, any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers, except for the exceptions listed in clause 36D, schedule 7 of the Act. The responsibilities that cannot be delegated include the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in the local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans and bylaws of Auckland Council.

19. The updated process in Figure 1 requires that Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience seek input from local boards. Seeking input from local boards often requires a report and a decision at a business meeting.

20. Appointing a lead to finalise and provide input on stormwater network decisions can enable efficiencies. While it is expected that stormwater projects on local parks may be referred for discussion to a local board workshop and may include site visits, relying on staff to identify the agreed local board view might lead to misunderstandings, especially if different views are expressed in workshops and site visits. Having a single point of contact on the local board who can be accountable for collating, finalising, and communicating the local board view can prevent confusion and avoid unnecessary delays in decision-making.

21. If it were not possible to identify a shared view from the local board, it is open to the lead to refer the matter to the whole local board for a decision (on the local board input). This can be done at an upcoming local board meeting.

Resolving disputes and disagreements over use of local parks

22. In circumstances where the local board does not support use of a local park for a stormwater management activity and Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience and the local board are unable to agree on reasonable conditions for the use of a local park, Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience staff are encouraged to escalate the matter to the Chief Executive for a decision. This is on the basis that the Chief Executive at an operational level may be best placed to determine issues from an organisation wide perspective and may provide some assurance to the local board that competing perspectives are being carefully balanced.

23. It would also be open to the local board to seek the intervention of the Governing Body, via the Policy and Planning Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. This is a procedural decision and is not expected to have any impact on council’s climate commitments.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. This report recommends the appointment of a lead to ensure that local board input can be provided in a timely manner enabling the council to undertake its operational and statutory duties efficiently.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. This report seeks to appoint a local board member to perform a specific function on behalf of the local board. Any local board member who is appointed as a lead should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. This procedural decision is not anticipated to have a direct impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. If a local board chooses not to appoint a lead, staff will need to seek input from the local board at a business meeting. This may require a report which delays input and further risk delays to council projects.

30. Where a local board may feel dissatisfied with a proposed council stormwater project or feel that a project may adversely impact on the wellbeing of its community or other local board areas of decision making, and this cannot be resolved in discussions with Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, staff are expected to escalate the matter to the Chief Executive. It is also open to local boards to seek intervention from the Governing Body via the relevant committee (Policy and Planning Committee)

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience will provide a template to help the appointed lead quickly finalise and communicate the local board’s feedback.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Planning and Operations Manager

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

22 October 2024

Chairperson's report

File No.: CP2024/14297

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the chairperson’s update on recent activities of the chairperson, itemised by outcomes in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Items noted in this report are intended to be key highlights, not a full overview of all activity.

Our People

3. On 9 October 2024 it was a pleasure to be the guest speaker to about 100 people at the Milford Combined Probus club monthly meeting at Sunnynook Community Centre. Many of the members come from all over the North Shore, including the East Coast Bays subdivision. I spoke to them about how local government works, about the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, what some of our priorities are this term and interesting items we are funding in our work programme to deliver on these priorities.

4. On 12 October 2024 I was invited to speak and present awards, along with Minister for Ethnic Communities Hon Melisa Lee, at the Asian Elders Day Celebration. This was hosted by Southern Alps Retirement Living who are developing a retirement village on Glenvar Road, Long Bay specifically to cater for our ageing Asian communities. Following the awards celebration, I was part of the groundbreaking ceremony on site. You can view the plans and see updates for the construction of the village at www.southern-alps.co.nz/english

5. Member J Parfitt and I attended the Annual General Meeting and Mid-Autumn Festival celebrations of the Long Bay Chinese Association on 29 September 2024. They have over 500 members from primary school aged children to people in their 80’s enjoying a huge array of physical, social and art/music related activities.

Our Community

6. North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct Working Group: the chairpersons and deputies of the Hibiscus and Bays and Upper Harbour Local Boards (‘Steering Group’) have been tasked with co-leading a locally led working group to develop the way forward for North Harbour Stadium (as per the Budget Committee and Governing Body Long-term Plan resolutions). Updates since my September 2024 report include:

· we have been working closely with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to progress discussions on the scope of a commercial process to identify a new operational manager (stage one of our programme of work). We are working through the details and timeline and hope to have advance notice to the market in December 2024, with notification officially Gazetted in early 2025

· the Steering Group held a third meeting with the Working Group on 27 September 2024 where discussions focused on stage one of our programme of work.

7. As previously noted at ‘members time’, I had an opportunity to speak with the board of Rotary Browns Bay to discuss potential ways we could combine our efforts in delivering positive community projects. Following a discussion with our Parks and Community Facilities Manager, I provided some examples of projects they might like to help deliver that are on our work programme or asset renewal list. They will discuss these ideas further and come back to me.

8. On 28 September 2024 I was invited to a small function in Millwater to celebrate the renaming of Metropark Hockey to the Merv Huxford Hockey and Sports Centre. The renaming was the request of the board of Hockey Hibiscus Trust who wanted to recognise Merv’s outstanding service to hockey on the Hibiscus Coast since the 1970’s, and for his fundraising efforts for 17 years to get the facility at Millwater constructed. A larger ‘fun day’ will occur over the summer period to celebrate with the wider community.

9. As the local board delegate to the Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Centre (MERC) board, I attended their Annual General Meeting on 16 September 2024. Mike Brown stepped down as chair and he was thanked for his time in that role. Mark Orams has stepped in to the role of chair making the deputy chair role still vacant. One of the founders of MERC, Dr David Gray CNZM, resigned as MERC’s patron following some health issues. He gave a passionate speech to the board and staff with the support of his wife Marie and three of his daughters.

10. On 4 November 2024, Deputy Chairperson Gary Brown and I met with some members of the Mairangi Bay Surf Club board and their patron and local Member of Parliament Hon Simon Watts. They voiced their concerns that they had previously been given advice by council officers that they would be able to use the old Watercare pump station site for storage despite the Mairangi Bay Management Plan review. With staff input, we are responding to the club and Minister on this and a few other queries in due course. This will be shared with all members.

Our Environment

11. Forest and Bird North Shore branch representatives provided a presentation on 23 September 2024 open to all North Shore local board members regarding their views on the upcoming Auckland Council Policy on Dogs (2019) and Dog Management Bylaw (2019). They raised several concerns including that the current policy doesn’t address the impact that dogs have on wildlife and sedimentation, as well as lack of enforcement of the bylaw more generally.

Our Places and Our Economy

12. I have drafted a feedback framework to help ensure that the local board has a consistent approach to how we make decisions about Landowner Applications (LOAs). This draft is included as Attachment A to the agenda report and focuses on principles relating to open spaces that are derived from relevant strategic documents, has several factors that should be considered when making decisions about LOAs, and also describes the feedback process.

Other matters arising

13. I note that at the 15 October 2024 business meeting of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, a Notice of Motion was received and supported for two members to lodge an appeal to the Local Government Commission relating to the North Shore and Albany Wards which are currently non-compliant with provisions of section 19(V)(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 in terms of representation. Their proposals, which were not publicly consulted on, related to shifting the boundary of the North Shore Ward north to encompass three major suburbs of the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. Auckland Council will accept a response to their appeal from our local board by the end of November 2024. I will draft this and will focus on our previous representation review formally resolved feedback and the fact that the proposals being made by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board have not been publicly consulted on. I will attach the draft response to my November 2024 chairperson’s report for your formal approval before it is sent.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the chairperson’s update on recent activities of the chairperson, itemised by outcomes in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023.

b) whai / adopt ‘Hibiscus and Bays delegate guidelines for feedback 2024/2025’ as a feedback framework for landowner applications.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays delegate guidelines for feedback 2024/2025	93

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Alexis Poppelbaum – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chairperson
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule for October 2024	105

[1] For example, the Dog Control Act 1996, Conversation Act 1987, Animal Welfare Act 1999, Animal Welfare (Care and Procedure) Regulations 2018 and Code of Welfare for Dogs.

[2] The group consists of two councillors and local board members, and a Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board Member.

Chairperson	Alexis Poppelbaum, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Gary Brown
Members	Jake Law
	Sam Mills
	Julia Parfitt, JP
	Victoria Short
	Gregg Walden
	Leanne Willis

Author	Louise Healy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager