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.

Specifically, members are asked to identify any new interests that they have not previously disclosed and any interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Whau Local Board:

Member	Organisation	Position
Kay Thomas	New Lynn Citizens Advice Bureau	Volunteer
	Citizens Advice Bureau Waitākere Board	Deputy Chair
	Literacy Waitākere	Board Member
	West Auckland Heritage Conference	Committee Member
	Whau Ethnic Collective	Patron
	Whau Wildlink Network	Member
Fasitua Amosa	Equity NZ	Vice President
	Massive Theatre Company	Board Member
	Avondale Business Association	Family Member is Chair
	Silo Theatre Trust	Board Member
Ross Clow	Portage Licensing Trust	Trustee
	Te Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Patron
	Bay Olympic Sports Club	Life Member
	Forest and Bird Society	Member
	Waitākere Ranges Protection Society	Member
	New Lynn Heritage Protection Society	Member
	Trust Community foundation Limited	Trustee
	Karekare Surf Lifesaving Club	Member
	Libraries	Family Member is Librarian
Catherine Farmer	Avondale-Waterview Historical Society	Member
	Blockhouse Bay Historical Society	Member
	Blockhouse Bay Bowls	Patron
	Forest and Bird organisation	Member
	Grey Power	Member
Sarah Paterson-Hamlin	New Zealand Down Syndrome Association	Employee
Sarah Paterson-Hamlin	Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	Employee
Warren Piper	New Lynn RSA	Associate Member
Warren Piper	New Lynn Business Association	Member
Valeria Gascoigne	Kelston Community Hub	Employee

External Organisations	Lead	Alternate
The Avondale Business Association	Kay Thomas	Ross Clow
The Blockhouse Bay Business Association	Warren Piper	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin
The New Lynn Business Association	Warren Piper	Kay Thomas
The Rosebank Business Association	Warren Piper	Fasitua Amosa
The Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Ross Clow	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 4 December 2024, including the confidential section, as true and correct.

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 Whau 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: Riversdale Skatepark

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Aaron Martin on the condition of the Riversdale Reserve skate facility.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Aaron Martin, Chairperson of East Skate Club, will be presenting to the board on the condition of the local skatepark at Riversdale Reserve.

3. The primary goals of the deputation are to inform the board on the deteriorating condition of this local asset, and to request that the board invest a small amount in the refurbishment of the skatepark surface as part of their work programme budget allocation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Aaron Martin for his attendance.

8.2 Deputation: Introducing Lime to Whau Local Board

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Lauren Narlock of Lime on the expansion of its service into the Whau local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Lauren Narlock, Senior Government Relations Manager for Lime in New Zealand, will be presenting to the board on the intended expansion of Lime’s e-mobility service into the Whau local board area.

3. The primary goals of the deputation are to provide an overview of Lime’s expansion into the Whau local board area and to understand the board’s transport and community priorities and identify ways Lime can support these initiatives effectively.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Lauren Narlock for her attendance.

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.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ward Councillor Kerrin Leoni's Report - November 2024 - February 2025	11

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Olympic Park velodrome comprehensive feasibility study

File No.: CP2025/00772

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report the findings of the Olympic Park velodrome comprehensive feasibility study and seek in principle support for a minimal upgrade of the velodrome.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Olympic Park is a 7.5-hectare reserve situated at 36 Portage Road in New Lynn, within the Whau local board area.

3. On 27 September 2023, the local board endorsed the scope and methodology for developing a masterplan for Olympic Park (resolution number WH/2023/116).

4. The masterplan will guide future decision-making on investment for the park by providing general design direction including the approximate location of facilities and improvements. Developing the masterplan will occur in three phases: research, design and implementation.

5. At an April 2023 local board workshop about the masterplan process, a key challenge identified was the aging condition of the outdoor velodrome.

6. A comprehensive feasibility study of the velodrome occurred during the research phase which found:

· the facility has heritage values worth protecting as one of the few remaining velodromes within Auckland

· low current usage is evident and low forecast usage is anticipated

· there are three broad investment options for the velodrome, involving a minimum upgrade (repairing track surface and safety upgrades), significant upgrade (widening the back straight and a high standard of surface) or removal of the velodrome (sections landscaped)

· the minimal upgrade option is preferred because it has the highest benefit-cost ratio and strikes a balance of supporting the anticipated level of community need and preserving heritage without substantial new investment.

7. Staff discussed the velodrome comprehensive feasibility results with the local board at a workshop on 23 September 2024.

8. Having completed this strategic assessment of the velodrome, the report requests in principle support from the local board for the minimal upgrade option to help guide further maintenance planning for the velodrome.

9. Next steps for the velodrome include an engineering assessment to help firm up costs associated with the minimal upgrade option.

10. With velodrome research near completion, the masterplan process will now move into the design phase, where council will undertake community and mana whenua engagement to determine a set of design principles.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) tautoko / support, in principle, a minimal upgrade of the Olympic Park velodrome, on the basis that this will include making the velodrome safer for recreational use and provide signage.

b) tuhi / note that staff are seeking additional engineering advice to inform the proposed work associated with the minimal upgrade option for the Olympic Park velodrome.

Horopaki

Context

Olympic Park

11. Olympic Park is a 7.5-hectare reserve situated at 36 Portage Road in New Lynn, within the Whau local board area.

12. As shown in Figure 1, the western side of Olympic Park primarily consists of sport and recreation activities and facilities. The eastern side of the park caters for informal recreation, open space and play activities. The park straddles the Wai Tahurangi Stream, feeding into the Whau River.

Figure 1. Site plan showing the Olympic Park’s location and boundaries (Source: GeoMaps, 2025).

Drivers for a velodrome needs assessment and the Olympic Park masterplan

13. At an April 2023 local board workshop to introduce the scope and methodology of the Olympic Park masterplan, a key challenge identified was the aging condition of the outdoor velodrome as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Photo demonstrates the poor condition of the velodrome’s surface (Source: Visitor Solutions).

14. As part of the same workshop, key opportunities were identified to be scoped as part of the development of the Olympic Park masterplan:

· to identify a long-term plan for the velodrome

· to identify how to increase informal and passive recreation use around the park

· to ensure that the park meets the community’s need in the future.

15. The masterplan will provide the general design direction for the park, including the approximate location of facilities and improvements. Developing the masterplan will consist of three phases: research phase, design phase and implementation phase.

16. The velodrome’s needs assessment represents one part of the research phase. The needs assessment addresses the following key areas:

· is there a need for the Olympic Park velodrome (current and future need)?

· if there is a need, what needs to be done to make the velodrome more usable? For example, what level of repairs/upgrades would need to be made?

17. The local board now needs to consider, in principle, whether to repair and renew the velodrome, or demolish the velodrome, in order for the next phase of the masterplan to begin.

Olympic Park velodrome comprehensive feasibility study

18. The Olympic Park velodrome comprehensive feasibility study consists of four separate research reports which are summarised in the Analysis and advice section of this report.

· Visitor Solutions’ needs assessment (summary completed and presented to the local board in February 2024).

· Lisa Truttman’s heritage report (completed in May 2024).

· The Value Practice’s quantity surveyor options cost estimates (completed in July 2024).

· MartinJenkins’ cost benefit analysis (delivered in August 2024).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Velodrome needs assessment

19. The first phase of the velodrome study involved engaging Visitor Solutions to prepare a needs assessment of the velodrome, to help identify the long-term plan for the velodrome (Attachment A).

20. The velodrome’s needs assessment included:

· targeted engagement with mana whenua

· engagement with current lease holders and key park users

· local biking groups

· sport organisations

· face to face interviews with park users

· an online survey to gather wider community views.

21. Key findings from the needs assessment include:

· there is some community attachment to the velodrome due to its perceived heritage aspects

· the Olympic Park velodrome is not recognised or needed as a site for competitive structured track or high-performance cycling

· as the width of the back straight was cut back from six metres to three metres, this has negatively impacted the functionality of the velodrome, making it unsafe for riders traveling at speed or in large groups

· due to its poor state, the Olympic Park velodrome currently only serves as a recreational, community, or informal cycling venue. Even if investment were provided, it is unlikely that the usage would change.to meet the needs of the community, key consideration should be given to:

o reinstating the back straight to its full six meters

o establishing, as well as maintaining, a good track surface

o implementing a booking system so that designated cycling hours are allocated and communicated to potential riders (thus avoiding potential user conflict between football, athletics and cycling)

o marketing the facility to the community.

· if properly maintained, and investment is provided into the above four key considerations, the velodrome could fill a niche role within the Auckland cycling/leisure facility network.

22. The findings of the needs assessment were presented to the Whau Local Board in February 2024. The local board members informally supported undertaking a heritage assessment, engineering assessment, preliminary costings and a cost benefit analysis.

Heritage report

23. Lisa Truttman’s heritage report (Attachment B) sets out track cycling’s history in New Zealand. The report encompasses the 1800s, early 1900s, inter-war period, post-World War II and the 1970s to early 2000s.

24. The report’s initial sections on cycling history in New Zealand provides context to the popularity of the sport during the 20^th century. By the 1950s there were 10 tracks in Auckland meaning that spectators could attend a race every night.

25. This context highlights the decline in velodromes in Auckland, and the rareness of the Olympic Park velodrome being only one of two remaining velodromes in Auckland.

26. The report highlights that the velodrome track has mostly been unusable throughout its history, requiring substantial maintenance and periods of shut down.

27. Council’s Heritage Information and Advice team reviewed the report in May 2024 and provided the following commentary and advice.

· The heritage report demonstrates evidence of heritage values worth recognising, given the velodrome’s described rarity; it is worthy of recognition as the longest surviving velodrome in the Auckland region.

· The velodrome played a significant role in Auckland's social and recreational history, especially during the early to mid-20th century.

· The best way to recognise and safeguard the velodrome is to seek the physical retention of the banked track, and the installation of heritage interpretation signage nearby, as this is one of the few surviving such legacy facilities of its kind remaining in Auckland.

Quantity Surveyor

28. Council engaged a Quantity Surveyor (QS) to undertake costings for a range of investment options for the velodrome.

29. The Quantity Surveyor provided 14 estimates (refer to Attachment C for full list) which broadly fall into three categories:

· do the minimum

· upgrade the existing track

· removal of the velodrome track.

30. These costings have informed the cost-benefit analysis.

31. The QS costs have the following limitations and assumptions:

· Capital and replacement costs: Only capital and replacement or repair costs have been estimated so far. No maintenance or whole-of-life calculations were completed as part of the QS. However, the Cost Benefit Analysis in the next section evaluates the costs and benefits of various options for the Olympic Park velodrome over a 30-year timeframe, starting from the year when construction commences.

· Cost estimates: Estimates include a contingency allowance to the ‘Expected Estimate’ or ‘50th Percentile’ (P50) level of cost certainty. This means there is a 50 per cent chance that the project may be delivered within the estimated value and a 50 per cent chance of cost over-runs. Due to site conditions (asbestos, contamination, landslips, heritage assets, etc.) and the lack of detailed design, there is a high level of cost uncertainty. Risks and opportunities identified in the estimates will influence decision-making.

· Asphalt issues: If the asphalt is not removed or repaired, there is potential for ongoing cracking issues.

· Design and engineering: There has been no design or engineering input.

· Compacting materials on steep slopes: Issues with compacting materials on steep slopes, with some contractors refusing to provide pricing due to high safety risks.

· Heritage and environmental risks: Risks related to potential heritage disputes and environmental contamination could complicate or halt the project.

32. Before making any financial decisions about the velodrome, further investigation, design, and cost estimation is needed to better understand the options, scope, costs, and risks.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

33. A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a systematic approach to evaluating the economic pros and cons of different options, by comparing their costs and benefits over a specified period, in this case thirty years. Unlike cost estimates, which only account for the expenses involved, a CBA considers both the costs and the anticipated benefits, providing a more comprehensive view of the overall value and impact of each option.

34. As shown in the table below and as per Attachment D, MartinJenkins has developed the status quo and two development options for the velodrome over a thirty-year period (from 2024 to 2054):

CBA Options	QS Option References	QS Costs
Status Quo Assumes the council maintains the velodrome to a minimum standard.	This scenario incorporates the QS options 1, 2 and 3 (Refer to Quantity Surveyor concept options estimate July 2024 - Attachment C) Surface cracking repairs, seal coat and safety upgrades.	$354,000
Option One Widens the backstraight and lays a high standard surface.	This scenario incorporates the QS options 7 and 10 (Refer to Quantity Surveyor concept options estimate July 2024 -Attachment C) Concrete epoxy resurfacing, widening back straight with epoxy concrete and safety upgrades.	$5,520,000
Option Two Removes the velodrome altogether.	This scenario incorporates the QS option 12 (Refer to Quantity Surveyor concept options estimate July 2024 -Attachment C) Landscape planting to “curved ends” of track and replacing of front and back straights with topsoil and grass.	$1,450,000

35. As shown in the table above, status quo involves the baseline do minimum option, which is inclusive of repairing cracks, applying seal coat and installing a barrier for safety. This option will involve regular maintenance, approximately every five years, to ensure the track is at a safe standard. MartinJenkins noted that typically status quo options are business as usual approaches but, in this instance, leaving the track to fall into a state of disrepair would be irresponsible as the track will be very unsafe for its users.

36. The option of status quo is considered to include closing the track with fencing, but this would decrease usage of the athletics track and soccer field, and would not be a viable long-term strategy.

37. As illustrated in the above table, option one involves the track upgrade which is the epoxy concrete, widening of the backstraight and safety barriers.

38. The table above also references option two which involves the removal of the track through landscape planting and grassing the straights. Note that the CBA did not take into account an alternate use. This could be explored in a future study.

39. As part of the CBA, MartinJenkins updated the initial visitation estimates provided by Visitor Solutions - scaling down the estimates for noncompetitive use, benchmarking against Manukau and Cambridge velodromes, and factoring in wet weather as shown below:

CBA Options

Forecast usage (after investment)

Status Quo

Assumes the council maintains the velodrome to a minimum standard.

1800 annual visits

300 annual riders

Option One

Widens the backstraight and lays a high standard surface.

7200 annual visits

1300 annual riders

Option Two

Removes the velodrome altogether.

40. The CBA also involved determining the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of the status quo and two development options:

CBA Options	NPV and BCR	Key observation
Status Quo	NPV = $1,167,000 BCR = 2.52	Has the highest BCR and yields a strong positive NPV, preserves the velodrome’s heritage and meets community needs without substantial new investments.
Option One – Upgrade	NPV = $836,000 BCR = 1.18	Velodrome upgrade for amateur competition – low BCR and NPV, involving significant costs and some heritage impacts. Nonetheless still positive.
Option Two – Remove	NPV = -$2,874,000 BCR = -1.53	Involves the removal of velodrome and landscaping the area. Negative financial returns and potential losses of recreational, health and heritage values.

Notes to support reading the table:

· Net Present Value (NPV): Evaluates investment profitability by comparing the present value of benefits and costs, factoring in a discount rate (four per cent in this case). A positive NPV indicates benefits exceed costs.

· Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): Ratio of present value of benefits to costs. A BCR of 1 equals an NPV of $0 (breakeven), while a BCR above 1 indicates more benefits than costs.

· The CBA investment figures differ from the base QS costs because the CBA includes additional factors like ongoing maintenance, future repairs, and the time value of money. The QS costs are just the initial estimates for each option, while the CBA provides a more complete picture by considering all costs over time and adjusting them to present-day values.

41. Status Quo: The status quo option has a NPV of $1.2 million and a BCR of 2.52, showing benefits significantly exceed costs. Estimated costs are based on the QS estimate, requiring a $0.8 million investment (present value) from 2024 to 2054, plus $60,000 every three years for surface maintenance. The velodrome is expected to see a small increase in recreational use over time, leading to total benefits valued at $1.9 million, mainly from health benefits. Annually, there would be 1800 annual visits and 300 annual riders.

42. Option One: Illustrated in the above table, option one has a NPV of $0.8 million and a BCR of 1.18, though it may take over 20 years for the benefits to outweigh the costs, or to reach the estimated payback point. This option represents a significant additional $4.7 million in costs, on top of the status quo costs, between 2024 and 2054 The upgrades could lead to a total incremental benefit of $5.5 million, primarily from increased participation in sports clubs and improved health outcomes. The option may help in retaining and future-proofing heritage values. However, there’s a risk of diminishing heritage significance due to substantial modifications. In the option one scenario, it is estimated that there would be 7,200 annual visits and 1,300 annual riders.

43. Option Two: From the table, we can see an additional investment on top of the status quo of $1.1 million between 2024 and 2054, with the costs partially offset by savings from avoiding future maintenance of the velodrome. Removing the velodrome results in negative incremental benefits due to the loss of health, recreational, and heritage value, leading to a significant overall disbenefit. The option has NPV of -$2.9 million and a BCR of -1.53, indicating a negative return on investment. While the removal might allow for future land use, these alternative options were not explored and would need to be considered in a future CBA.

44. To summarise, pursuing the status quo offers the highest benefit-cost ratio. This option preserves the velodrome's heritage and meets community needs with positive returns on investment. Option one, while increasing usage, involves significant costs and a long payback period. Option two results in negative financial outcomes and a loss of an asset for the community. However option two does not factor in the alternative community uses that could replace the asset. Therefore, the recommendation that this CBA points to, is to maintain the status quo.

45. The cost benefit analysis has the following limitations and assumptions:

· There is significant uncertainty in cost estimates, especially due to potential contamination under the velodrome (e.g. heavy metals, asbestos, etc.).

· Current and expected use statistics for the Olympic Park velodrome are not available, leading to reliance on data from other facilities. Usage estimates are based on data from the Manukau Sports Bowl and Avantidrome in Cambridge. The data has been adjusted for local population and facility differences.

· The benefits included in the CBA are:

o health benefits from cycling

o sports club participation benefits

o consumer surplus

o avoided health care and social costs from road incidents

o environmental benefits from increased vegetation.

· Some benefits, such as community pride, environmental impacts and heritage values, are not quantified.

· A base discount rate of four per cent is used, with sensitivity analysis at six per cent and eight per cent.

· In the sensitivity analysis, results are sensitive to changes in key assumptions, such as user numbers, discount rates, cost estimates and external factors. The CBA also smplifies complex scenarios.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. The recommendations in this report have no climate impact. As outlined in the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, the masterplan’s research, design and implementation will include consideration of aspects such as:

· water sensitive design

· use of sustainable products

· use of healthy products

· construction waste.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. Staff have consulted with various council departments on the findings from the velodrome comprehensive feasibility assessment as outlined in the table below:

Team within wider council group	Key feedback
Active Communities	• Recognises that the velodrome provides a community biking need within Auckland. • Recognises that the velodrome may have strong historical significance for the community. • If the velodrome is removed, it may be very difficult to fund another community/recreational level velodrome in Auckland. • If the back straight is not fixed, significant usage increases are unlikely. • Analysis should consider both scenarios: (a) fixing the back straight to enable community competition, and (b) leaving it unchanged.
Parks and Community Facilities	• Health and safety concerns associated with poor track surface are being investigated. • Consider associated operational costs with maintaining the velodrome.
Heritage	• As the velodrome has some heritage significance due to the age and relative rarity of the asset, the team prefers the option to repair and renew. • Suggests the heritage of the velodrome should be recognised in some way within the masterplan.
Strategic Advice and Research	• A meeting was held in November 2024 with an economic analyst who expressed that caution needs to be taken when interpreting the cost benefit analysis results. Changing assumptions about the P50 estimate, the discount rate or the displacement rate can drastically change the results For example, the sensitivity analysis notes that changing the assumed displacement rate can make removal of the velodrome the most or the least desirable alternative. • Uncertainties in the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) are not just because of the CBA methodology. These uncertainties are a part of any evidence-based decision-making for the project. A detailed CBA is useful because it shows these uncertainties clearly, unlike more simplistic methodologies that might ignore the impacts of certain factors. In such cases, the uncertainty about quantifying some of those factors becomes irrelevant.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

48. The low level of velodrome use is expected to continue with a minimal upgrade of the facility due to general design and track width limitations. The heritage structure will continue to hold value for some members of the community.

49. There is no leaseholder for the Olympic Park velodrome.

Local board views

50. Staff discussed the draft Olympic Park velodrome needs assessment key findings at a workshop in February 2024. Key informal feedback received from the local board was:

· seek better understanding on the historical significance of the velodrome

· if the velodrome is to be removed, seek better understanding of ways to recognise the historical significance of the velodrome

· assess velodrome structure

· cost repairing and renewing the velodrome or removing the velodrome.

51. At the same workshop, local board members expressed their informal support for the draft findings from the needs assessment.

52. Staff provided an update on the draft Olympic Park velodrome comprehensive feasibility study at a workshop in September 2024. The key points of discussion were:

· recap of the needs assessment by Visitor Solutions

· heritage report and council’s heritage team assessment

· quantity surveyor’s fourteen option estimates

· cost benefit analysis of status quo (basic maintenance and safety upgrades), option one (major upgrades) and option two (removal of the velodrome)

· next steps including a possible engineering assessment.

53. The local board will be involved in the development of the masterplan through feedback and input at workshops. All formal decisions regarding the project will be taken to the local board at its business meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. The Whau portage passes through Olympic Park. The portage is significant to both Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who have historic links to this area.

55. Staff introduced the Olympic Park masterplan scope and methodology to the Parks and Community Facilities north/west mana whenua forum in September 2023.

56. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have deferred to Te Kawerau ā Maki for the needs assessment and masterplan.

57. Te Kawerau ā Maki have expressed interest in being involved in the development of the needs assessment and masterplan. Te Kawerau ā Maki continue to be informed/updated throughout the process.

58. Engagement will continue to occur with all iwi who express an interest in the project.

59. On 29 October 2024, staff met with Te Kawerau ā Maki to discuss the findings from the velodrome analysis, which included the heritage report, quantity surveyor option estimates and cost benefit analysis. The September local board workshop presentation and the local board’s directions on next steps were also discussed.

60. The primary points of discussion with Te Kawerau ā Maki were:

· A plan should be prepared to ensure the velodrome’s maintenance activities do not adversely affect the environment, particularly the estuary running through Olympic Park.

· The velodrome does not hold significant value to mana whenua and is not a prominent aspect of their culture.

· If the velodrome facility is deteriorating, consider exploring alternative uses, such as converting it into a pool.

· There is a preference for assigning a Māori name to the park to reflect cultural heritage.

· There is a keen interest in being involved in the development of the overarching master plan for the park.

61. As part of the masterplan development, staff will discuss opportunities with mana whenua to protect and enhance cultural heritage. Ways for the plan to incorporate cultural, economic, environmental and social outcomes for Māori will also be examined.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

62. The proposed investment in the Olympic Park velodrome involves three primary options, each with distinct financial implications:

CBA Options	Financial impacts
Status Quo	The initial capital cost is estimated at $354,000, with ongoing maintenance costs factored in over a 30-year period. This option ensures the facility remains operational for recreational use, with a positive net present value (NPV) of $1.167 million and a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 2.52.
Option One – Upgrade	The initial capital cost is estimated at $354,000, with ongoing maintenance costs factored in over a 30-year period. This option ensures the facility remains operational for recreational use, with a positive net present value (NPV) of $1.167 million and a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 2.52.
Option Two – Remove	This option has an initial capital cost of $1.450 million but results in a negative NPV of -$2.874 million and a BCR of -1.53, reflecting the loss of a community asset and associated benefits.

63. Overall, the financial analysis highlights the trade-offs between maintaining, upgrading, or removing the velodrome. Each option presents different cost structures and long-term financial impacts.

64. In June 2021, the local board resolved to approve the 2021/2022 Customer and Community Services work programme including ` for the development of a masterplan for Olympic Park (resolution number WH/2021/51).

65. The budget for the masterplan was carried over from 2023/2024 to 2024/2025.

66. External consultants have been engaged to lead and complete the velodrome needs analysis, utilising a portion of this project budget. The remaining budget of $22,453 will be spent on:

· public consultation

· key stakeholder engagement

· mana whenua engagement

· design of the masterplan

· implementation planning of the masterplan (quantity surveyor).

67. Implementing the masterplan will be subject to the availability of funding and future local board decision-making on each key move/project. The amount and timing of funding is subject to the annual budget 2024/2025, and future long-term plans and associated local board work programme development.

68. The local board has the ability to enter into agreements for external funding. External funding mechanisms could include grants, private partnerships and service property optimisation[1].

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. The following table outlines the risks and mitigations associated with the recommendations in this report:

Risk	Mitigations
Velodrome investment
There is a risk that minimal upgrades supported by the local board may not meet community needs.	This has been mitigated through community engagement via interviews during the needs assessment phase.
Costs may increase following the engineering investigations.	Engineering investigations will validate the QS cost estimates.
Wider masterplan process
Development of a masterplan has the potential to raise community and stakeholder expectations that the ideas in the masterplan will be delivered.	Any engagement on the masterplan will need to clearly communicate the need for detailed needs assessment and feasibility studies, timeframes and budgets to deliver on the opportunities identified.
The masterplan and development of the park could be constrained by existing lease arrangements.	An implementation plan will be developed as part of the masterplan to understand how staged development can be used to mitigate any constraints.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70. Following approval of this report, staff will continue with the engineering assessment to help firm up costs associated with a minimal upgrade of the velodrome. It is anticipated that these findings will be presented to the local board in quarter four of the 2024/2025 financial year.

71. The design phase of the masterplan process will now commence. The design phase will focus on developing design principles through community and mana whenua engagement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Olympic Park velodrome needs assessment report February 2024	35
b ⇩	Olympic Park velodrome heritage report May 2024	67
c ⇩	Quantity Surveyor concept options estimate July 2024	73
d ⇩	Cost Benefit Analysis report August 2024	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sam McKinnon – Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Angela Clarke - Head of Service Investment & Programming

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

South Lynn mitigation funding

File No.: CP2024/19061

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for changes to the South Lynn crossing project and associated funding allocation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport (AT) manages the Local Board Transport Capital Fund on behalf of the Whau Local Board. AT provides quality advice to support local board decision-making. A decision relating to a project that received allocation of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is being sought.

3. The Whau Local Board approved a total of $359,600 towards safety improvements on South Lynn Road. The project aimed to deliver a new raised zebra crossing on South Lynn Road, close to The Grove Road intersection. Physical works were completed in October 2024.

4. Following the completion of the project, issues were reported by properties neighbouring the site relating to vibrations when heavier vehicles traversed the raised table, especially buses.

5. Investigations identified issues were caused from unforeseen pre-existing seismic conditions. Adjustments were undertaken to the ramp and toe; however the vibrations issue was not resolved.

6. Options were discussed with the local board on 5 February 2025, and AT staff recommended Option 2 - remove the raised speed table, retain zebra crossing and install side islands, with minor footpath works to install a pram crossing and road markings.

7. Option 2 will exceed the allocated project budget by approximately $30,000 but the additional budget would be sought through AT internal funding.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve changes to the South Lynn safety improvements project to proceed with option 2 - remove the raised table, add new side islands, pram ramps and new road markings to convert the facility into a flush zebra pedestrian crossing.

Horopaki

Context

8. The LBTCF was established in 2012 and provides local boards with a budget to deliver small projects that are not on AT’s work programme. The budget spread across all 21 local boards using Council’s ‘Local Board Funding Policy.’

9. Auckland Transport supported Whau Local Board’s consideration of how the LBTCF is used, providing technical advice at workshops held on 8 February 2023, 5 April 2023, 6 September 2023, 11 October 2023, and 21 February 2024.

10. For previous allocations and additional context refer to previous resolution WH/2024/17 from March 2024 and WH/2023/137 from October 2023 which set the most recent changes to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

11. A further report on Local Board Capital Fund allocations is expected in coming months to allocate an increase of funds available this term.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. At its business meeting on 25 October 2023, the local board confirmed the allocation of $265,000 towards safety improvements on South Lynn Road (WH/2023/137).

13. In March 2024 $94,600 additional budget was allocated to South Lynn Road safety improvements atop the $265,000 allocated in October 2023 for a total of $359,600 allocated to the project.

14. On 16 October 2024, following completion of the project, issues were reported by properties neighbouring the site relating to vibrations when heavier vehicles traversed the raised table, especially buses.

15. The raised table was built to all guidelines and design standards, however unforeseen pre-existing seismic conditions have meant this was not adequate in preventing the issues from arising.

16. AT investigated the issues and worked closely with the specialists from the designs and standards team. An adjustment to the ramp and toe on one of the approaches was implemented as agreed.

17. Residents advised there were still issues following the adjusted ramp and toe. Thus, vibration tests were conducted and optioneering performed.

18. At a workshop on 5 February 2025, Whau Local Board were presented 3 options.

· Option 1 – smooth the southern ramp in addition to the north ramp. This was within existing allocated budget.

· Option 2 – removed the raised speed table, retain zebra crossing and install side islands, with minor footpath works to install a pram crossing and road markings. This option was recommended by AT. It was noted that this would slightly exceed the allocated budget by roughly $30,000 but would be covered by AT internal funding.

· Option 3 – Remove everything. This was not recommended due to the need of the crossing facility. This was potentially within existing allocated budget but near the limit.

19. Option 1 presents a risk of not addressing vibration concerns, option 3 presents a regression to previous lack of safe facility to cross.

20. Option 2 is recommended by Auckland Transport as it is expected to address vibration concerns and still retain safety improvements.

21. At a workshop on 12 February 2025, the Whau Local Board requested advice on financial implications of option 2.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

23. The Passenger Transport related projects will contribute to AT’s climate change objectives.

24. South Lynn crossing specifically is expected to deliver positive climate outcomes by encouraging walking, scootering other any other modes of active transportation that are allowed to use the facility.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Any other 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

26. Whau Local Board discussed this programme of work at workshops with Auckland Transport (AT). This report reflects the recommendations of AT as presented at workshops, for the local board to decide on the allocation of their LBTCF.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The actions being considered do not have specific impacts on Māori. Both AT and council are committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori. Auckland Transport’s Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the AT website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. This report requires consideration of a financial commitment by the Whau Local Board.

30. The recommended option, Option 2 will exceed the allocated project budget by approximately $30,000 but the additional budget would be sought through AT internal funding.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The implementation of a raised feature followed by removal could cause reputational risk. AT and local board communications teams have been made aware of the issue and have been working together on this matter.

32. The local board requested advice on mitigating risk of this issue occurring for future projects. There is a regional assessment underway to highlight potential problem areas in the region where raised features are less likely to be suitable, which could be used to inform future projects.

33. There is a risk that removing the raised feature would undermine the intended safety improvements. Option 2 would mitigate this risk by adding side islands to narrow the road corridor at the crossing point, which is still expected to slow vehicles and shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians.

34. Doing nothing will mean that residents impacted by vibrations will continue to face disruption resulting in further complaint to AT or the local board. Some results from vibration testing showed the levels are likely not acceptable on South Lynn Road.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Following this approval AT will proceed with physical works as per the agreed option in this report. Throughout the process, AT will keep the local board updated.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Peter Naber, Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie, Head of Stakeholder and Elected Member Relations

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Local board views on proposed plan change 106 for filming on Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua

File No.: CP2025/00644

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on proposed plan change 106 (PC 106) which identifies temporary filming activities on Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (SPSMW) on public places as a permitted activity.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers (independent commissioners) on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the local boards choose to provide their views.

3. The purpose of PC 106 is to identify temporary filming activities on SPSMW in council-controlled public places as a permitted activity (i.e. no resource consent required). A film permit will still be required under the Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui 2022 Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 (the Bylaw).

4. A local board can present local views when expressed by the whole local board. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on PC 106. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

5. Local boards received a memorandum on the draft plan change before it was finalised and notified for submissions. The submission and further submissions periods have closed. A total of 10 submissions were received, and no further submissions were received. The key themes of the submissions are support from screen industry, opposition to PC 106 unless amendments are made, and the application of PC 106 to Tūpuna Maunga Authority administered land.

6. This report seeks the views of the local board on proposed plan change 106. Next steps involve incorporating local board resolutions on proposed plan change 106 into the section 42A hearing report. Appointed local board members will be notified and invited to present their views at the hearing.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) provide its views on proposed plan change 106

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on proposed plan change 106

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of Whau Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

7. Local boards are responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

8. A plan change will be included in the AUP if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on council-initiated plan changes.

9. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the reporting planner will include those views verbatim, and address them, along with issues raised by submitters, in the subsequent hearing report prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

10. A local board member, appointed by resolution, may present the local board’s views at the hearing of submissions by commissioners, who then make decisions on the proposed plan change.

11. This report provides an overview of PC 106, and a summary of the key themes from submissions. The report author cannot advise the local board on what its views should be.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

12. The purpose of PC 106 is to remove the requirement for a resource consent by identifying temporary filming activities as a permitted activity in the AUP. Filming activities will still require a Film Permit from Screen Auckland (the regional film office for Auckland, based within Tātaki Auckland Unlimited) in accordance with the Bylaw. Currently, there is duplication of process for filming, as it requires both a resource consent to comply with the AUP and a film permit to comply with the Bylaw.

13. Amendments to AUP Chapter D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua are proposed to identify temporary filming activities (up to 30 days) as a permitted activity on SPSMW that are also public places. This status is subject to a standard that requires no land disturbance, that filming is undertaken in accordance with a site plan, and that it complies with any special conditions approved under the Auckland Council Film Permit. No changes are proposed to Schedule 12 of the AUP, which lists the SPSMW.

14. The film permit process ensures that filming activities respect the cultural values of the SPSMW and follow appropriate tikanga, while enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being to achieve sustainable management.

15. Cultural values and mana whenua associations with SPSMW are protected and enhanced through the film permit process by requiring direct engagement with mana whenua and their participation in decision-making. This ensures that appropriate tikanga is considered, site plans and/or special conditions are applied where necessary, access for customary activities (i.e. mahinga kai) can be identified, and restricted areas, where toilets or food preparation must be avoided, are implemented to protect wāhi tapu and any tangible and/or intangible values of sites and places.

16. Supporting documentation is available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=272.

17. Council’s reporting planner will prepare a section 42A report for PC 106 for consideration by the independent hearings commissioners that evaluates and reports on:

· the contents of PC 106

· submissions (noting that no further submissions were received)

· views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

Themes from submissions received

18. Submissions were made by 10 people. Nine submissions were supportive, one was in opposition, and no submissions were neutral. Key submission themes are listed below.

· Support from the screen industry

· Oppose the plan change unless amendments are made

· Application of PC 106 to Tūpuna Maunga administered land.

Support from the screen industry

19. Several submissions supporting PC 106 are from members of the screen industry, seeking that it be approved without any amendments. Some clarification is also sought regarding what qualifies as “disturbance”, as AUP Standard D21.6.4(1)(b) provides for filming activities as a permitted activity as long as it does not involve “land disturbance”.

Oppose subject to amendments

20. One submitter (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei) opposes PC 106 unless amendments are made to recognise the hapū or iwi with the strongest relationship to the filming location. Specific provisions are sought to be retained or removed to better reflect local hapū and iwi acknowledgement.

Application of PC 106 to Tūpuna Maunga Authority administered land

21. PC 106 currently excludes land administered by Tūpuna Maunga Authority. The Tūpuna Maunga Authority seeks amendments to PC 106 to enable temporary filming as a permitted activity on land it administers.

22. Information on individual submissions and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters is available from council’s website: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc-106-sdr-and-subs.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

23. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

24. Both of council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirement for RMA decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA), and

· have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

25. Consequently, any local board views on climate adaptation and/or climate mitigation will be considered by the independent hearing commissioners when hearing submissions on PC 106.

Local board views - climate

26. The following prompts are included to assist the local board in forming any view (should it wish to do so) regarding climate mitigation and/or adaptation:

· How will PC 106 affect greenhouse gas emissions, if at all?

· How will PC 106 affect private motor vehicle trips, connections to and availability of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, if at all?

· Will climate risks, such as flooding, increased heat, coastal erosion, or extreme weather events be neutral, alleviated or elevated by PC 106?

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. No council groups have submitted on PC 106. The following council groups were consulted and provided an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft plan change:

a) Māori Heritage Team

b) Resource Consents

c) Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The purpose of PC 106 is to enable temporary filming activities on SPSMW in public places without the need for a resource consent.

29. A total of 18 out of the 21 local boards currently have SPSMW in public places that would be covered by PC 106 (noting that additional sites will be added over time). In terms of film permit applications, local boards are responsible for landowner approval for local parks and are notified of any film permit applications. This will not change.

30. Local boards have been kept informed of PC 106 as it has developed with memorandums in November 2022 and September 2024.

31. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents, such as local board plan, local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

32. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on PC 106.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. The plan change has been developed in consultation with the 19 iwi authorities (mana whenua) through a series of engagements since December 2022. This engagement has occurred through pānui updates, engagement summary reports, kānohi ki te kānohi hui, collaborative working group hui, emails and telephone calls.

34. Prior to notifying PC 106 the following positions of mana whenua were understood:

· 11 support in principle a plan change

· 1 generally supports PC 106 subject to amendments; otherwise, opposes

· 3 have not provided formal feedback, but comments made by them have been considered

· 2 do not oppose PC 106

· 1 defers to others

· 1 prefers kaupapa to go through the Mana Whenua Forum.

35. Feedback from mana whenua on PC 106 supports an approach that provides for filming in public places as a permitted activity with permitted standards, and for mana whenua to have an increased role in decision-making for activities occurring on SPSMW. The importance of not undermining the SPSMW in AUP Schedule 12 and the provisions in AUP Chapter D21 was also emphasised as protection of the values of sites and places. All sites have their own pūrākau (stories), and iwi/hapū have individual tikanga for these sites.

36. Feedback from mana whenua directly informed the wording of PC 106. The only feedback not incorporated into PC 106 relates to amendments sought to recognise the ‘local’ or ‘appropriate’ iwi.

37. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei is the only iwi that submitted on PC 106. Their submission seeks that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s ahi kā and mana whenua status within the ‘heartland’ of their rohe is recognised and provided for in the relevant amendments that are proposed to AUP Chapter D21 through PC 106. They also seek that their reo and identity is seen, heard and provided for in any filming on sites and places of significance that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are the tangata whenua. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are generally supportive of PC 106, but oppose it unless the amendments sought are incorporated to ensure the tangata whenua of the place where filming activities will take place on SPSMW are appropriately engaged with and involved in the decision-making.

38. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited – Screen Auckland have developed a draft SPSMW film permit process in collaboration with mana whenua. The draft SPSMW film permit process has a strong focus on relationship and engagement to enable ongoing collaboration to develop and integrate mana motuhake, tikanga Māori, the pūrākau and mauri of SPSMW.

39. The key elements of the draft SPSMW film permit process include:

· requirement to engage all mana whenua identified through the council’s contact tool

· applicants are encouraged to engage early to understand the implications of filming

· film facilitators inform mana whenua of all filming applications affecting SPSMW and confirm whether engagement has occurred

· timeframe to process applications is 20-25 days (compared to 3-5 for general applications)

· film facilitators confirm permit conditions with mana whenua

· where proposals are not supported by mana whenua, applicants will be directed to alternative sites.

40. Information requirements for film permit applications on SPSMW will be similar to those required by Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority for the 14 co-governed tūpuna maunga.

41. The reporting planner will include in the hearing report an analysis of Part 2 of the RMA, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Sites of Significance is an issue of significance identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and the Māori Plan 2017 (Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board), where it states on page 23 that:

Mana Whenua are enabled to maintain and protect sites of significance to reaffirm connections to the whenua and preserve for future generations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. PC 106 does not pose any financial implications for local boards’ assets or operations.

43. Costs for the plan-making process are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC 106, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences

· the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

45. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

46. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). This report therefore enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution from any local board in the forthcoming section 42A hearing report. Local board member(s) appointed to speak to specific local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing.

48. The reporting planner will advise the local boards of the decision on PC 106 by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Local Board feedback on Fix and Finish fund

File No.: CP2025/01908

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 Whau 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	149
b ⇩	Distribution of fundng to lcoal boards(15 January 2025)	153

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Hao Chen - Manager Local Board Financial Advisory

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Brian Chan - General Manager Financial Advisory

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Public feedback report on the traffic bylaw review

File No.: CP2025/01440

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 of the agenda report.

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 of the agenda report) 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 Whau 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 local board 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 (resolution number 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 of the agenda report.

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 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

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 Whau Local Board at a workshop on 7 August 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 7 August 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	161
b ⇩	Whau Local Board Summary of public feedback	187

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Joemier Pontawe - Principal Policy Advisor, Auckland Transport

Ben Stallworthy - Principal Advisor Strategic Relations, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Changes to Voting Sign Locations for the 2025 Local Elections

File No.: CP2025/01919

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the local board with an assessment of their proposed changes to voting sign locations for the 2025 local election.

2. To enable the local board to make formal recommendations for any changes to voting sign locations to the Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. This report provides the local board with an assessment of their proposed changes to voting sign locations for the 2025 local elections.

4. The current election sign locations, last updated in 2022, are listed in Attachment A. Local boards submitted informal proposals for changes in December 2024.

5. Auckland Transport has assessed these proposals, and the findings are included in Attachment C.

6. This report seeks formal recommendations from the local board on voting sign location changes. These will be submitted to the Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee for consideration at their March 2025 meeting.

7. Final changes will be confirmed in March 2025 and the 2025 Candidate Handbook will be updated accordingly.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) provide its views to Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee on voting sign locations for the 2025 local elections.

Horopaki

Context

Regulatory framework

8. The Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu Signs Bylaw 2022 sets regulations for election signs.

9. The bylaw permits election signs on both private property and council-controlled public spaces.

Roles and responsibilities

10. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport share responsibility for designating suitable locations and establishing usage conditions for election signs in council-controlled public areas.

11. Auckland Transport controls signs that are on or visible from the Auckland transport system. Auckland Council controls signs in every other case.

12. The Auckland Council Regulatory Committee and Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee hold delegated authority to implement these regulations by resolution.

13. Since all election signs must face roadways, Auckland Transport has delegated authority to set regulations for election signs via the Traffic Control Committee.

Current election sign locations

14. Appendix B of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw Control 2022 lists currently approved election sign locations and any site-specific conditions.

15. The current election sign locations for this local board are provided in Attachment A. These were last updated during the 2022 local elections.

Process for changing election sign locations

16. Staff did not propose any changes to the voting sign locations for the 2025 local elections. Local boards provided informal proposals for changes to the election sign locations in December 2024.

17. The 2025 Auckland Council Candidate Handbook must include sites for election signs. Staff need to update the list of sites by 1 April 2025 to meet the publishing deadline.

18. Many current election sign sites are on local parks. The Traffic Control Committee requires input from the local board as the landowner before making any modifications to the current list of designated election sign locations.

19. Any recommended changes to voting sign locations will be sent to Traffic Control Committee for consideration at their March 2025 meeting.

20. Local boards will be informed of the final changes via memo in late March 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Auckland Transport have assessed the December 2024 proposed changes from the local board. The assessment is included as Attachment C.

22. Attachment B provides guidance on suitable election sign site criteria for local boards to consider when suggesting changes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Auckland Transport works closely with council to develop strategy, actions, and measures supporting the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan, and council priorities.

24. Auckland Transport reviews potential climate impacts of all projects and aims to minimise carbon emissions. Its work programme is guided by Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport is legally responsible for allocating election sign locations, which are well known to Auckland Council staff. The decision-making body is the Traffic Control Committee.

26. If needed, the committee will seek guidance from Auckland Council staff responsible for land management.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. This report seeks local board views. Local impacts have not been fully assessed at this stage.

28. The committee will consider local board direction, technical assessments from traffic engineers, and bylaw requirements when making decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. Auckland Transport is committed to its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and broader legal obligations to Māori.

30. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines its commitment to working with mana whenua and fostering relationships with mataawaka and their representative bodies. More information: AT Māori Responsiveness Plan.

31. There are no significant impacts on land or water, so specific Māori input was not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. This decision has no financial implications for the local board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. This decision does not pose safety, financial, or legal risks for the local board.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Traffic Control Committee will consider any formal local board recommendations for changes to election sign locations at its March 2025 meeting.

35. The updated election sign sites will be included in the 2025 Candidate Handbook.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of public sites for election signs	195
b ⇩	Election Sign Site Criteria	217
c ⇩	Whau 2025 election sign review	221

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell, Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Proposed policy refresh: Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022)

File No.: CP2024/17673

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback on proposed changes to the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Business Improvement District (BID) programme team oversees the BID programmes ongoing development accountability and governance. The refresh process will not include a review of these roles or resources.

3. BID programmes provide sustainable funding to business associations by applying a targeted rate to business rated properties within a defined geographical area and granting these funds to the relevant business association.

4. BID-operating business associations sign a three-year targeted rate grant agreement which requires compliance with the Auckland Council Business Improvement District (2022) Policy (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (the Policy) as attached as Appendix A.

5. Staff are proposing changes to the BID Policy 2022 to clarify minimum requirements, including adding an issues resolution option (the ability to terminate funding agreements in cases of ongoing non-compliance where other concerns are evident), and a requirement for unallocated funds to be reported in the annual report for transparency. Additionally, the deadline for annual accountability reporting will shift from 10 March to 1 December. Other minor changes are also proposed. A summary of proposed changes as part of the policy refresh are attached as Appendix B.

6. Key stakeholders including local boards, BID-operating business associations and relevant council departments will be engaged in the process with feedback sought by 28 February 2025.

7. The updated policy is scheduled for submission to the Governing Body in April 2025 with implementation commencing on 1 July 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the report and information regarding the proposed refresh of the BID Policy (2022) and agree to provide formal feedback on the changes proposed.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Auckland BID programme

8. BID-operating business associations are membership-based organisations independent of Auckland Council. The Auckland Council Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (the policy) sets out the framework for the governance, accountability, and management of a BID programme and targeted rate funding.

9. The policy supports the independent nature of the BID-operating business associations who are responsible for the BID programme delivery, its success, and are accountable to BID members/BID affiliates.

10. Local boards have the primary relationship with BID-operating business associations in their area:

· local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals

· local boards have allocated decision-making responsibility for BID programme establishments, amending existing BID programmes, BID boundary changes, continuation/discontinuation, and issue resolution.

Auckland Council Business Improvement District Policy (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi)

11. The policy was last substantially reviewed and updated in 2021/2022 and approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 26 July 2022. The policy will be approved for adoption by the Governing Body.

12. Auckland Council requires BID-operating business associations to fully comply with the policy and the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement (Appendix A)

13. The policy describes the reason for the BID programme and sets out the process for:

· establishing, continuing/discontinuing BID programmes;

· changes to the BID programme boundary area/map;

· changes to the BID targeted rating mechanism;

· issue resolution;

· key stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

14. The policy sets out the engagement and reporting requirements for BID-operating business associations to ensure all BID members/BID affiliates have access to the relevant BID programme information. BID-operating business associations must use their Annual General Meeting (AGM) process to obtain formal member approval for the BID programme delivery, budget and to confirm their BID targeted rate grant amount for the following financial year.

15. The three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement sets out the conditions of the BID targeted rate grant funding and the relationship between Auckland Council and a BID-operating business association.

16. There are currently 51 BID programmes within the region.

BID Targeted Rate

17. BID programmes are supported by a BID targeted rate grant providing sustainable funding to BID-operating business associations. A BID targeted rate is applied to business rated properties within a defined geographic area. The rates collected are then provided to the relevant BID-operating business association via an annual grant.

18. The amount of BID targeted rate grant is decided each year at the BID-operating business associations annual general meeting (AGM) as part of the income and expenditure budget for the following financial year.

19. BID targeted rates are set according to the procedure defined in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Section 23.

Local Board role with BID programmes

20. The policy recognises local board decision-making responsibilities in relation to:

· approval of the establishment of a new BID programme and boundary area

· approval of any changes to or amendments to an existing BID programme boundary area

· annually recommending BID programme targeted rate grant amounts to the Governing Body

· recommending to the Governing Body proposed changes to a BID targeted rating mechanism.

21. The BID Policy (2022) is an effective document and includes the provision for local boards to receive an annual BID compliance and accountability report (in May each year). The report provides the local board with information on any issues that may be impacting on the BID programme or BID-operating business association.

22. The May 2024 BID annual compliance report presented to local boards with BID programmes highlighted:

· compliance with the 10 March 2024 due date for accountability reporting was lower than previous years.

· fifty-one per cent (26) of BIDs successfully completed their annual accountability reporting by the due date of 10 March 2024

· forty-one per cent (21) were notified of missing information or documents and received an extension

· four BIDs failed to meet BID Policy Requirement 11 and did not complete annual accountability reporting.

23. These situations are of concern and undermines the BID Policy and the relationship between the organisations and Auckland Council. The BID-operating business associations that receive an allocation of public funds (BID targeted rate grants) should as a minimum reach the BID policy requirements.

24. Of the four BIDs that failed to meet the policy requirement 11, Hunters Corner and Māngere East Village BID were situations of continued non-compliance with the policy over multiple years.

Hunters Corner BID

25. For two years, the BID Team and the local board, dealt with a complex governance and management situation within the Hunters Corner BID involving:

· non-compliance with the BID Policy

· missing financial reporting and association financial records

· accumulating liabilities

· unauthorised changes to bank signatories

· absence of accountability reporting for grant funds received by the BID from local board and a CCO, over several years

· ineffective governance and management processes.

26. Whilst the existing policy issue resolution (section five) could have responded to these situations individually, the issues were long-term, undisclosed, and had no visibility due to governance practices within the business associations committee at the time. Once understood, these factors culminated in the need for effective and immediate decision making by Auckland Council.

27. The situation had moved beyond mere non-compliance with the BID Policy into actions that council deemed a significant risk to the funding and the associations obligations under the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant funding agreement.

Māngere East Village BID

28. For the past 18 months, staff and the local board have been working through governance and management issues with this BID which has included continued non-compliance with the policy. The BID has also failed to undertake governance processes as set out in their constitution.

29. The outcome of this situation has been the delay of targeted rate payments to the BID due to the concern that BID rate payers (BID affiliates) are receiving no value from the BID programme. The executive committee of Māngere East Village BID has taken no actions to regain compliance with the BID Policy.

30. The local board has been involved in the process and has instructed staff, under resolution, to work with the association towards BID discontinuation from June 2025.

Broadening the definition of an “issue” to include other factors

31. The combination of circumstances in both the examples above have contributed to the need to refresh and add clarity to the issue resolution options in the ‘issues’ section of the policy (Section 5). The existing BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement document allows for the option for council to not set the target rate and terminate the funding agreement.

32. The situations above (Hunters Corner BID and Mangere East BID) were more nuanced than purely non-compliance with the BID Policy. These situations were identified as:

· a failure to communicate relating to the non-compliance.

· debt accumulation with no actions towards reduction.

· disharmony within a business community.

33. The Introduction of the BID Policy (2022) notes that executive committees “must operate with the principles of trust, respect and democracy, and values of transparency and accountability, and good faith” (pg. 6). The lack of these factors is sometimes difficult to prove but their absence will have an impact on the reputation of a BID programme.

34. The purpose of the additional issue resolution option is to be able to consider factors other than non-compliance.

35. Feedback from local boards is particularly welcomed regarding what other circumstances could undermine the integrity of a BID programme and use of targeted rate.

36. The current policy notes that where an issue is identified, council will work with the BID to achieve compliance. Council staff will communicate with local boards when an issue is identified. This approach will remain unchanged.

37. The proposed new option for issue resolution aligns with current wording in the three-year grant agreement under the section ‘Termination”. The proposed policy wording would allow council to ‘Stop/ End’ (terminate) the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement and/or not set the BID targeted rate for subsequent years.

38. The business association would no longer be considered as operating a BID programme under the policy.

39. The proposed additional resolution option should not be of any concern to BID programmes that are compliant with the policy and do not have other act or thing that council deems a significant risk to the associations funding or the associations obligations under this agreement.

BID Policy refresh

40. Communication about the refresh of the current policy began in October 2024 to all stakeholders involved in the management and operation of BID programmes across Tāmaki Makaurau. Stakeholders include all local boards, both BID-operating and non-BID business associations, council departments and interested parties.

41. This report is part of that process and seeks feedback from each local board. A summary of proposed changes to the BID Policy 2022 is attached as Appendix B. Although the refresh focuses on specific areas of the policy, feedback on any section of the policy is welcome.

42. The feedback period is open until 28 February 2025.

43. If approved by the Governing Body in April 2025, the 2025 BID Policy will become operational from 1 July 2025.

44. There are no expected additional financial costs associated with undertaking this refresh.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rationale for the refresh

45. The refresh process is based on observations and feedback from working with the policy (2022), annual compliance requirements reporting, and as noted, complex governance and management issues.

46. The aim of the refresh is to:

a) add in more content and clarification to sections of the policy regarding the minimum requirements, including the sections relating to establishments and expansion projects.

b) For clarity purposes, to strengthen parts of the policy (and appendix documents) relating to issue resolution (section five).

Summary of proposed changes suggested for BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

47. The key proposed changes proposed for BID Policy (2025) are set out in Table 1.

Table 1 - Key changes made to the BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

Change from 2022 BID Policy	Description	Note	2022 section, Requirement
New Wording Proposed
Section 5 Issue resolution.	Clarifying what would be deemed an ‘issue’ in addition to non-compliance with the policy.	New wording for an additional option to strengthen this section. These changes should be of no concern to the majority of BIDs compliant with the policy.	Section 5 Requirement 22
	New wording added to: Requirement 22 ‘… or if Auckland Council becomes aware of any act or thing that is a significant risk to the funding or the obligations under the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement’.	Adding the ability for Auckland Council to act in situations where not only non-compliance with the policy is clear, but where there is a potential for serious risk to BID programme funding and the business associations obligations. Examples could include: · a failure to communicate relating to a non-compliance. · debt accumulation with no actions towards reduction. · disharmony within a business community. · a society not prepared to work with Auckland Council.
	‘Stop and End’ (terminate) the three- year target rate agreement and/ or not set the target rate for subsequent years.	‘Last case’ option for BIDs that are non-compliance and/ or with significant risk to the funding or the obligations under the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement.
New Section 2.6.3	Accumulated BID targeted rate grant/unspent BID targeted rate grant	To provide more clarity and transparency within the BID Treasurer report presented at the BID AGM. Treasurers report to include information on any BID targeted rate grant accumulated or unspent.	Added to Section 2.6
2.7	BID grant used to guarantee, secure, or repay borrowed or raised money. New wording to align with the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement.	Aligning the policy and the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement regarding the use of BID grant to guarantee, secure or repay borrowed or raised money.	Added to Section 2.6, and aligning with Requirement 6
Section 3, Table One	Updated tables - BID programme annual accountability reporting.	Table format updated, new headings and numbering. New wording to provide a better understanding of the minimum requirements and transparency of information reported.	Section 3
	New deadline for annual accountability reports to be with council	Change date of annual accountability reporting from 10 March to the earlier date of 1 December. BIDs can complete post AGM reporting within a shorter period. Enables better alignment between a) council confirmation of compliance with policy and b) council annual draft budget/10year plan engagement process.
4.1.2 and Requirement 14	Audit review option removed	Advice sought from Risk and Assurance Team recommended that all BIDs be required to undertake an annual full audit.	Section 4.1.2 and Requirement 14
Minor changes – to accommodate administration changes and updates, additional wording to provide clarification to support a better understanding of the requirements of the policy.
Various places in the policy		Updating references to the date of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022
	Removal of council website references	Information has been updated or is longer relevant.
	New wording or updated wording	Wording and sentence structure tidied up and align throughout the policy and appendix documents.
Section 3, Table One	Treasurer’s written report	Information transferred from Appendix D and amalgamated into Table One.	Section 3, Table One
4.1.2	Governance practices	New item due to changes within the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. New wording sets the notice requirements for AGM as a minimum of 14 days’ notice and SGM as a minimum of 21 days’ notice.	Section 4.1.2 and aligning with Requirement 13
Section 6	Table Three – BID ballot processes New Table Four – BID ballot process and mandate	Table Three captures information for the Eligible BID Voter list. New Table Four captures BID ballot process and mandate. Table format updated, wording added to tidy sentence structure and understanding of the processes associated with BID ballots.	Section 6.4, Table Three and new Table Four
Appendix A	Tidied up wording	To align with the policy
Appendix B	Tidied up wording	Tidied up form layout and sentence structure, wording and added in numbering
Appendix C	Tidied up wording
Appendix D	Removed	Information transferred and merged into Section 3, Table One
New Appendix D	Summary of policy requirements	Updated to align with policy
Appendix E	Abbreviation and definitions	Updated to align with policy

48. A detailed summary of the proposed changes to the policy and appendix documents is set out in Appendix B.

Draft BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

49. The draft BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will be presented to the Governing Body at the April 2025 meeting.

50. Once approved, BID Policy (2025), the appendix documents and changes document will be made available on the BID Auckland Council website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

51. The BID Policy (2025) focuses on the governance and accountability for BID-operating business associations. Individually the BID programme, through targeted rate-funding, can focus on advocacy and activities relating to climate factors at the request of their members.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Formal feedback will be sought from council teams and those who work and have an interest in the BID programme and business community space.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. Local boards strongly contributed to the development of BID Policy (2022). The refresh process for the development of BID Policy (2025) presents an opportunity for local board feedback that can shape the content of the policy.

54. Local boards are asked to provide formal feedback on the changes proposed for BID Policy (2025). Local boards are encouraged to engage with BID-operating business associations in their local board area to help to inform this feedback process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Officers are working with Auckland Council’s Ngā Mātārae Unit to ensure that the BID Policy (2025) aligns with the Auckland Council’s Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance measurement framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. There are no financial implications for local boards under the refresh of the BID Policy (2022).

57. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from business rated ratepayers and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from the refresh of the BID Policy (2022) and appendix documents.

59. The BID Policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association, and the accountability role council has for monies collected as a public sector organisation. This balance is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence with the Auckland Council BID programme.

60. At the completion of the refresh, BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will set out the requirements and obligations for BID-operating business associations and are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, to undertake and meet all requirements set out in the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. All BID-operating business associations and non-BID business associations will be advised of the refresh and invited to provide feedback on the changes proposed. The policy refresh, and engagement information will also be published on the council BIDs website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

62. Feedback from local board representatives on BID programmes is particularly valuable for policy development. Upon request, a workshop session could be organised. Appendix C details the stakeholders which the refresh will engage with.

63. Following formal feedback received from local boards, CCOs, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council departments, other external stakeholders, and those with an interest in BID programmes, the proposed BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will be put before the Policy and Governing Body in April 2025 for approval.

64. The BID Policy (2025), if approved by the Governing Body, BID Policy (2025) would become operational on 1 July 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022)	233
b ⇩	Changes between current Business Improvement District (BID) Policy and proposed BID Policy 2025	279
c ⇩	Stakeholder Engagement Programme	285

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO/External Partnerships team

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

26 February 2025

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Whau Local Board for quarter two 2024/2025

File No.: CP2025/00903

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Whau Local Board’s integrated quarterly performance report for quarter two, 1 October to 31 December 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2024/2025 work programme.

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with Whau Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· ID 487. Placemaking: Kai across the Whau: There is a food forest being trialled in parks at Avondale College, Intermediate and Primary, Fruitvale School, Northall Park, and with Te Kawerau A Maki. Investigation to establish a Food Forest at Eastdale Reserve is underway.

· ID 490. Diverse Participation: Ethnic Voices Whau: A successful Ethnic Seniors Event was also organised with over 150 participants.

· ID 1413. Whau Coastal Walkway Environment Trust Grant: Two pilot ocean rowing and kayak events were co-hosted with the West End Rowing Club, and a further four events are planned for 2025.

· ID 4532. Whau Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of Parks and Places) (Tranche two): Tranche two is now complete, with a whakarewatanga successfully held at Tiakina / Sister Rene Shadbolt Park. Gazettal of names is planned for Q3.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged).

6. The financial performance report for the quarter in Attachment B is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on half-year annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on or about 28 February 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the integrated performance report for quarter two ending 31 December 2024.

b) note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group half-year results for 2024/2025 are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX), which are expected to be made public on or about 28 February 2025.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Whau Local Board has an approved 2024/2025 work programme for the following:

· Customer and Community Services

· Local Environmental

· Auckland Emergency Management

· Local Governance

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

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

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Key activity updates from quarter two

11. ID 487. Placemaking: Kai across the Whau. There has been a hive of tangible activities in this programme within quarter two, assisting in the advancement of the knowledge and practice particularly of composting, pest management, planting and planted-food production. The programme involved members of neighbourhood communities, businesses, as well as several local and neighbouring area schools, in a variety of environmental projects:

· Community volunteers centred at Hope Garden, New Lynn, have continued gardening, composting, pruning and mulching activities, as well as rubbish collection from the Whau River in the vicinity. Rosehill Gardens Retirement Village have expressed interest in getting involved.

· Avondale Business Association got involved in the collection of 37 tonnes of food scraps which was converted to compost and then distributed.

· Green Bay High School, Fruitvale Intermediate School, Rangeview Intermediate School, Kelston Boys High School and Kelston Girls College received advice and/or support on composting hubs and planning food production.

· Fruitvale Intermediate School formed a working bee which, facilitated by Eco-Matters, undertook weed clearing along the Scroggy Stream, planted out garden beds and were taught how to create and maintain banana swales (trenches or raised beds where bananas are grown by layering food scraps and mulch).

· Avondale College sought Eco-Matters’ advice and is looking at building composting into the school curriculum which would earn NCEA credits.

· The groundwork has been laid for planning, development, and maintenance of urban food forests at various public sites across the Whau. To date, the programme has involved school communities from Avondale College, Avondale Intermediate, Avondale Primary, Fruitvale Intermediate as well as Te Kawerau a Maki.

12. ID 490. Diverse Participation: Ethnic voices Whau. Since the Whau Local Board’s adoption of the Whau Ethnic Peoples Plan in 2018, the resulting Whau Ethnic Committee has moved beyond its exploratory beginnings and has grown the range of cultural and social backgrounds from within the communities who get involved and deliver positive social as well as environmental outcomes. This is evidenced in quarter two with Whau’s diverse communities delivering some culturally traditional events and celebrations including Christmas, Diwali, Yalda and a Chinese Tea Ceremony. Less traditional programmes included a Drowning Prevention education session, Community Patrol workshop, and training to support carers of neurodiverse children. Environmental awareness was promoted through the Welcoming Communities delivery of a ‘Let’s Protect Our Environment’ event, an ethnic community targeted food scrap workshop delivered by Eco-Matters. There were fun events such as a Glenavon Ladies’ Night, an Ethnic Seniors Event, a Zumba party and there was also sponsorship for an Inclusive Community/Ethnic Award within the Youth Awards ceremony.

13. ID 1413. Whau Coastal Walkway Environment Trust (the Trust) Grant. This programme with a modest budget delivered activities which met several of the Whau Local Board’s projected outcomes (Our Places, Our People, Our Community).

· The Trust collaborated with the West End Rowing Club to pilot an ocean rowing and kayaking event. Due to its runaway success, a further four events are planned for 2025.

· The annual World Car-Free T-shirt competition was delivered in this quarter. The community was invited to leave the car at home and take a walk on any of the pathway sections by the Whau River, to inspire a T-shirt design that encourages alternative transport. A small prize was awarded to the winning entry.

· The Trust also continued to advocate to the Governing Body and Central Government for delivery of the yet to be built sections of Te Whau Pathway in the Whau area.

14. ID 4532. Whau Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of Parks and Places). Tranche two of this programme was concluded in quarter two. The final activity was the whakarewatanga (blessing ceremony) in December, for the unveiling of the new bilingual sign at Tiakina/Sister Rene Shadbolt Park.

· The name Tikana was gifted by local iwi, Te Kawerau ā Maki. Tiakina means to ‘look after, care, protect and conserve’. It can relate to tangata (people), whenua (land) and taiao (environment). Tiakina nga tangata (Look after people).

· Sister Renee Shadbolt (1903 to 1977) demonstrated her kaitiakitanga (care) for people in her work as a nurse, humanitarian and activist, in Aotearoa and in Europe; she served as nurse in the Spanish Civil War.

15. ID 683. Whau Urban Ngahere Knowing. A budget of $7,500 was allocated to this project to develop an action plan to plant new trees across the local board area. The Urban Ngahere "Knowing" phase is complete. In quarter three, staff discussed options to rescope the deliverables for 2024/2025. The local board supported additional surveys to enable future planting in road reserves and town centres. Planting was undertaken under a separate activity line ID 40238 Whau Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy.

16. ID 1332 Olympic Park Masterplan (Amber). Whau Local Board had tasked staff to develop a master plan to guide decision making for the future use and development of Olympic Park. A comprehensive feasibility study of the aging condition of the outdoor velodrome was undertaken. A report will be brought to quarter three to report the findings.

17. ID 4380 Local Civic Events Whau. No activity occurred in quarter two as none were scheduled. Staff recommend two events to be delivered in quarter four: Blockhouse Bay Library reopening and Ambrico Studio reopening.

Activities on hold

18. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

· 37665 New Lynn Community Centre– refurbish recreation hall. The project’s investigation and design stage is currently on hold due to adjustments in the work programme. Work will resume when funding is secured. Physical works are projected to commence in the 2027/2028 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

20. Work programmes were approved in June 2024 and delivery is already underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

21. The local board is currently investing in a number of sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around individual carbon emissions, and changing behaviour at a local level.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report informs the Whau Local Board of the performance for quarter two ending 31 December 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. The Whau Local Board’s ongoing engagement with the Māori community, organisations, and partners has repeatedly highlighted the desire for a shared west Auckland identity and the need for cross-boundary, multi-board approaches to deliver outcomes for Māori communities in the west. Work programmne activities reported on in quarter two follow.

25. ID 485 Community leadership. A collaborative approach was taken by Council staff to enable Community Waitakere to lead work strengthening the relationship with Ko Taku Reo management. In July co-designing work began with Ko Taku Reo staff, Community Waitakere and council staff to enable discussions towards a proposed co-designed wananga for deaf rangatahi and their whanau. Face to face hui with Ko Taku Reo rangatahi and staff was very positive, followed by an online hui with some challenges holding up the process. An Open Door Day was co-hosted by Odyssey House in New Lynn with ten attendees from the Whau area. Community Waitakere e-newsletters provided relevant information for the community and their office space is made available for the use of community groups.

26. ID 492 Placemaking: Community Hubs and Houses Whau. New Windsor hub hosted Cook Island, Tongan and Māori language weeks.

27. ID 493 Māori Responsiveness: E Tu - responding to the key aspirations and priorities for Māori. The new Kaitūhono met the three west Community Brokers; the primary focus was whakawhanaungatanga and to introduce the Community Brokers role. The Kaitūhono will report to the local board in November. Taumata o Te Whau and Matua Pasifika met monthly for waiata, ukulele, social gatherings and preparations for the local KeliFest. Matariki Housie was supported by the Onewherowhero kapa haka roopu, the elders had taking home winnings of vegetables and fruit. Blockhouse Bay Community Matariki movie night was celebrated with over two hundred people, the celebration brought people back into the Bay after months of closure due to the renovations. Glenavon Hub provide weekly Te Reo and Te Ao Māori classes and collaborated with EcoMatters to deliver a weaving wananga and Matariki was celebrated in collaboration with the Whau Ethnic Collective that included baking classes. Green Bay Community Hub Te Ao Māori and Te Reo Māori classes are well attended, including cooking and hangi lessons. Glendene Hub celebrated Matariki with over one hundred and ten local people that participated and enjoyed waiata, storytelling, games and hangi. Community Waitakere and Council staff are working with Ko Taku Reo staff and students to support the proposed marae protocols and tikanga Māori programme.

28. ID 1056 Library services. Te Wiki o te reo Māori fell in this quarter. To support the growth of the language, library staff delivered preschool literacy sessions featuring te reo stories and songs and created displays spotlighting Māori language resources. The July school holiday programme explored the traditions of Matariki. All programme sessions were well attended.

29. ID 1406 Mana Whenua Engagement. Engagement this quarter continued to build on fostering relationships with mana whenua through the rangatira-ki-te-rangatira/ chief to chief (governance) hui with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Whau Local Board together with Waitākere Ranges and Henderson-Massey Local Boards. The hui was held on Friday 30 August which resulted in an agreed additional meeting between Whau Local Board and Te Kawerau ā Maki to discuss 2025/26 Work Programme opportunities. No budget was spent this quarter as costs are shared between boards for these huis and will be expended in future quarters.

30. ID 4532 and 4162 Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of Parks and Places) tranches two and three. In October, staff attended board workshop to discuss details for an unveiling ceremony of dual language signage at Tiakina / Sister Rene Shadbolt Park. The Whakarewatanga (blessing ceremony) took place at the park in December 2025. Staff have commenced work on identifying sites for tranche three.

31. Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. This report is provided to enable the Whau Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2024/2025 work programme.

33. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the Council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on or about 28 February 2025. Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

35. The approved Customer and Community Services capex work programme include projects identified as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP). These are projects that the Community Facilities delivery team will progress, if possible, in advance of the programmed delivery year. This flexibility in delivery timing will help to achieve 100 per cent financial delivery for the financial year if projects intended for delivery in the current financial year are delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

36. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter three (31 March 2025).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Whau Local Board - 1 October 2024-31 December 2025 Work Programme Update	307
b ⇨	Attachment B - Operating Performance Financial Summary - CONFIDENTIAL (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Antonina Georgetti - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

[1] Service property optimisation is a process that aims to deliver improved community outcomes through investment of sale proceeds. The aim is to release value from underperforming assets, through selling development rights or land, to reinvest in improved service delivery.

Chairperson	Kay Thomas
Deputy Chairperson	Fasitua Amosa
Members	Ross Clow
	Catherine Farmer
	Valeria Gascoigne
	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin
	Warren Piper

Authors	Liam Courtney - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager