1 Nau mai | Welcome

Chairperson S Milne will welcome those present with a karakia.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

At the close of the agenda, one apology from Member T Churton 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 Ōrākei Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 November 2024, and the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12 December 2024, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

6.1 Acknowledgements: 2025 New Year’s Honours

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) acknowledge the following recipients of the 2025 New Year’s Honours within the Ōrākei Local Board area:

Appointment	Title and name	Citation
MNZM	Mrs Norefjell Jacquiline Marama Tanga Royal, JP	For services to Māori and governance
KNZM	Sir Edward Colin Manson	For services to philanthropy, the community and business
CNZM	Mr John Bernard Hart	For services to sports governance
ONMZ	Mr Sudesh Kumar Jhunjhnuwala	For services to the hospitality industry and philanthropy
ONZM	Mr Matthew Christian Metcalfe	For services to the film industry
ONZM	Mr Oliver Metcalfe Newland	For services to real estate and the community
ONZM	Mr Dale Cameron Bailey	For services to education
MNZM	Ms Nicola Maree Ataria MacDonald	For services to the environment
MNZM	Ms Sheryll Ann Ofner	For services to education
KSO	Mrs Jocelyn Anne Armstrong	For services to interfaith communities

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 Ōrākei 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 - Rachael Dubois and Grae Now - Dust Palace

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an opportunity for individuals and groups to deliver a presentation to the local board during the deputation segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Rachael Dubois (Producer) and Grae Now (Board Chair) of Dust Palace will be in attendance presenting on their progress with the community and potential lease for the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the presentation from Rachael Dubois and Grae Now on their progress with the community and Ellerslie War Memorial Hall in relation to a potential lease.

Attachments

a 20 February 2025, Ōrākei Local Board, Item 8.1, Deputation - Dust Palace update - Presentation......................... 119

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.”

Ōrākei Local Board

20 February 2025

Proposed new lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust at the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall, Ellerslie

File No.: CP2025/01251

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To grant a new lease to The Dust Palace Charitable Trust for The Ellerslie War Memorial Hall located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Dust Palace Charitable Trust (the trust) seeks a new lease to commence occupation and operation from the council-owned building at Ellerslie War Memorial Hall located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland.

3. The new lease was identified and approved by the local board as part of the Community Facilities: Community Leases Work Programme 2024/2025 at their 20 June 2024 local board meeting (Resolution number OR/2024/67).

4. The trust aims to support the development of the circus industry in Aotearoa / New Zealand. Growing circus as an art form and increasing accessibility to the benefits of circus. These activities align with the Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2023 outcome - our community and our economy. The trust’s community outcomes plan will ensure the group deliver programmes to the community and also include outcomes for Māori. The trust will make available rooms for the public to hire for approximately 50 per cent of the time.

5. The trust has provided all required information, including financials showing that it has sufficient funds and is being managed appropriately. The trust has all the necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

6. The council-owned building is currently managed under Venue for Hire and an informal occupancy. Formal leases to Plunket and NZ Police have been terminated at the request of the groups.

7. As this is a council-owned building, best practice is to carry out a review of alternative use of the premises. Local board staff carried out an analysis of options and discussed the outcomes with the local board at a workshop held on 12 September 2024. The local board supported in principle for staff to progress a lease for the entire building to the trust.

8. The proposed new lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for The Ellerslie War Memorial Hall was publicly notified. The notification appeared in the Eastern and Bays Courier and the Auckland Council website with a submission deadline of 11 December 2024. Staff received numerous glowing submissions in support of Dust Palace.

9. Ellerslie Community Patrol provided a submission with concerns around their occupancy and availability of community space to hire. These concerns are addressed in the body of the report.

10. The council-owned building is currently managed by Venue for Hire. Staff visited the building in September 2024. Whilst the building is clean and tidy, it requires some work to ensure the building remains fit for purpose.

11. Works include refurbishment of the kitchen, toilets, painting, renew balustrades, lighting and flooring. The works are scheduled in the 2024/2025 work programme year. Exterior works are currently scheduled for the 2026/2027 work programme year.

12. Area operations, Community Broker, Venue for Hire and Finance staff have all contributed information provided in this report.

13. This report recommends that a new lease be granted to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for a term of three years commencing from 1 April 2025, or earlier by mutual agreement, with one three year right of renewal.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) karaati / grant under the Local Government Act 2002, a new community lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for 612 square metres (more or less) located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland on the land legally described as Part Lot 84 Deeds 1397 and Part of Lot 85 of a subdivision of Allotment 7 Section 12 Suburbs of Auckland (as per Attachment A – Site Plan Ellerslie War Memorial Hall), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – three years, commencing 1 April 2025, or earlier by mutual agreement, with one three year right of renewal

ii) rent – $50,000 plus GST per annum.

iii) rent to be reviewed at renewal.

iv) facility to be available to the community to hire at rates commensurate with council-run facilities with hours as per the Community Outcomes Plan

v) Community Outcomes Plan - to be appended to the lease as a schedule of the lease agreement (as per Attachment B – Community Outcomes Plan).

b) whakaae / approve all other terms and conditions to be in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (Updated July 2023), and the Auckland Council standard form lease agreement.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that public notification for Auckland Council’s intention to grant a new community lease to The Dust Palace Charitable Trust located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland has been undertaken.

d) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that no objections to the notified proposal of the new community lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland were received.

Horopaki

Context

14. Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

15. The Ōrākei Local Board approved the Community Facilities: Community Leases Work Programme 2024/2025 at their meeting on 20 June 2024 (resolution OR/2024/67).

16. The progression of a new operating model at the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall was part of the approved work programme. This report considers the new community lease as approved on the work programme.

Land, building/s and lease

17. The Ellerslie War Memorial Hall is located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland (refer to Attachment A Site Plan - Site Plan Ellerslie War Memorial Hall). The land is held under the Local Government Act 2002 and is legally described as:

· Part Lot 84 Deeds 1397;

· Part of Lot 85 of a subdivision of Allotment 7 Section 12 Suburbs of Auckland.

18. Currently the building is managed by council’s venue for hire team. Council has identified works required to ensure the building remains fit for purpose.

19. The required works form part of the approved 2024/2025 local board work programme.

20. Works include refurbishment of the kitchen, toilets, painting, renew balustrades, lighting and flooring. These works are scheduled to be undertaken in early 2025. The trust has been notified and staff have collaborated with the trust on the schedule and scope of work.

21. The area proposed to be leased is 612 square meters (more or less)as outlined in (Attachment A – Site Plan Ellerslie War Memorial Hall.)

22. The lease is proposed to be a hybrid of community and commercial. The annual rent of $50,000 will go towards the local board budget which covers items such as maintenance and renewals of council-owned buildings and funding for local initiatives.

23. The building will be primarily used by the group to provide an arts hub for local and visiting artists in a range of art forms, as both a place of training/development and performance/exhibition.

24. These programmes provide a place to connect, learn, and be active. The trust will also make the facility available for hire. It is envisaged the committee room will be available 40 hours a week and the hall for 15 hours a week (except for show times). The rates will be commensurate with other council-run facilities.

The Dust Palace Charitable Trust

25. The Dust Palace Charitable Trust (the trust) was established in 2009, and its primary purpose is to support the development of the circus industry in Aotearoa growing circus as an art form and increasing accessibility to the benefits of circus.

26. The trust has included relevant information like number of staff, classes provided and proposed, opening days/hours, availability of hire space for other community groups/people.

27. Classes proposed will include an aerial circus and other circus acts. Alongside this the facility will be used for dance performances, school performances, comedy festival satellite/touring shows, live music events, awards ceremonies/events, theatre shows and cultural performances.

28. The trust has not previously had a council lease as they had previously been in a private commercial space.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29. At the expiry of a lease for a council-owned building, a review of alternatives for the use of the premises should be carried out as good practice. For this, an expression of interest process can be undertaken to gauge interest and best use.

30. The Ellerslie War Memorial Hall is currently a mixture of council’s venue for hire and informal occupancy. The hall also had formal leases to Plunket and NZ Police who have since surrendered their leases. Local board staff undertook an investigation and analysis into alternative uses for the space.

31. Staff findings were discussed with the local board at a workshop held on 12 September 2024. The local board gave in principle its support to progress to a formal report for a lease over the entire building to the trust.

32. Under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council must publicly notify its intention to grant a new community lease if the term is longer than six months.

33. The proposed new community and commercial hybrid lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall at 134-134 Main Highway, Ellerslie was publicly notified. The notification appeared in the Eastern and Bays Courier in November and the Auckland Council website’s Have Your Say webpage with a submission deadline of 11 December 2024.

34. The cost of the public notification was met by the Parks and Community Facilities department of council.

35. Staff received over 40 positive submissions in support of the new lease. These included the views that the new lease would provide:

· artistic development;

· community engagement;

· cultural enrichment;

· positive economic impact on the town centre;

· and educational opportunities.

36. Many submitters had attended Dust Palace classes and spoke highly of the outcomes they provide.

37. Whilst council received a submission from the Ellerslie Community Patrol (ECP) concerning their occupancy at the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall, it should be noted that the ECP have no occupation agreement at the hall. In line with local board direction, Dust Palace have stated that they will provide space for ECP in some form within their new area at no cost to ECP.

38. ECP also commented on the perceived price to use space within the leased area. Under the revised community guidelines, shared leased spaces are at $45 per square meter to cover building related costs such as utilities etc.

39. Staff do not recommend having multiple groups lease the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall as this will require extensive coordination and increase the administration of the occupancies, responsibilities and cost allocation. The preferred approach is to a grant lease to one entity who in turn can manage room hireage and/or sublease type arrangements with existing and new users.

Assessment of the application

40. The trust has submitted a comprehensive application supporting the new lease request and is able to demonstrate its ability to operate and deliver the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall as an arts hub and facility for community hire.

41. The trust has provided financials which show that accounting records are being kept, funds are being managed appropriately and there are sufficient funds to meet liabilities.

42. The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

43. A site visit was undertaken by staff and the trust in September 2024. The trust had a walkthrough of the facility where staff discussed what improvements council were to undertake and what improvements the trust would like to undertake. The trust has subsequently contacted council’s facilities manager to discuss proposed works and the process.

44. The group provides a valuable service to the local community by providing a space to enable the arts sector to thrive. The trust also proposes to allow the public to hire the committee room for 40 hours a week and the hall space for 15 hours a week (except for show times).

45. The trust will make available limited storage space for the Ellerslie Community Patrol and Ellerslie Business Association who currently use the facility via an informal arrangement.

46. The activation of the hall will benefit the entire Ellerslie township, increase visits to the locality and other local businesses, act as passive surveillance and create a lively atmosphere.

47. A Community Outcomes Plan has been negotiated with trust to identify the benefits it will provide to the community. This will be attached as a schedule to the lease agreement and is attached to the report as Attachment B.

48. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (Updated July 2023) sets out the requirements for community occupancy agreements and the community outcomes plan will be included as part of the lease agreement if approved by the local board.

49. Staff recommend that a new hybrid community lease be granted to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for a term of three years commencing from 1 April 2025, or earlier by mutual agreement, with one three-year right of renewal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. It is anticipated that activation of the building will result in an increase of greenhouse gas emission. A shared workspace/community space will however decrease overall energy use, as users will not consume energy at individual workspaces. The shared space will provide opportunity and enable people to enjoy positive healthy lifestyles and will increase capability and connections within the local community.

51. To improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts, the council advocates that the lease holder:

· use sustainable waste, energy and water efficiency systems

· use eco-labelled products and services

· seek opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from lease-related activities

52. Asset improvements and maintenance undertaken by the council will strive for maximum re-use and recycling of existing material. This will be in alignment with the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recycle) to ensure minimum impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

53. All measures taken are aimed at meeting council’s climate goals, as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which are:

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

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

54. Climate change has an unlikely potential to impact the lease, as no part of the leased area is located in a flood-sensitive or coastal inundation zone.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. Council staff from within the Customer and Community Services Directorate - community facilities operational management and maintenance; Community Broker, and finance have been consulted. They are supportive of the proposed lease as it will include positive outcomes.

56. The building is currently managed under the Venue for Hire portfolio. The trust will continue to provide space for the community to hire. It should be noted that there is another venue for hire facility a few hundred metres away.

57. The proposed new lease has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. The proposed lease will benefit the community by enabling initiatives that promote the arts and also provide a space for other community groups to use in the local board area and its surrounding communities.

59. The options around future use of the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall and the trust’s proposed lease were workshopped with the local board on 12 September 2024. The local board indicated its in-principle support of the lease proposal.

60. The delivered activities align with the Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2023 priority areas:

· Our Community – We find creative ways to provide the facilities and services that our community needs and look after what we have;

· Our Economy - Our town centres are thriving and local businesses are resilient.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61. The site is not identified as having any cultural significance to iwi, nor is it near water. The land is not identified as being part of any treaty settlement.

62. The lessee has agreed, via the Community Outcomes Plan, to deliver Māori outcomes that reflect their local community as per Attachment B of this report. The lease will benefit Māori and the wider community through offering arts programmes and providing a space for other community groups to use. The trust has strong working relationships with Māori artists and companies.

63. The trust has established a kaupapa Māori circus school, Te Kura Maninirau. Te Kura Maninirau has been a wildly successful project, attracting more funding and engaging with over a hundred tamariki and rangatahi and their whānau.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. All costs relating to the advertisement of the council’s intention to grant the proposed lease will be borne by the Parks and Community Facilities Department of council.

65. Whilst the facility is currently under Venue for Hire and the facility revenue has been accounted for in future budgets for the local board, the new rent is commensurate with this budgeted revenue.

66. Currently the budget also accounts for utilities and cleaning under Venue for Hire but under a lease agreement the lessee is responsible for utilities and cleaning. The overall effect will be positive for the local board’s budget.

67. Staff have consulted with the Financial Advisory Department of council. No concerns were raised regarding the financial implications for the new lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for The Ellerslie War Memorial Hall located at 134-138 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland.

68. Capital expenditure projects will still be covered by the council, which is accounted for in current and future budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. Should the local board resolve not to grant the proposed community lease to the Dust Palace Charitable Trust for the Ellerslie War Memorial Hall at 134-134 Main Highway, the group’s ability to undertake all current and future activities will be negatively impacted. This will also have an adverse impact on the achievement of the desired local board plan outcomes.

70. Should the building remain under its current operating model usage will not be maximised. Council will be liable for the asset/s regardless of whether it attracts rent or not.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

71. If the local board resolves to grant the proposed new community lease, staff will work with the Dust Palace Charitable Trust to finalise the lease agreements in accordance with the local board decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan Ellerslie War Memorial Hall	17
b ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan - Dust Palace	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Principal Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

20 February 2025

172 West Tāmaki Road - Glen Taylor School

File No.: CP2025/01398

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a resolution from the Ōrākei Local Board (the local board) to support raising the existing zebra crossing at 172 West Tāmaki Road to support Glen Taylor School.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Glen Taylor School is requesting that the existing pedestrian crossing outside the school on 172 West Tāmaki Road be raised.

3. Auckland Transport (AT) revised its policies in regard to raised platforms in 2024. As West Tāmaki Road is an arterial road, raised platforms are generally not recommended. Installing a raised platform at this location now requires approval from the Chief Engineer at AT and a supporting resolution from the appropriate local board.

4. This report seeks a formal resolution in support of a raised feature at 172 West Tāmaki Road due to reported significant safety concerns reported by the principal of Glen Taylor School.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) approve in principle that the existing pedestrian crossing at 172 West Tāmaki Road be raised to support safety for Glen Taylor School pupils.

b) request that Auckland Transport provide an indicative timeframe to commence design and delivery of the raised crossing.

c) forward these recommendations to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for their information and consideration.

Horopaki

Context

5. Glen Taylor School has requested that the existing crossing at 172 West Tāmaki Road be raised due to significant safety concerns from driver behaviour outside the school.

6. In 2024, AT revised its policies regarding raised platforms in the road corridor as some existing profiles used on the transport network can appear too aggressive when used on higher-speed or higher volume roads if they are not part of an extended traffic calming scheme. West Tāmaki Road is classed as an arterial road.

7. A Departure from Standard must be requested for 172 West Tamaki Road as a raised device is considered an essential element to achieve improvements in pedestrian safety and to reduce vehicle speeds.

8. In this case, the Chief Engineer at AT has given his approval in principle to the creation of a raised platform at 172 West Tāmaki Road subject to a formal resolution in support from the Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. Glen Taylor School’s principal has requested that the existing pedestrian crossing situated 172 West Tāmaki Road be raised due to significant safety concerns that they are experiencing due to driver behaviour.

10. Police have attended this site at school pick up and drop off times and observed high vehicle speeds and unsafe driver behaviour. They have advocated to AT for this crossing to be raised.

11. AT has carried out speed surveys that prove a history of vehicles travelling over the speed limit at this location, with the 85^th percentile speed recorded at 56km/h. The speed limit at 172 West Tāmaki Road is 50km/h.

12. The proposed raised table will be designed to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian safety, while maintaining a reasonable level of driver comfort for general traffic travelling along this arterial route, and to minimise noise and vibration effects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. 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

15. The local board views were sought in February 2025 and the general sentiment was to support raising the existing pedestrian crossing at 172 West Tāmaki Road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

17. AT’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 here.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. There are no financial implications for the local board in endorsing the project. If any funding for the project is sought from the local board, a separate report will be written.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. There is no risk to the local board in supporting this project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. AT will also be seeking support from Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board as this project is on the boundary of the two boards.

21. If support is received from both local boards, design of the project will begin.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart – Engagement Partner (Auckland Transport)

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement (Auckland Transport)

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

20 February 2025

Approval for a new private road name at 24 Sierra Street, Glendowie

File No.: CP2025/00757

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to name one new private road, created by way of a subdivision development at 24 Sierra Street, Glendowie.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A resource consent was issued in May 2024 for the construction of 28 new residential freehold units and one Commonly Owned Access Lot (COAL) at 24 Sierra Street, Glendowie.

3. The New Zealand road naming standards require that in this particular instance a road name is necessary in the interests of public safety and administration and the Ōrākei Local Board has been delegated the responsibility for the naming of new roads in this local board area by Auckland Council.

4. The developer and applicant, Sierra Development Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

a) Glenview Place (applicant’s preferred)

b) Mountview Court (alternative 1)

c) Glen Orchard Lane (alternative 2)

5. Those names are assessed in this report by the council’s technical specialists as all being acceptable for the location and are now presented to the Ōrākei Local Board to consider which if any name might be approved under the delegation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the name Glenview Place for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 24 Sierra Street, Glendowie, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90120416, resource consent references BUN60413313 and SUB60413315).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference BUN60413313 (subdivision reference number SUB60413315) was issued in May 2024 for the construction of 28 new residential freehold units and one Commonly Owned Access Lot (COAL) at 24 Sierra Street, Glendowie.

7. The Australian and 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 NZ Standards) require that in most instances, a road name is required in the interests of public safety and administration when the accessway services more than five dwellings, as in this instance.

8. The Ōrākei Local Board has been delegated by Auckland Council, the responsibility for the naming of new roads within this local board area and as required by section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

9. To aid developers, the Ōrākei Local Board has provided the Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines (the Guidelines) that set out the requirements and criteria for obtaining road names within the area. The Guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named, the subdivider / developer shall provide one preferred and several alternate road names for the local board’s consideration.

10. The developer and applicant in this instance, Sierra Development Limited, has proposed the following names for consideration by the local board:

a) Glenview Place (applicant’s preference)

b) Mountview Court (alternative 1)

c) Glen Orchard Lane (alternative 2)

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

11. The proposed names are necessarily assessed against both the NZ Standards and the Guidelines, so that the local board can have confidence in its decision-making.

12. Having identified the necessity for a road name, the NZ Standards require that the name chosen is not duplicated in proximity and that the roading typology (Drive, Crescent, Place etc.) is suitable for this particular situation. These matters are considered by direct consultation with Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), which has responsibility for ensuring that addressing matters comply with the NZ Standards across New Zealand.

13. The Guidelines contain three principles to aid the consideration of an appropriate name:

Principle 1: Road names to minimise confusion

This Principle and the helpful “Road Naming Criteria” contained at Appendix B addresses the same public safety and prevention of administrative confusion matters that are set out in the NZ Standards, it is therefore considered that the requirements of Principle 1 would be considered to have been met in the event the proposed road names are technically acceptable to LINZ.

Principle 2: Road names to reflect the heritage of an area

At section (2), Principle 2 states that: “Proposed names should reflect the historical or cultural or existing thematic or environmental identity of an area, to recognise the unique characteristics of that area and possibly the community.” This provides a lens through which the appropriateness of a road name might be considered.

Section (4) requires that “The Board expects that there will be consultation with the local residents’ and local business associations, local special interest groups, historical societies and mana whenua to develop new names.” Assessment of this section provides the local board certainty that consultation has taken place with the groups most appropriate to determining the acceptability of a particular name.

Section (7) states that “Where an ancestral linkage to mana whenua is proposed the applicant must consult with the appropriate iwi to ensure cultural propriety”. This section sets the expectation in relation to the appropriate use of Te Reo in road names. Assessment of this component of Principle 2 is undertaken in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section of this report below.

Principle 3: Road Types

This Principle addresses the same matters for consideration in respect to road typology as set out in the NZ Standards, Principle 3 would be considered to have been met in the event the proposed typologies are acceptable to LINZ.

14. The analysis and advice that follow is undertaken with reference to the NZ Standards and the Guidelines and as described above.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The proposed names and their meaning are provided in the table immediately below:

Proposed name	Meaning
Glenview Place (applicant’s preference)	This name is a reference to the Scottish ancestry of the first settler inhabitants of the area. The history of Glendowie and Glen Innes, New Zealand, is linked to the farms established by William Innes Taylor and his brothers in the 1800s. The name "Glen" comes from a Gaelic word for valley. William Innes Taylor. · Immigrated to New Zealand from Scotland in 1843 · Named his farm Glen Innes after his mother, Barbara Richard James Taylor · Arrived in New Zealand in 1846 · Named his property Glendowie
Mountview Court (alternative)	Taurere or Taylors Hill Reserve is known colloquially by residents as Mt Taylor. This name is a reference to the 187-foot-tall and striking landmark of the area.
Glen Orchard Lane (alternative)	Glen Orchard is the original name for one of the Taylor brother’s farms who was an early settler in the area. The farm is now called St Heliers.

16. The three proposed road names have been checked against the NZ Standards in consultation with LINZ. LINZ has confirmed that, as there is no duplication or similarity to other names in close proximity, all names are technically suitable for use at this location. As Principle 1 of the Guidelines addresses the same public safety and prevention of administrative confusion matters that are set out in the NZ Standards, it can be considered that the requirements of Principle 1 have also been met in this instance.

17. Principle 2 section (2) of the Guidelines requires that the road names “… should reflect the historical or cultural or existing thematic or environmental identity of an area, to recognise the unique characteristics of that area and possibly the community.”

The proposed names have a clear link to the history and environmental identity of the Glendowie area, referencing early settlers who are established figures in the community and the well-known community landmark Taurere/Taylor Hill. For this reason, it is considered that the Principle 2 section (2) matters have been appropriately addressed.

18. Principle 2 section (4) of the Guidelines anticipates consultation with potentially affected community and other groups prior to decision-making. Taking into account the meanings of the proposed names and the fact that the road to be named is private, there are no community or other groups anticipated to be affected.

19. Principle 2 section (7) requires consideration of ancestral linkages to mana whenua. Ngāti Pāoa is the primary tangata whenua in the Glendowie area. The applicant has made several attempts to consult with Ngāti Pāoa, however, no response has been received. Please refer to the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section for more information.

20. LINZ has also confirmed that ‘Place’, ‘Court’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types and reflect the form and layout of the COAL. As Principle 3 of the Guidelines addresses the same matters for consideration as set out in the NZ Standards, it can be considered that the requirements of Principle 3 have also been met.

21. Having provided assessment of the relevant NZ Standards and the Guidelines in the commentary above, it is therefore considered that the relevant matters have been adequately addressed by the applicant and the preferred road name can be supported.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. To aid local board decision-making, the Guidelines include Principles recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua.

26. On October 17, 2022, the applicant’s agent contacted Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei seeking input into the naming of the road in this development. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei responded stating that they consider and recognise Ngāti Pāoa as the primary tangata whenua in the Glendowie area and that the inquiry should be sent to them.

27. Following the advice provided by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei the applicant’s agent contacted Ngāti Pāoa on October 19, 2022, seeking input into the naming of the road. An email acknowledging the request and advising that it would be reviewed was received from Ngāti Pāoa on the same day. Given that no further response was received from Ngāti Pāoa, the applicant’s planner sent follow-up emails on January 27, 2023, June 7 2023, December 3 2024 and January 8 2025. To date, no response from Ngāti Pāoa has been received.

28. While acknowledging that a failure to respond does not automatically signify a lack of interest in the matter and noting that dependent on the scale of a development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications do receive comments from mana whenua, the applicant now wishes to continue to a decision from the local board.

29. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua and no Te Reo Māori names are proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

31. 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

32. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan	31
b ⇩	Location Map	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

20 February 2025

Local Board feedback on Fix and Finish fund

File No.: CP2025/00887

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the implementation of the $20 million Fix and Finish fund, to input into Governing Body decision making.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body adopted the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 which includes a proposal of a $20 million reserve fund, the “Fix and Finish” fund, to complete community projects.

3. This fund was subject to the creation of the Auckland Future Fund and achieving enhanced returns for the 2024/2025 financial year.

4. In October 2024, a memo was distributed to elected members with initial staff advice and input from the Mayoral Office on how the Fix and Finish fund could work, including draft processes, criteria and options for funding distributions.

5. This report seeks local board feedback on aspects relating to the fund’s implementation.

6. A report will be presented to the Governing Body in March 2025 to seek final decisions including the methodology for distributing the Fix and Finish fund to local boards.

7. Local board feedback will be collated and included as an attachment to the report to the Governing Body in March 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the criteria for eligible projects for the Fix and Finish fund.

b) whakarite / provide feedback on preferred funding allocation model for the Fix and Finish fund.

c) whakarite / provide feedback on any other matters relating to the Fix and Finish fund.

Horopaki

Context

8. In the final Mayoral Proposal for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), the mayor proposed a $20 million reserve fund to “fix and finish” community projects in certain legacy areas.

9. The Governing Body’s resolution (GB/2024/45) for the adoption of the LTP included a clause for $20 million of enhanced returns relating to the Auckland Future Fund to be set aside in a reserve fund to fix and finish community projects in the legacy Manukau City and Auckland City areas.

10. On 24 October 2024, an update memo from finance staff (Attachment A) was distributed to the Governing Body and all elected members on a draft process and criteria, ahead of further engagement with affected local board chairs and ward councillors.

11. This memo confirmed the purpose of the Fix and Finish fund as set out by the Mayor’s Office:

“to provide capex funding to priority projects within the legacy Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas that provide a direct benefit to local communities and residents. Funding must go towards projects that are already in the pipeline and may not have full funding.”

12. There are 13 local boards partially or wholly in the legacy Auckland City and Manukau City Council boundaries. These are: Waitematā, Ōrākei, Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Whau, Waiheke, Aotea/Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Howick, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa and Franklin.

13. The next steps in Attachment A identified seeking informal local board feedback through the local board chairs, however subsequently staff considered a formal resolution to be more appropriate for this matter.

14. Staff provided a briefing for local board members, local board chairs and ward councillors for the 13 local board areas in December 2024.

15. This report seeks formal local board feedback on matters relating to the Fix and Finish fund, which will be collated and attached to the report for the Governing Body in March 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Staff referred to the original intent outlined in the Mayor's Proposal and final budget proposal and Governing Body resolution, and input from the Mayor’s Office, in developing the project eligibility criteria for the Fix and Finish fund. Key principles included finishing community projects, focusing on larger priority projects, taking a regional approach, value for ratepayers and simplicity.

Project eligibility criteria

17. The eligibility criteria are as follows:

· project is within legacy Auckland City or Manukau City boundaries

· must be a local board project

· community project (limited to community services activity)

· renewals (fix), or projects which have undergone planning and are ready to deliver with funding (finish)

· identified as a priority in the Local Board Plan 2023

· greater than $1 million in value, and with an appropriate level of business case assessment

· local board can fully fund the project including ongoing operational costs

· is not fully funded in the latest work programme due to funding constraints, or is funded in future years of the work programme and can be brought forward

· could include unfunded standalone stages of a multi-stage project.

18. Staff also recommend that to ensure effective use of the reserve funding, further considerations would include:

· ensuring the project can commence physical delivery within the next three years, and

· noting that local boards can jointly fund a project, agreeing to share any consequential operational costs, for wider community benefit

· alignment with council’s strategic direction for investment.

19. An exception may be required for the greater than $1 million in value criteria, should a local board be allocated funding at a level significantly below the $1 million threshold.

Funding allocation methodologies

20. Three funding allocation methodologies have been developed and modelled for the distribution of the Fix and Finish fund to local boards (refer to attachment B):

· equitable distribution (based on the local board equitable funding formula)

· straight split distribution (where all local boards get the same amount)

· contestable fund (where funding is allocated to prioritised projects rather than to local boards)

Straight split

21. The straight split distribution model is a simple calculation which allocates each local board an equal share of the $20 million.

22. However, this method is inequitable and does not provide an advantage to achieving the intended purpose or outcome of the fund over other methodologies, therefore staff do not recommend the use of this funding allocation method.

Equitable

23. The equitable distribution model uses a weighting of 80% population, 15% deprivation and 5% land area, with the exception of Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards allocated at 1% and 2% of the total fund. This is consistent with the recently adopted Fairer Funding model for local boards, and the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, although only for 13 local boards.

24. With this model each local board is allocated a share of the $20 million, and the local board will decide on the projects and amounts to allocate through adopting their capital work programmes. Projects funded must still meet the eligibility criteria for the Fix and Finish fund.

25. This model supports empowered local board decision making and is consistent with an equitable funding approach for local boards.

26. There is a risk of funding being unallocated to projects should there be no eligible projects within a local board area, and delays may result in a reduction in purchasing power.

27. The underlying statistics used for the equitable distribution is consistent with those used for Fairer Funding at the time of preparing the LTP 2024-2034.

28. For Franklin and Whau local boards, only the areas within the boundaries of legacy Auckland City and Manukau City were included for the purposes of the equitable calculation.

Contestable

29. A contestable distribution method can also be used which would result in local board projects being submitted and funding prioritised to projects with the highest assessed benefits.

30. With this model, local boards would apply by submitting their eligible projects to the reserve fund decision maker by a set date. Projects would be assessed against pre-determined prioritisation criteria that would deliver the highest benefits. The decision maker would then resolve on the funding allocation to the individual projects.

31. The benefit of this model is that a much larger funding amount can be allocated to a single project, allowing the completion of a much larger community project.

32. Further work would need to be done to develop prioritisation assessment criteria that competing local board projects could be assessed against to support decision making.

33. Final project allocation decisions could be made by the Governing Body or delegated to a committee comprised of relevant ward councillors and/or local board chairs.

34. There is a risk should the $20 million fund be oversubscribed, a prioritisation exercise and decision process may result in a longer timeframe to allocate funding to projects.

Ongoing monitoring and reporting

35. Progress of these projects will be reported through ongoing quarterly monitoring at the local board level via the local board work programme.

36. Six monthly monitoring and reporting of the overall fund and the allocation of funding to local boards will be provided to the Governing Body.

37. The fund will be planned and reported as a reserve on the council’s balance sheet, and included in the council’s Annual Plan/Long-term Plan/Annual Report.

Other matters

38. As this funding relates to only 13 local boards and was approved by the Governing Body through Long-term Plan decisions, staff recommend this funding be treated as discrete funding to specific local boards, regardless of the funding allocation model decided by the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. The recommendations in this report have no particular impacts on climate.

40. The projects to be completed using the Fix and Finish fund may have project-specific climate impacts. If a contestable approach were taken then this could be included in the prioritisation assessment criteria.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. The recommendations in this report do not impact the council group as the fund is restricted to community projects linked to the community services activity.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. The purpose of the Fix and Finish fund is to provide capital funding which will enable local boards to fix and finish community projects in the legacy Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas that provide a direct benefit to local communities and residents.

43. It is expected all eligible projects that use this funding will directly benefit local communities and residents.

44. Up to 13 local boards may be eligible for funding from the Fix and Finish fund and would receive an additional capital funding allocation over and above their existing levels in the Long-term Plan.

45. Staff engaged with local boards in December 2024 through an online briefing. Local boards have been supportive of the existence of this fund and progressing the allocation of the fund.

46. This report is an opportunity for local boards to formally provide their views on implementation of the fund, which will be included with the report for the Governing Body decision on the fund.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47. The recommendations in this report have no particular impacts on Māori.

48. The projects to be completed using the Fix and Finish Fund may have project-specific impacts for Māori. If a contestable approach were taken then this could be included in the prioritisation assessment criteria.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. There are no financial implications relating to the recommendations in this report.

50. The establishment of a Fix and Finish fund remains on track following the sale of council’s remaining AIAL shares at a price higher than budgeted. This confirms $20 million funding can be made available for local board capital expenditure within the Annual Budget 2025/2026 pending Governing Body decision making.

51. The allocation of this funding to local boards will be the decision of the Governing Body.

52. The funding will be ringfenced in a reserve as it is the result of a specific Governing Body decision and released as expenditure on eligible projects are incurred.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

53. There are no risks with the recommendations in this report.

54. There are risks to the timing of advice and decision making between each funding allocation method identified in the analysis and advice section above, which may have some impact to the final cost and timing of project delivery.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55. Staff will collate all local board feedback and submit as an attachment to a report to the Governing Body in March 2025 for a decision to confirm the eligibility criteria and funding allocation method.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Update on the process for Fix and Finish Fund memo - 24 October 2024	41
b ⇩	Distribution of funding to local boards (15 January 2025)	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Hao Chen - Senior Finance and Performance Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Brian Chan - General Manager Financial Advisory

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

20 February 2025

Public feedback report on the traffic bylaw review

File No.: CP2025/01231

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive local board views on how the Joint Bylaw Panel should address public feedback on the proposed Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and its supporting proposals.

2. To recommend delegating a member to represent these views to the Joint Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

4. The current rules are set out in several documents:

· Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012

· Auckland Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2015

· Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (covering use of vehicles on beaches).

5. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are conducting a review of these bylaws to identify efficiencies and possible improvements.

6. The proposed new Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including changes to some topics in the proposed new bylaw and changes to rules in other bylaws (referred to as the “supporting proposals”), is provided as Attachment A.

7. In August and September 2024 (page 391), all local boards provided feedback on the draft options and draft recommendations. Local boards generally supported the recommended option for each topic and provided feedback on some topics such as berm parking and parking on beaches. Staff considered the local board feedback in drafting the proposals which went out for public consultation.

8. Public consultation on the proposals took place from Monday 4 November to Monday 4 December 2024 (inclusive) and public hearings were held on 6 December 2024.

9. This report seeks the local board views on how the Joint Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback (included as Attachment B) to the proposed new bylaw and supporting proposals. This report also recommends delegating a local board member to present these views to the panel.

10. The bylaw panel deliberation is scheduled for 2 May 2025. This is where the panel will discuss and deliberate on the public feedback and local board and mana whenua views. Local boards can delegate a representative to speak at the hearings if desired.

11. The Auckland Transport Board and the Auckland Council Governing Body will make a final decision on the proposals in June 2025 based on the recommendations from the bylaw panel.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide views on how the Joint Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback on the proposed Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including the supporting proposals, included as Attachment B to this report

b) tāpae / delegate Member(s) XYZ to represent these views to the Joint Bylaw Panel.

Horopaki

Context

Traffic bylaws

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

13. 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

Covers 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

Covers 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

Covers use of vehicles on beaches.

14. 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.

15. The bylaws establish a framework for regulating vehicle use, traffic and parking on Auckland’s transport system and on council-controlled land. For example, they enable the creation of bus lanes, but the specific locations are determined later through resolutions. This approach allows for flexibility to address changing location-specific needs over time.

16. Some bylaw provisions are not site-specific. These apply when Auckland Transport requires consistent rules across all locations, without the need for site-specific resolutions, for example, prohibiting abandoned vehicles on roads or in public places.

Reviewing Auckland’s traffic bylaws

17. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are conducting a joint review of Auckland’s traffic-related bylaws to ensure they continue to meet the needs of Aucklanders. This review considered legislative and technological changes, as well as expert feedback on ways to improve bylaw effectiveness.

18. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee on 2 July 2024 endorsed the findings report and requested an options report and proposal (RCSC/2024/48).

19. In August and September 2024, all local boards provided feedback on the draft options and draft recommendations. Local boards generally supported the recommended option for each topic and provided feedback on some topics such as berm parking and parking on beaches. Some feedback focused on operational, public consultation or non-bylaw related matters and were referred to the relevant teams where appropriate.

20. Following this, a draft Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including the supporting proposals, was developed for public consultation.

21. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee and the AT Design and Delivery Committee endorsed the draft proposals and public consultation on 8 October 2024.

22. The Auckland Council Governing Body and the Auckland Transport Board adopted the statement of proposal and approved the conduct of public consultation on 24 October 2024 and 29 October 2024, respectively.

23. Public consultation took place from Monday 4 November to Monday 4 December 2024 (inclusive). Public hearings were held on 6 December 2024 at 20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue, Auckland. A total of 196 submissions were received: 181 through the online survey, 13 via mail and email and two verbal submissions. Public feedback is included in this report as Attachment B.

24. This report seeks the local board views on how the Joint Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback on the proposed Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including the supporting proposals (see Attachment A).

25. The final views from local boards will guide the bylaw panel during the deliberations on 2 May 2025. Local boards also have the option of sending a representative to share their views in person.

26. The Auckland Transport Board and the Auckland Council Governing Body will make a final decision on the bylaw proposals in June 2025 based on the recommendations from the bylaw panel.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

27. Auckland Transport subject matter experts met with and discussed the traffic bylaw review with the Ōrākei Local Board at a workshop on August 8, 2024.

28. Before that workshop, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council staff reviewed the bylaws across 18 different topics to identify if there were problems, whether the bylaws helped address those problems, and if there were any alternatives or improvements.

29. The Auckland Transport Board and Auckland Council Governing Body adopted the Statement of Proposal and approved the material for public consultation. The finalised proposals included:

a) creating a new joint AT and AC Te Ture ā-Rohe mō te Whakamahinga me te Whakatūnga Waka 2025 | Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw to combine the Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012, Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 and clause 16 of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (main proposal)

b) making supporting changes (supporting proposals) by clarifying and improving the following six topics in the proposed new joint bylaw

· launching of boats on beaches and obtaining beach driving permits

· regulations for heavy vehicles

· parking vehicles off a roadway

· busways, busway stations, and park & rides

· resident parking

· temporary traffic and parking rules for special events.

c) moving (or removing) the following seven rules from the current bylaws:

· establishing shared zones, parking zones, parking places, and transport stations

· setting new speed limits on council-controlled land

· parking for display or sale

· broken down vehicles on a road or public place

· leaving machinery or goods on a road or public place

· repairing or modifying vehicles on a road in in a public place

· priority on cycle paths or shared paths.

d) clarifying and improving other rules in the AC and AT Signs Bylaw 2022, AT Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022, and AC Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 that relate to certain activities involving vehicles.

30. The key insights from public consultation are as follows:

a) The proposals were well received by the public. The main proposal was largely supported, with 83 per cent of respondents expressing no concerns. Most respondents had no comments or concerns about the supporting proposals.

b) Parking vehicles off the roadway received the most attention, with 35 per cent of respondents overall commenting on the topic. Most people who provided comments (88 per cent) expressed support for changes to reduce parking on berms. Those who raised concerns with the topic (10 per cent) frequently mentioned the need for berm parking, especially where limited on-street parking is available.

c) New heavy traffic parking regulations were also largely supported by submitters (79 per cent of those who commented on the topic). There were some concerns from the industry perspective, specifically about rest breaks or overnight spaces for drivers to sleep, particularly for out-of-town companies.

d) The only topic that was not supported was the proposal to remove user priority on cycle paths and shared paths. Respondents requested that it remains in Auckland’s traffic bylaws as it aims to protect vulnerable road users, particularly people travelling on foot and bicycle.

e) Community concerns about the topic of repairing or modifying vehicles in public spaces are centred around its enforcement – respondents wanted assurance that people experiencing an emergency would not be fined.

31. The draft Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including the supporting proposals, will be reviewed and deliberated by the Joint Bylaw Panel in May 2025.

32. Local boards are encouraged to speak in front of the panel. Local boards can delegate a representative to speak at the hearings through this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. 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.

34. During the development of the bylaws, climate impacts were considered because effective bylaws are tools that help 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.

35. 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

36. This review was conducted jointly by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council.

37. Relevant staff from several council operational units impacted have also participated in the review findings and improvements addressed in the options report and proposal. These staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role. This includes Regional Parks, Parks and Community Facilities, Compliance Response and Investigations, Waste Solutions, Event Facilitation, Regional Operations, Active Communities, Connected Communities, and Growth, Transport and Infrastructure Strategy units.

38. All units were in favour of combining the traffic-related bylaws into a new joint bylaw.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. The local board was briefed on the review on August 8, 2024, providing an opportunity to receive quality advice about the review and its finding. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards was positive about the review.

40. Local boards generally supported the recommended options and provided feedback on topics like berm and beach parking. Operational, consultation, or non-bylaw matters were referred to relevant teams as needed.

41. AT and AC staff considered the local board feedback in drafting the proposals which went out for public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. AT and AC are committed to meeting the responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

43. AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the 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 Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

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

45. 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

46. This decision has no financial implications for the local board as Auckland Transport funds all its projects and programmes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47. 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

48. The Joint Bylaw Panel will review and deliberate all submissions about the draft proposed Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including the supporting proposals, in May 2025. Prior to the deliberations, local boards are encouraged to speak to the panel.

49. The Auckland Transport Board and Auckland Council Governing Body will deliberate on the Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025, including supporting proposals. If adopted, it will come into effect in July 2025. The AT Board will adopt provisions for the transport system, while the AC Governing Body will adopt those for council-controlled land.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and the supporting proposals	53
b ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board summary of public feedback	79