Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, and the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 - Papatoetoe Railway Station Preservation Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Ray Strong, QSM, Chairman Papatoetoe Railway Station Preservation Trust would be presenting to the board regarding The Old Railway Station building, situated on,1 St George Street which was first built in 1875. The building is of historical importance to the area that it should be considered to maintain its presence in Papatoetoe.

2. To maintain commercial viability the cafe was established to ensure that it had sufficient funds to be maintained without becoming a burden on the local Board finances.

3. The Trust would consider the Boards proposals for the future should that be an option. The current parking is certainly not desirable and a solution must be found should the Cafe continue in the future. Look forward to introducing further enlightened discussion.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Ray Strong, Chairman Papatoetoe Railway Station Preservation Trust for his deputation and attendance.

8.2 Deputation - Annie King

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Annie King, a resident of 63 Sikkim Crescent, Clover Park, would like to address the board regarding the condition of the pavement outside her home. Trees planted by the council years ago have now caused significant damage to the footpath due to overgrown roots. Additionally, rubbish has been illegally dumped on the footpath. There have been two accidents as a result of the damaged pavement, one of which led to Annie being hospitalized.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Annie King for her deputation and attendance.

8.3 Deputation - Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Julie Chambers Co-Chair of Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum (TEEF) will present to the board on the importance of maintaining clean and healthy waterways for their constituents. The presentation will also support board members in actively collaborating with the other four local boards that have coastlines along the Tāmaki Estuary.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Julie Chambers of Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum for her deputation and attendance.

Attachments

a TEEF - Presentation.................................................... 319

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.”

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Landowner Approval to alter the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit Designation within the Manukau Sport Bowl

File No.: CP2025/03743

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to request landowner approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (OPLB) for the proposed alteration of the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit (A2B) designation within the Manukau Sports Bowl (MSB) site. A landowner approval is requested from OPLB to make it clear to the local authority that they are supportive of the alteration and that no further consultation is required.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The A2B project developed concept designs and Notice of Requirement (NoR) documentation in 2022, designating for a stormwater wetland in the MSB site to mitigate the project’s stormwater effects from Te Irirangi Drive. The OPLB is the landowner of MSB.

3. The proposed location was considered by the wider Council Group and OPLB to impose constraints to the development of the MSB Master Plan, adopted in 2022. Auckland Transport (AT), Eke Panuku, and Auckland Council Community Facilities and Heathy Waters subsequently embarked on a collaborative process to identify an alternative A2B stormwater wetland location.

4. A MSB Integrated Stormwater Management Investigation options assessment was completed in 2024, and a mutually agreed alternative location was identified near the MSB main entrance at Te Irirangi Drive.

5. AT confirmed it would alter the designation in the MSB site following the resolution of the A2B NoR appeals phase.

6. With the appeals phase now nearing completion (approximately mid-2025), AT is preparing documentation to alter the designation at this site. To inform this, a landowner approval is required to make it clear to the local authority that they are supportive of the alteration and that no further consultation is required.

7. OPLB were updated on the A2B project and the afore mentioned process to move the designation within the MSB at the March 2025 workshop (presentation included in Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide landowner approval for AT to alter the A2B designation within the Manukau Sports Bowl site in line with the recommended location detailed in this report.

Horopaki

Context

8. A2B will provide a high-quality, frequent, and reliable public transport service between Auckland International Airport, Manukau and Botany; improving South and East Aucklanders access and travel choices to jobs, education and social opportunities

9. Key features include: 18kms of fully separated congestion-free rapid transit corridor; 18 kms of new safe, separated walking and cycling facilities; a reliable 34-38-minute journey between Botany and the Airport; and 12 high quality rapid transit stations – including two in Manukau Central and one adjacent to the MSB site on Te Irirangi Drive. A2B will fill a significant 18 km gap in the rapid transit network and connect to four existing and proposed rapid transit lines.

10. The A2B alignment and station locations are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Airport to Botany Bus Rapid Transit

11. The A2B business case was completed and approved by the AT board in early 2021. A key next step was to secure the route, as the project requires additional land beyond the existing road corridor. The route protection phase was initiated in late 2021, with the development of Notice of Requirement (NoR) documentation. As part of the NoR work, more detailed assessment of stormwater mitigation requirements for the project was undertaken.

12. The MSB site is subject to the “Manukau Sports Bowl Master Plan”, adopted by the OPLB in 2022. It sets out the vision, objectives, and priority sports and functions for the redevelopment of the park over the next 30 years.

13. As part of the NoR designation, A2B proposed to use part of the MSB site to provide stormwater management for a section of Te Irirangi Drive (A2B NoR 2 documentation, 2022). However, the proposed location for the A2B stormwater wetland in the MSB site was considered by Eke Panuku and Auckland Council (AC) Community Facilities (on behalf of the OPLB) to impose constraints to the implementation of the MSB master plan.

14. Eke Panuku, AC Community Facilities, AC Healthy Waters and AT subsequently embarked on a collaborative process to identify an alternative A2B stormwater wetland location within the MSB site that would achieve a mutually agreeable outcome.

15. The A2B NoRs were ultimately lodged with Auckland Council in December 2022, ahead of this process concluding. This was required to negate the expiration of a 40m Unitary Plan building setback on State Highway 20B that protected the route for rapid transit but expires and reduces to 10m in January 2023 – unless a NoR is lodged by December 2022. The NoRs were lodged on the basis that the collaborative work continued, and that a mutually agreeable alternative location would be found in due course.

16. The A2B NoRs have progressed through the Council process and is now in the appeals phase. The appeal phase is projected to be completed by mid to late 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. A MSB Integrated Stormwater Management Investigation options assessment (included in Attachment A) was completed in early 2024.

18. In summary, six options were assessed, including utilising swales, wetlands and combinations of both. A multi-criteria analysis was used to assist decision making.

19. Eke Panuku, AC Community Facilities, AC Healthy Waters and AT jointly evaluated the options in workshops, appraising each option against the agreed criteria based on the stormwater management objectives; masterplan integration; future planning and use of the park; A2B requirements and management and deliverability.

20. A mutually agreed alternative location for the A2B stormwater wetland was identified near the MSB park main entrance at Te Irirangi Drive.

21. At the meeting, AT committed to altering the designation for the MSB site following resolution of the NoR appeals (likely mid-2025).

22. With the appeals phase nearing completion, AT is preparing documentation to alter the designation at this site. To inform this designation alteration, a landowner approval is requested from OPLB to make it clear to the local authority that they are supportive of the alteration and that no further consultation is required.

23. A record of support of the proposed change to the A2B stormwater wetland location (and associated designation) within the minutes of the OPLB March 2025 business meeting will constitute a landowner approval in this instance.

24. The current A2B NoR stormwater wetland location in the MSB site and the agreed alternative location is shown in Figures 2 and 3 below.

Figure 2: MSB Master Plan showing existing and recommended alternative A2B stormwater wetland location

Figure 3: Plan showing where the existing A2B stormwater wetland designation in the MSB site will be altered.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. Making this proposed change will not alter the projects approach to stormwater management and any potential requirements under AT’s climate policy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. Eke Panuku, AC Community Facilities and AC Healthy Waters informed the development of the MSB Integrated Stormwater Management Investigation solution and support the recommended alternative location site as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The OPLB provided their viewLandowner Approval to alter the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit Designation within the Manukau Sport Bowl in May 2023 (Resolution number OP/2023/69) and with specific reference to Transform Manukau projects including Manukau Sports Bowl (x, xi) in the feedback.

28. OPLB have indicated support for the recommended alternative A2B stormwater wetland location in the MSB site.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. Mana Whenua have been extensively engaged during the business case and NoR development phases. No issues regarding the location of this stormwater wetland within the MSB was raised. Mana Whenua will be briefed of the alteration to designation application prior to lodgement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. Altering the designation will result in a minor cost to the project and will be funded by AT.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. No risks are identified with this proposed change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Following the confirmation of the OPLB March 2025 meeting minutes, AT will develop the designation alteration application and lodge it with Auckland Council for processing following resolution of the NoR appeals.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	A2B Update Manukau Sports Bowl March 2025	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Patrick Buckley, Team Leader, Consent Planning Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Renata Smit, A2B Programme Lead \| Transport Investment Manager South & East, Auckland Transport

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects 2025-2026

File No.: CP2025/01628

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek decisions from Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to authorise the new projects it wishes to support with its Local Board Transport Capital funding (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Local boards can use the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) to deliver transport infrastructure projects that are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. The capital budget is provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT.

3. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board’s share of the 2023-2026 LBTCF fund for the current electoral term was $ 2,365,274. Last year the budget was reduced however following the finalisation of the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan, this budget was increased to $48.7m of which $17m is approved for the current financial year (2024/2025) and $20.4m for the next (2025/2026).

4. Together with savings from currently active projects ($375,000), the local board has additional funds of $1,111,394 to allocate to new projects.

5. Auckland Transport (AT) seeks three decisions for Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects:

· Papatoetoe North School improvement - installation of safety barriers and wider footpaths

· Woburn Street/Portage Road - intersection upgrade

· Kolmar Road and Buckland Road - pedestrian improvements (at the Weston Avenue intersection) and

6. Auckland Transport also seeks a decision for additional funding to complete for the, Wyllie/Kenderdine Road Pedestrian Improvements projectwhich requires an additional $30,000. More recent cost estimates have resulted in an increase to the amount of $20,000, presented to the board earlier.

7. The local board were presented with a list of candidate projects at the 28 January 2025 workshop, together with indicative costs of the projects. (Attachment A).

8. The local board is now invited to allocate funding to any of these projects.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

i) authorises Auckland Transport to complete the Wyllie/Kenderdine Road pedestrian improvements project in the current programme with additional required funding of $30,000 for recommended option 3.3.

ii) allocates $250,000 towards Papatoetoe North School improvement.

iii) allocates $250,000 towards Woburn Street/Portage Road intersection upgrade.

iv) allocates $200,000 towards Kolmar Road Pedestrian improvements.

v) allocates $381,394 towards Buckland Road pedestrian crossing.

vi) approves as its first priority, that any cost savings from its currently active local board transport capital fund projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available be applied to its active projects if they require additional funding to complete within the current 3-year local board programme.

vii) approves as its second priority, that any further cost savings from the completion of its currently active local board transport capital fund projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available, be applied to these projects:

a. Ravenna Way /Flat Bush intersection pedestrian improvement with a cost estimate of $150,000.

b. Ngati Otara Park pathways with a cost estimate of $1,357,090

Horopaki

Context

9. Auckland Transport manages Auckland’s transport network on behalf of Auckland Council. Auckland Transport’s Kōkiri Agreement provides a structured annual process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes. Every year local boards and Auckland Transport work together to set ‘levels of engagement’ for projects and programmes that Auckland Transport is delivering. This process clearly defines the board’s expectations and Auckland Transport’s responsibilities.

10. The levels of engagement noted in the Kōkiri Agreement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine, were agreed between Auckland Council and Council Controlled Organisations in 2020; and are as follows:

1. Collaborate - Auckland Transport and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible. The engagement level for the local board transport capital projects is Collaborate.

2. Consult - Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, Auckland Transport incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.

3. Inform – Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, Auckland Transport incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.

11. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) is an Auckland Transport fund established in 2012 to allow local boards to deliver small projects in their local area that would not normally be prioritised by Auckland Transport. Since 2020, when COVID 19 lockdowns impacted on Auckland Council’s revenue the LBTCF has been reduced.

12. Last year, the total budget for all local boards was reduced from the indicative budget of $45m to $29.5m for the 3-year term. After the finalisation of the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan, this budget was increased to $48.7m of which $17m is approved for the current FY2025 and $20.4m is endorsed for FY2026.

13. Therefore, the indicative budget for Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has been increased from $1.785m to $2.521m for the 3-year term. The local board has allocated a portion of this budget to projects already and these projects are either completed, construction ready or in design.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Active projects

14. The following table recaps the status of current active projects in the programme:

Projects	Resolved Budget + AT Approved budget	Project Status	Cost Savings	Funding required to be resolved to complete the project
Pedestrian Crossing for Bairds Mainfreight Primary Ashton Avenue – St Johns School Safety	$136,029.80	Completed	-	-
Hill Road / Wyllie Road intersection	$370,000.00	Completed	$10,000.00	-
Wyllie Road / Kenderdine improvements	$138,057.00	External Consultation	-	$30,000.00
Haumia Way pedestrian Crossing	$375,000.00	Completed	$50,000.00	-
Tutere Road pedestrian crossing	$400,000.00	Completed	$140,000.00	-
Cornwall Road safety improvements	$365,969.00	Completed	$175,000.00	-
		Total	$375,000.00	$30,000.00

Table 1 – Update on active projects

15. On 28 January 2025 Auckland Transport staff provided advice to the local board about the progress of current active projects.

16. For the Wyllie Road / Kenderdine Road improvements, options for delivery were presented, refer Attachment B. Auckland Transport recommended Option 3.3 for a refuge island where pedestrians prefer to cross and improved street lighting.

17. Preferred Solution

Concept plan for recommended option – 3.3

18. The board preferred Option 3.3 in the local board workshop on on 26 November 2024.for

19. AT notes a change in the estimate of additional funding required to complete this project from $20,000 to $30,000. The change is based on latest estimates to that presented to the board at its workshop on 28 January 2025.

20. Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are at a ‘Collaborate’ level of engagement, so require the board to authorise the proposed plans and additional budget required.

New LBTCF Budget

21. Auckland Transport attended a workshop with the local board on 28 January 2025. At this workshop, Auckland Transport confirmed that through the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan process, an additional budget was now available for the board to allocate to new LBTCF projects.

22. With this new budget and savings from current active projects, the local board now has an indicative budget of $1,111,394.

23. At the workshop, Auckland Transport presented a number of candidate projects with indicative costing for the local board to consider for funding (See Attachment A).

24. After discussion, the local board indicated that its priorities lay with the projects in the following table:

Project Name	Project Description	High level cost estimate
Papatoetoe North School Improvement	Install safety barriers and wider footpaths outside Papatoetoe North School on Graeme Avenue to allow children to use the pedestrian crossing and be protected from flooding during and after periods of heavy rain. Safety barriers to protect children and discourage vehicles from parking on the berm.	$250,000
Woburn Street/Portage Road intersection upgrade	Install pedestrian and vehicle tracking improvements at this intersection, where many Kedgley Intermediate students are crossing. The scope of the project is to provide pedestrian improvements such as kerb buildouts.	$250,000
Kolmar Road pedestrian improvements	Install pedestrian improvements on Kolmar Road at the Weston Avenue intersection. Oakland Avenue provides a connection to the Papatoetoe Recreation Grounds and Great South Road. The scope of the project is to provide a new refuge island on Kolmar Road.	$200,000
Buckland Road pedestrian crossing upgrade	The community has raised concerns regarding vehicles not stopping at the existing flush zebra crossing. Many school students cross at this location. The scope of the project is to upgrade this flush zebra crossing to a signalised pedestrian crossing.	$381,394
Total new projects		$1,081,394
Wyllie Road / Kenderdine Road improvements	Additional funds required to complete the project	$30,000
Total required		$1,111,394

25. Other projects considered:

Project Name

Project Description

High level cost estimate

Ravenna Way/Flat Bush Road intersection pedestrian improvement

Install pedestrian improvements for a new refuge island and upgrade pram crossings on Ravenna Way. Also to reduce the speeds of vehicles turning in and out of the intersection.

$150,000

Ngati Ōtara Park – Pathways (old LBTCF FY23 project)

Install a new path. The findings of the investigation will be presented to the Board by Auckland Council. The previous budget allocated for design and investigation was $37,441.

Section C West - $870,000

Section D East - $487,090

$1,357,090

26. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board is invited to allocate funding to any of the above projects within the restraints of the available budget.

27. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board may wish to consider funding the projects in the above table from a future funding allocation in the next political term.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The Local Board Transport Capital projects noted for decision do not impact on Council facilities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. The Local Board Transport Capital projects were workshopped with local board members prior to this report being submitted.

31. At the 28 January 2025 workshop, local board members expressed support for the Papatoetoe North School improvement especially after their presentation to local board, Woburn Street/Portage Road intersection upgrade, Kolmar Road Pedestrian improvements and Buckland Road pedestrian crossing upgrade projects, as a priority for the use of their Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

32. Further discussions at the 28 January 2025 workshop confirmed the local board’s funding priorities as set out in #31.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

35. In this case, neither decision involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water so specific Māori input was not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The local board transport capital project decisions do have financial implications for the local board.

37. The local board can fund new projects based on the remaining funds of $1,111,394.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. The proposed decisions do have some risk, any construction project can be affected by a range of factors including weather, contract availability or discovery of previously un-identified factors like unmapped infrastructure.

39. The costs outlined in Attachment A are indicative costings and selected projects may cost more or less than the amount indicated. Once projects are selected, further investigation will confirm project costings.

40. Auckland Transport manages risk by retaining a 10% contingency on the projects and historically there are several occasions in the organisation has used budget surpluses in other programmes to support delivery of the LBTCF. However, there is always a small risk that more money may be required from the LBTCF.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. The following activities or actions are planned:

a) If the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board resolves to authorise the additional funding to Wyllie Road / Kenderdine Road improvements, Auckland Transport will revise the design to buildout kerbs, make major upgrades to street lighting and include bus stop improvements which was not part of the initial proposal and scope.

b) If the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board resolves to support new projects with its additional funds, Auckland Transport will begin investigation and initial design and report back to the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	LBTCF Workshop Presentation dated 28 January 2025	57
b ⇩	Auckland Transport update to Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board 5 November 2024 - Wyllie / Kenderdine Safety Improvements Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board by Rahul Gowtham	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Jennifer Fraser, Elected Member Relationship Partner
Authorisers	John Gillespie, Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2025/04067

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on Auckland Transport’s proposed work programme for 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport is building a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes.

3. At this stage of the Kōkiri (part of the Local Board Relationship Project), Auckland Transport is seeking formal views on the proposed work programme for 2025-2026.

4. Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board on 26 November 2024 and 11 February 2025 to aid developing views on priorities.

5. After the local board provides formal views, Auckland Transport will provide a response to the local board before delivering a draft local board transport agreement (Kōkiri) to March 2025 business meetings for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide views on the proposed work programme, specifically on which projects the local board requests Auckland Transport to:

i) Collaborate on Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects.

A. Wyllie / Kenderdine pedestrian improvements.

B. Papatoetoe North School pedestrian safety improvements.

C. Woburn Street/Portage Road intersection upgrade.

D. Kolmar Road pedestrian improvements.

E. Buckland Road pedestrian crossing upgrade.

ii) Consult with the local board on the following projects:

A. Town Centre Review / Room to Move – Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP) Manukau

B. Room to Move – Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP) Papatoetoe Station (planning phase)

iii) Inform the local board about the following projects:

A. Bus Stop Improvements on Great South Road, Pah Road, Puhinui Road and Coronation Road

B. Bus shelter renewals (various) - renewal of End of Life and damaged bus shelters.

C. Middlemore Hop Gate Project Middlemore HOP gate project.

D. Installation of 3 new HOP gateline arrays to be delivered by AT on the new island platform which is being delivered by KiwiRail at Middlemore Station. Complete by June 2025.

E. Fitzroy Street pedestrian improvements. Tavistock Road access way connects Fitzroy Street and midblock crossing on Puhinui Road. Some parents park on Fitzroy street and cross the location to get to Puhinui School, therefore improvements are proposed to address the visibility concerns, parking issues and lack of facilities.

F. Franklyne Road and Alexander Crescent Raised zebra crossings, Ōtara.

G. Station Road and Portage Road pop up protection between Buckland Road and Shirley Road. 1.4km Pop up protection on existing painted cycle lanes.

H. Buckland Road pop up protection (partially within Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board) - Between Robertson Road and Portage Road. 2.65km Pop up protection on existing painted cycle lanes (approximately 700m within Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board).

I. Great South Road South pop up protection between Te Irirangi Drive and Manukau Station Road

J. Great South Road (Maxwell Avenue and Tāmaki River Bridge); pop up protection, between Maxwell Avenue and Tāmaki River Bridge

K. Great South Road (Tāmaki Bridge to St George Street)

Corridor improvements for freight, PT and general vehicles. Look into SVL improvement along GSR in both directions. The southern part of the corridor between St George Street & Puhinui Road has been excluded from the project scope as our data and site observations don't show issues in that section.

L. Highbrook Drive Corridor Freight Improvements

Highbrook Drive from Cryers Road to SH1, including SH1 interchange and Hellaby Road. Highbrook Drive and Hellabys Road corridor and SH1 Interchange investigation with NZTA, to identify opportunities to improve capacity.

M. Accent Drive Corridor Improvement

Accent Drive from East Tāmaki Road to Chapel Road. Investigation of optimization solutions for Accent Drive to the west of East Tāmaki Road through to Chapel Road.

N. Airport to Botany Rapid Transit project (A2B).

b) provides any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes:

A. Budget increase requests to retain the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and restore it to pre-Covid levels.

B. Inter-agency co-operation requests (Waka Kotahi and Auckland Council)

C. Advocate for increased bus services and infrastructure

D. Consultation on asset management policy or strategy development.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

6. In mid-2023, Kōkiri was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT).

7. The project was in part a response to the 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations which highlighted the need for local boards and Auckland Transport to work more meaningfully and collaboratively.

8. AT has taken steps to improve information flow and local board decision-making, including:

· instituting an annual forward works programme briefing for all local boards

· increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

· providing local board insights in all project engagement

· participating in Auckland Council’s CCO Engagement Plan reporting.

9. Auckland Transport aims to provide a better basis for communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations, and opportunities.

10. The overall purpose of this process is to identify local board interest in AT projects and programmes and to clearly express the preferred levels of local board engagement.

11. The levels of engagement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine; and are as follows:

Collaboration	AT and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.
Consultation	AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.
Informing	AT leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by AT, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. AT first provided quality advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 26 November 2024.

13. The local board has continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 11 February 2025.

14. This report seeks to confirm local board feedback on the proposed work programme and seek views on how the local board wants to work together with Auckland Transport.

15. Auckland Transport recommends that the local board prioritises work programme items aligned to transport goals stated in their local board plan.

16. The local board should prioritise a list of projects and programmes for each of the three levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform).

17. Auckland Transport resource is limited. Projects in the collaborate and consult require significant staff and elected member time such as:

· providing quality advice, including technical advice on options and their costs as well as benefit analysis. Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop.

· considering the advice, time is required for members to process and understand the advice provided.

· making a formal decision, i.e., feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

18. Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as local board transport capital fund projects.

19. Other projects and programmes that may be at the ‘collaborate’ level include any projects which the local board has delegated financial control over either by AT, council or by another government agency like New Zealand Transport Agency.

20. There may also be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but is not currently identified in AT planning. Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes.

21. There may be projects or programmes that the local board considers are not supported by the community it represents. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to express its community’s concerns about proposed work. AT will consider and may decide not to proceed with these projects based on the local board’s feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. AT engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed AT to improve the relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how AT will achieve closer Local Board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

25. AT’s ‘2023-26 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (AT) will engage more meaningfully and transparently with Local Boards, recognising that they represent their communities, and that they should have greater involvement in local transport projects that affect those communities. This means a genuine partnership where we seek to understand the unique and diverse needs of each Local Board at a regional level, not just by project. We will work in partnership to integrate those needs into our planning. We will support Local Boards to communicate integrated local transport planning to their communities.”

26. Project Kōkiri provides an annual process where local boards prioritise a group of key programmes or projects, identifying them to AT, and setting engagement levels that capture the local board’s expectations. This plan forms the basis for regular reporting on key programs and projects. Project Kōkiri will be supported by regular updates to provide transparency.

27. Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division. It has also been reported generally monthly to the Local Board Chair’s Forum and discussed with a reference group of local board chairs.

28. Further, this work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other CCOs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 26 November 2024, to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. They have been specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by AT executive leaders.

30. There was an additional workshop on 11 February 2025 with the AT Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views.

31. This information in the workshop material reflected the quality advice discussed with the local board at the 11 February 2025 workshop.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. This decision has no financial implications for Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

35. Local boards do have a transport budget through the Local Board Transport funds, and these projects are included in this report. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. The proposed decision does carry some risk. First, the local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs to AT and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. After receiving this report, AT will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

38. AT may engage with the local board directly after receiving their formal resolutions to clarify positions or to discuss the proposed levels of engagement.

39. By mid-May 2025, AT will provide a memo outlining its response to this report. This memo will provide the basis for future engagement.

40. In June 2025, AT will draft a report with an attached annual ‘Kōkiri’ (local board transport agreement) stating how AT and the local board will engage over the next 12 months.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōtara-Papatoetoe - Forward Works Programme Brief	99

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Jennifer Fraser, Elected Member Relationship Partner
Authorisers	John Gillespie, Head of Stakeholder and Elected Member Relations

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Approval for six new road names at 3 St George Street, Papatoetoe

File No.: CP2025/03003

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board to name six new private roads created by way of a subdivision development at 3 St George Street, Papatoetoe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The developer and applicant, Avant EPCF Piko Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

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

5. The proposed names for the new roads at 3 St George Street, Papatoetoe are:

	Applicant’s Preference	Alternatives
Road 1	Pikotoetoe Lane	Tawakawaka Lane or Tapore Lane
Road 2	Te Ara Tapore	Te Ara Hakoko or Te Ara Pokatata
Road 3	Te Ara Hakoko	Te Ara Tapore or Te Ara Tiwhana
Road 4	Te Ara Tawakawaka	Te Ara Pikotoetoe or Te Ara Tukutata
Road 5	Kauwhanga Lane	Te Ara Tipoka or Waikohu Lane
Road 6	Tiwhana Crescent	Waikohu Crescent or Punehu Crescent

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the names as follows for the three new roads created by the subdivision undertaken by Avant EPCF Piko Limited at 3 St George Street, Papatoetoe, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90120126, resource consent reference BUN60392049).

i. Pikotoetoe Lane (Road 1)

ii. Te Ara Tapore (Road 2)

iii. Te Ara Hakoko (Road 3)

iv. Te Ara Tawakawaka (Road 4)

v. Kauwhanga Lane (Road 5)

vi. Tiwhana Crescent (Road 6)

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference BUN60392049 was approved on 27 October 2022 for a residential subdivision development creating a number of private roads and pedestrian accesses at 3 St George Street.

7. The development is known as Pikotoetoe. It is a mana whenua residential housing development on land acquired from Eke Panuku Development Auckland. Te Ākitai Waiohua Investment Trust is a limited partner in the housing development entity, Papatoetoe Whare Tupu Limited Partnership that is completing this development in partnership with Avant EPCF Piko Limited.

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

9. In accordance with the standards, any road including private ways, commonly owned accessed lots (COALs), and right of ways, that serve five or more lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical, and efficient street numbering.

10. In this development six private roads are required to be named as they would each be serving more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

13. Theme: The proposed names have been gifted by Te Ākitai Waiohua, reflecting their values and aspirations. Some of the names also reflect the landscape features in the surrounding area and within the development.

Road Number	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Road 1	Pikotoetoe Lane (applicant’s preference)	Te Ākitai Waiohua provided the following explanation: ‘Toetoe’ is a direct reference to Papatoetoe as a place, which means ‘undulating land of toetoe (grass)’. ‘Piko’ means to bend or sway, so Pikotoetoe refers to bending or swaying toetoe grass. Symbolically Pikotoetoe acknowledges the new and the old with a ‘new’ development located in ‘old’ Papatoetoe. The traditional toetoe concept behind the place name contrasts with the area adapting and changing, or figuratively bending and swaying, with the times. The strong roots and foundation established in the area allows the toetoe to bend and sway with the winds of change, acknowledging there is still flexibility even though the grass remains steadfast. Overall the Pikotoetoe name is intended to reflect making an existing community stronger through transformation.
	Tawakawaka Lane (alternative)	‘Tawakawaka’ means undulating. This is a traditional reference to Papatoetoe as the ‘undulating land of toetoe.
	Tapore Lane (alternative)	The name means "bending" as a reference to Pikotoetoe and continuing the concept/theme.
Road 2	Te Ara Tapore (applicant’s preference)	The name means "bending" as a reference to Pikotoetoe and continuing the concept/theme
	Te Ara Hakoko (alternative)	The name means "bending" as a reference to Pikotoetoe and continuing the concept/theme
	Te Ara Pokatata (alternative)	The name means direct route or shortcut and it refers to the location of this laneway between houses.
Road 3	Te Ara Hakoko (applicant’s preference)	‘Hakoko’ means twisted as a reference to Pikotoetoe and continuing the concept/theme.
	Te Ara Tapore (alternative)	The name means "bending" as a reference to Pikotoetoe and continuing the concept/theme
	Te Ara Tiwhana (alternative)	Tīwhana or "curve" is a reference to Pikotoetoe and continues the concept/theme.
Road 4	Te Ara Tawakawaka (applicant’s preference)	‘Tawakawaka’ means undulating. This is a traditional reference to Papatoetoe as the ‘undulating land of toetoe.
	Te Ara Pikotoetoe (alternative)	Te Ākitai Waiohua provided the following explanation: ‘Toetoe’ is a direct reference to Papatoetoe as a place, which means ‘undulating land of toetoe (grass)’. ‘Piko’ means to bend or sway, so Pikotoetoe refers to bending or swaying toetoe grass. Symbolically Pikotoetoe acknowledges the new and the old with a ‘new’ development located in ‘old’ Papatoetoe. The traditional toetoe concept behind the place name contrasts with the area adapting and changing, or figuratively bending and swaying, with the times. The strong roots and foundation established in the area allows the toetoe to bend and sway with the winds of change, acknowledging there is still flexibility even though the grass remains steadfast. Overall the Pikotoetoe name is intended to reflect making an existing community stronger through transformation.
	Te Ara Tukutata (alternative)	The name means direct route or shortcut and it refers to the location of this laneway between houses.
Road 5	Kauwhanga Lane (applicant’s preference)	‘Kauwhanga’ means corridor. This refers to the location of the private road within the development and that this is one of the smallest lanes within the development
	Te Ara Tipoka (alternative)	‘Tīpoka’ is a direct route referring to the location of this lane between two roads.
	Waikohu Lane (alternative)	‘Waikohu’ means fog or mist and is referring to nearby Kohura Park as a feature or place of significance in Papatoetoe
Road 6	Tiwhana Crescent (applicant’s preference)	Tīwhana or "curve" is a reference to Pikotoetoe and continues the concept/theme.
	Waikohu Crescent (alternative)	‘Waikohu’ means fog or mist and is referring to nearby Kohura Park as a feature or place of significance in Papatoetoe
	Punehu Crescent (alternative)	The name means misty which refers to nearby Kohura Park as a feature or place of significance in Papatoetoe.

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

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

16. Road Type: ‘Te Ara’, ‘Crescent’, and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the public roads and COALs.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

22. Avant EPCF Piko Limited as the applicant has consulted with Te Ākitai Waiohua.

23. On 14 Febuary 2025, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Waikato-Tainui

· Ngāti Whanaunga

24. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), a response has been received from Te Ahiwaru indicating their support for the names gifted by Te Ākitai Waiohua.

25. As no further responses have been received, and as the names have been gifted by Te Ākitai Waiohua, it is considered that the cultural and ancestral linkages to the land have been addressed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report Attachment A Site Plan	175
b ⇩	Report Attachment B Location Map	177

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Local board views on draft plan change to add trees and groups of trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part and to the Notable Trees overlay

File No.: CP2025/03752

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a draft plan change which seeks to add trees and groups of trees to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to the AUP Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps. The proposed additions are derived from nominations received from the public over the course of the last decade, and which have been held in council’s database. The 169 trees and 27 groups affect approximately 160 properties.

4. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the committee, it is anticipated that the plan change will be notified in May 2025.

5. The local board will have a second opportunity to express its views on the plan change after the period for submissions is complete

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on draft plan change to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to Schedule 10, and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

6. Each local board is 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 these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change (to be notified for submissions). A plan change will be included in the AUP if it is later approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

7. The purpose of the draft plan change is to address all of the nominations for notable trees that council has held in its database over the last 10-12 years. All nominations have been progressively evaluated, with a view to adding them to Schedule 10, and the corresponding mapped overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and notable groups found in the schedule.

8. Schedule 10 currently contains approximately 3000 ‘line items’ representing thousands of trees and groups of trees. It is a very large and dynamic schedule, which undergoes constant change through consenting activities such as subdivision, resource consent processes and other changes as a result of emergency works (in the case of dangerous of storm-affected trees, for example). Schedule 10 is an amalgam of all the legacy councils’ similar schedules which contained lists of specially protected trees. These were ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed AUP prior to the AUP being made partially operative in November 2016.

9. Schedule 10 is managed by the AUP through a policy and rule framework. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the AUP (Chapter B4.5. Notable Trees) contains the objectives and policies (including the criteria for scheduling), while Chapter D13. Notable Trees overlay contains the district-level objectives and policies and sets out the rules framework for how activities affecting notable trees are treated. Schedule 10 itself is found in Chapter L Schedules. The AUP maps contain the Notable Trees overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and groups throughout the region, using specific symbology.

10. A number of plan changes have been undertaken in the last 5 years relating to Schedule 10 and Chapter D13 of the AUP. However, there has not been a comprehensive plan change that has attempted to evaluate and address all of the nominations received by council. These nominations have been sporadic but regular, and also include those trees which were requested to be included at the time of the PAUP through the public submission process.

11. All nominations that seek to add trees and groups to the Schedule are triaged to ensure they are ‘eligible’ to progress through to the site evaluation stage. Those that are found to already be included in Schedule 10, or which are duplicate nominations, or those which nominate trees that are no longer present on the site, for example, are not added to the on-site application which council and consultant arborists use to assess trees.

12. The evaluation process is a detailed exercise based on the criteria as set out in the RPS. Each tree, and group of trees, is evaluated against each criterion and provided with a score.

The criteria are based on the following:

a) heritage or historical association

b) scientific importance or rarity

c) ecosystem service or environmental function

d) cultural association and accessibility

e) intrinsic value: the trees are intrinsically notable because of a combination of factors including size, age, vigour and vitality, stature and form or visual contribution.

13. Approximately 160 new ‘line items’ representing 169 trees and 27 groups have been found to meet the criteria and are proposed to be put forward to the plan change with a view to adding them to Schedule 10 and the corresponding Notable Trees overlay maps.

14. The plan change addresses the nominations only and does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, or any part of the rules framework relating to Notable Trees.

15. A summary of the numbers of trees and groups of trees according to Local Board area that are proposed to be added to Schedule 10 is included at Attachment A. The table also includes the districts within the Local Board areas that will be affected by the addition of trees and group of trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

16. 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).

17. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) decision-makers to:

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

· to 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.

18. It is considered that the draft plan change has positive climate considerations. The proposed formal protection through scheduling of 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region will contribute positively to carbon sequestration and therefore is beneficial to mitigating the effects of climate change.

Local board views – climate

19. It is not considered that the plan change will affect any local board in particular in terms of climate change. Across local board areas, the collective addition of approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees will be beneficial in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation by ensuring the retention of and formal protection of a number of trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Many of the trees and groups of trees are located on council reserves and also on road reserves which are the domain of Auckland Transport. All owners of land upon which a nominated tree or group is located were notified as part of a mail-out to advise of an upcoming site visit by a council or consultant arborist. As part of the notification process, they will again be contacted if a tree or group is one of those included in the qualifying number for inclusion to the plan change. All owners and affected parties (including council departments and Auckland Transport) will have the opportunity to participate in the submission process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 160 new ‘line items’ to Schedule 10 of the AUP, representing 169 trees and 27 groups of trees.

22. This draft plan change affects all local boards, except for Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board.

23. There are no funding impacts on Local Boards as a result of the plan change.

24. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

26. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation is currently underway simultaneously with all iwi authorities. Feedback will be incorporated into the plan change.

27. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse 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. The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and Māori Plan (2017, Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

29. Costs from undertaking the plan change are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the draft plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences in contributing to formulation of the draft plan change.

31. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, the opportunity to influence policy prior to public notification is forgone. (There is a later opportunity to comment on the plan change, following the close of submissions).

32. 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 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

33. Local boards will provide feedback at the March business meetings.

34. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee in May 2025 seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

35. After submissions close, a second report will provide an opportunity for views and preferences of the local board, which will then be included in a hearing report for the decision-makers on the plan change. The local board may appoint a local board member to speak to the local board’s views at the plan change hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed additions of trees and groups by Local Board, and areas within each Local Board	185

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Local board input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2025/03881

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill proposes a mechanism for extending New Zealand’s parliamentary term from three to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

3. Rather than mandating an automatic change, this would allow Parliament to extend its term only if select committees reflect proportional representation – meaning the number of MPs from each party on committees matches their share of seats in Parliament.

4. Supporters argue a four-year term enables better policymaking and project delivery, while opponents highlight reduced electoral accountability. New Zealand’s three-year term is rare globally, and past referendums have opposed extending it, though recent reviews suggest shifting public sentiment.

5. A key consideration for Auckland Council is the potential impact on local election cycles. There could be years where local and central elections coincide, which could impact voter engagement. Fixed parliamentary terms would benefit the alignment of local election timing.

6. In December 2024, the council submitted feedback on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper, supporting a four-year electoral cycle for local government. The submission acknowledged potential benefits of aligning local and central elections if local elections shift to booth voting but recommended keeping them two years apart otherwise. While most local boards supported a four-year term, views varied on election timing—some favoured aligning with central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap.

7. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider the council’s submission on 10 April. The submission closing date is 17 April.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback to Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Bill

8. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) proposes a mechanism to extend the current three-year Parliamentary term to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

9. The Bill doesn’t automatically change the term to four years. Instead, Parliament can choose to extend its term from three to four years if select committees are structured in a way that fairly reflects the makeup of Parliament. To make this happen, Parliament must pass a resolution within the first three months of a new term stating that the proportionality requirement has been met, and the Governor-General must then issue a proclamation.

Key Considerations

10. Arguments in favour of a four-year term include allowing for a more deliberate and considered legislative process, reducing the frequency of election cycles, and providing governments with a longer timeframe to implement policy.

11. Arguments against a four-year term highlight concerns around democratic accountability. A longer term would mean elected representatives face elections less frequently, shifting accountability from a three-year to a four-year cycle.

12. Additionally, New Zealand’s constitutional framework differs from jurisdictions with stronger checks and balances, such as an upper and lower house or a clearer separation of executive and legislative powers. In New Zealand, the executive is formed from the majority party in Parliament and drives the legislative agenda.

13. To address concerns around accountability, the Bill strengthens the role of select committees by requiring their composition to more accurately reflect the proportionality of Parliament.

History of New Zealand Parliamentary terms

14. New Zealand originally had a five-year parliamentary term, in line with Britain. In 1879, it was reduced to three years following the abolition of provincial governments, as there were concerns about the concentration of power at the central level. Reducing the term ensured more frequent electoral accountability.

15. Two non-binding referendums on extending the term—held in 1967 and 1990—both resulted in strong opposition. Both referendums saw large majorities opposed to extending the term to four years.

16. Recent reviews, including the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel and the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, suggest public opinion may be shifting towards a four-year term.

17. A key change since the last referendum was the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1993, which increased proportional representation and strengthened the role of smaller parties in governance. While MMP has enhanced legislative scrutiny, concerns remain about reduced accountability if the term is extended.

18. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 found that public support for a four-year term was contingent on improved legislative scrutiny and accountability measures, such as more referenda, better human rights assessments, and the introduction of an upper house. The panel emphasised that any extension should be decided by referendum.

19. The Independent Electoral Review (IER), set up in 2022, also assessed the term length and found arguments for and against a four-year term to be finely balanced.

International context

20. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is rare internationally. In 183 countries with elected lower houses or unicameral parliaments, only eight have a term of three years or less, 72 have a four-year term, 99 have a five-year term and four have a six-year term.

21. In general, parliaments (whether unicameral or bicameral) have a four-year or five-year term including both the United Kingdom (with Westminster-style of Parliament and Executive, headed by a sovereign) and Germany (with an MMP electoral system), from which New Zealand’s system is based.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The last referendum on the parliamentary term took place in 1990 in which 69 per cent of voters rejected extending the term from three to four years. It is timely to revisit the topic again with communities.

23. A key concern for local government is the uncertainty around whether Parliament will adopt a three-year or four-year term. If local government maintains its three-year term while Parliament alternates between three and four years, there is likely to be occasional overlap, where parliamentary and local elections occur in the same year. However, this would likely happen inconsistently.

24. If local elections remain the responsibility of councils (rather than the Electoral Commission), the concurrent timing of parliamentary and local elections could lead to voter confusion.

25. Auckland Council, in its submission to the Electoral Reform Working Group, acknowledged that there could be potential benefits if local elections were conducted by the Electoral Commission, using the booth voting method, alongside parliamentary elections. This could capitalise on the higher voter turnout for parliamentary elections to boost participation in local elections. However, it remains uncertain whether this will occur.

26. As a result, the council’s draft submission on the bill would consider requesting that parliamentary terms be fixed, and that the legislation governing local elections be amended to align with parliamentary terms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Bill does not have any direct climate impacts.

28. However, a four-year term could provide a longer, uninterrupted timeframe for planning and implementing climate-related initiatives.

29. If both local and central government terms are fixed at four years, this could lead to a reduction in postal voting for local government elections. This change may result in environmental benefits, such as reduced paper usage and a decrease in transport requirements for the delivery and collection of voting papers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The council group is not directly affected by the proposed change. However, if local and central elections were to coincide, further analysis of the potential impacts would be necessary.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. In February 2023, nine local boards provided feedback on the introduction of a four-year electoral term for local government in the draft submission of the Future for Local Government paper. Most supported a four-year term, though views on election sequencing varied. One board opposed aligning local and central elections, emphasising the importance of maintaining local focus.

32. In November 2024, local boards provided further feedback to inform the council’s submission on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper (Issue Five), which also addressed the four-year term. While most local boards supported the shift, there were differing views on election timing—some favored aligning local and central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap. Local board views are compiled here.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Māori views were not sought in the preparation of this report. A four-year term could allow more time to build relationships and ensure continuity in key initiatives, without disruptions from frequent election cycles.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The Bill does not impose any direct costs. Potential cost efficiencies could arise if central and local elections coincide.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The council's position on this matter presents minimal risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider approving the council’s submission at its meeting on 10 April.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor Governance

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Unlock Old Papatoetoe - Kolmar Road and St George Street intersection alignment recommendation

File No.: CP2025/04034

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To confirm the outcome of investigations into the intersection alignment at the corner of Kolmar Road and St George Street in Old Papatoetoe, and to seek endorsement to progress the sale of the properties at 15 Kolmar Road and 98 St George Street for urban renewal purposes under the Unlock Old Papatoetoe programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2005, 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe were purchased by Manukau City Council through the Public Works Act 1981 for strategic purposes, including road intersection improvement and re-development.

3. The intersection alignment was identified as non-viable by Auckland Transport in 2018, and the land was transferred to Eke Panuku to be held for urban renewal under the Unlock Old Papatoetoe programme.

4. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the disposal of properties at 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road at its September 2021 business meeting (OP/2021/141) on the condition that Eke Panuku undertakes a study on the alignment of the intersection, for which the properties were originally acquired for.

5. In October 2021, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the properties under the Unlock Old Papatoetoe programme for urban renewal subject to the completion of necessary statutory processes (FIN/2021/95).

6. A 2022 study, facilitated by Eke Panuku, concluded that the intersection alignment could improve journey times for general traffic provided there is longer traffic light phasing for north-south direction. This would not support network priorities for pedestrians, cyclists, and buses and as such the benefits were noted as theoretical. Additionally, given the number of nearby intersections, improved timing at this intersection would likely result in more delays in the surrounding network, resulting in no overall improvement.

7. Auckland Transport does not oppose the alignment of the intersection if there is another core driver for the project that sits outside benefits to the transport network.

8. Eke Panuku, with input from the wider council group, prepared a business case that found that the disposal of the properties is the most appropriate option to progress. The options assessment shows that the costs to align the intersection are significant and that the transport benefits of the works are not sufficient to secure funding. Therefore, Eke Panuku recommends that the properties are sold for urban renewal.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the findings from the independent investigations into the feasibility of aligning the intersection at the corner of Kolmar Road and St George Street in Old Papatoetoe

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the findings that the benefits of the intersection alignment at the corner of Kolmar Road and St George Street in Old Papatoetoe are not sufficiently feasible to progress the intersection alignment

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that on the basis of the recommendations above, the sale of 15 Kolmar Road and 98 St George Street Old Papatoetoe will progress to deliver urban renewal in accordance with the 2021 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and Finance and Performance Committee resolutions.

Horopaki

Context

9. Properties at 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe were purchased by Manukau City Council through the Public Works Act 1981 for strategic purposes, including road intersection improvement and re-development in 2005.

10. In 2012, Auckland Transport commissioned Opus International Consultants (now WSP) to investigate the alignment of the Kolmar Road, Wallace Road and St George Street intersection (the intersection). A concept plan was prepared (Figure 1-Shown below). The design was not progressed any further due to feasibility. It was identified as a project beyond the funding envelopes in the 2012-15 RLTP/LTP.

Fig 1 – Intersection alignment commissioned by Auckland Transport in 2012.

11. In 2017, Eke Panuku established the Old Papatoetoe priority location boundary through the approval of the High-Level Project Plan (PLA/2017/78).

12. In 2018, Auckland Transport concluded that the alignment project was not a priority for transport purposes and was not included in the 2015-18 RLTP/LTP. As a result, in 2019 the properties were transferred to Eke Panuku to hold for urban renewal as part of the Unlock Old Papatoetoe programme. This was confirmed through the Eke Panuku Programme Business Case 2021.

13. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the disposal of properties at 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road on the condition that Eke Panuku undertake a study on the alignment of the intersection, for which the properties were originally acquired for (OP/2021/141).

14. 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road were approved for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee in 2021 (FIN/2021/95).

15. Eke Panuku considers it an improvement to the Unlock Old Papatoetoe programme if the corner can be redeveloped and attract commercial tenants on ground level and residents for upper levels, if a mixed-use proposal was secured.

16. Eke Panuku continues to manage the properties within Auckland Council’s commercial property portfolio until the public work of urban renewal is delivered.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. In 2021, Eke Panuku undertook community consultation on the Old Papatoetoe Masterplan. Some feedback included comments supporting the intersection alignment as part of the urban renewal programme and to alleviate congestion.

18. In 2021, Auckland Transport identified that the intersection needed minor improvement focusing on the safety and amenity of pedestrians and cyclists. The project was publicly consulted in June 2022 and delivered by Auckland Transport in early 2023. This change included removal of a slip way to the west and increased pedestrian and cyclist safety on the intersection (Fig 3 below).

19. In 2022, Eke Panuku commissioned Coalesce Consulting to undertake a Transport Assessment of the Old Papatoetoe town centre to support decision making around land use and transport. The report investigated the intersection, including isolated intersection modelling using SIDRA and considering whether a straightened intersection would be of benefit. A summary of the findings included:

a. According to the Auckland Transport network study, the priority modes for the intersection are pedestrian, cycling, micromobility, and bus. The roads and footpaths around the intersection didn’t provide for these modes to run efficiently in 2022. Therefore, Auckland Transport addressed this through design adjustments and improvements to the intersection as per the changes done in 2023, shown in the photos below (Fig 2 and Fig 3).

An aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated

Aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated

Fig 2 – Kolmar / St George / Wallace – February 2022

Fig 3 - Kolmar / St George / Wallace – September 2023

b. The 2012 preliminary design for intersection alignment works includes a plan to take 935m2 of land from the combined property of 98 St George Street and 15 Kolmar Road to align Kolmar Road with Wallace Road. This would result in a traditional four- legged intersection as opposed to the existing staggered intersection (shown in Fig 1)

c. Modelling of an aligned intersection vs. the existing layout showed modest improvements to wait times at the intersection would be achieved during the morning and afternoon peak (25 and 45 seconds) but to achieve this it would require amended signal phasing that would not prioritise pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. That phasing would be not supported by AT.

d. The new layout would likely draw more traffic to the route and create additional congestion at the surrounding intersections, further exacerbating traffic congestion through the town centre. In essence, improved time at this intersection could mean more delay on the next intersection, resulting in no overall network improvement.

20. Auckland Transport contributed to the scope of the Transport Assessment by Coalesce and reviewed it before it was finalised. Regarding aligning the intersection, Auckland Transport stated that “the intersection design shown in Figure 37 of the ITA (Fig 1) is not a project for which Auckland Transport has allocated any funding. Further, given that the design is dated from 2012, it does not necessarily reflect a design which is consistent with Auckland Transport's priority areas for improvement.” Furthermore, it is not included in the long-term strategic plan for Auckland Transport (Future Connect), therefore would not be undertaken by Auckland Transport.

21. In addition to the traffic assessment, a cost estimate of the intersection alignment plan was prepared by a quantity surveyor, and valuation was sought to indicate the potential loss in value to the properties from completing the intersection alignment works. These values can be found in Attachment A - Financial Summary.

22. Auckland Transport will not undertake the intersection alignment as it does not provide network benefits, therefore it is not deemed a suitable transport project.

23. Auckland Transport does not oppose the alignment of the intersection if there is another core driver for the project that sits outside benefits to the transport network, e.g. as part of a comprehensive streetscape improvement project for St George Street, which is considered urban renewal, not a transport purpose.

24. Eke Panuku have engaged with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at three workshops (July 2024, September 2024, and February 2025), recommending not to align the intersection and to divest the properties. The local board continue to express a preference to pursue alignment and upgrading of the intersection.

25. The procurement of a development partner and redevelopment of these properties present an opportunity to bookend the main street of Old Papatoetoe. The development may provide an opportunity for a mixed-use apartment style typology that can activate this part of the main street.

26. A decision to proceed with the sale of land, as recommended by Eke Panuku, would lead to a circa 6-12 months process to find a development partner. If the process is unsuccessful, Eke Panuku will likely deconstruct the corner building to ensure health and safety of the space, until a developer is secured.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. This decision will have minimal climate impact. Buildings provided as part of the redevelopment will be required to meet Homestar 6-7 and Greenstar 5 rating.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. The Eke Panuku Board approved the business case and recommended the sale of the properties with Essential Outcomes to meet the predetermined Urban Renewal Criteria for the Unlock Papatoetoe programme. The business case included an option with intersection alignment.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has expressed support for the intersection to be aligned based on community support and for perceived safety.

30. Some members of the community expressed support for alignment through the 2021 masterplan consultation.

31. The safety upgrade by AT in 2023 has helped to alleviate some concerns.

32. Endorsement on this sale is required due to health and safety issues with the existing building and tenants at 98 St George Street.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. No impacts have been identified at this stage. Mana whenua will have the opportunity to engage in the sales process once progressed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. A Financial Summary can be found in Attachment A (confidential).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The condition of the building at 98 St George Street could continue to deteriorate and lead to health and safety issues for the occupants. Upgrading the building is unlikely to be feasible due to the state of the building, deconstruction is likely to be more feasible if the property is to be held. With the property being a prominent corner site, it may become a blight on the town centre. We have seen previously that empty properties or derelict buildings attract antisocial behaviour.

36. If the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board does not endorse the Eke Panuku recommendation, a new programme for the properties need to be established to investigate alternative opportunities to deliver urban renewal as a public work. Associated risks relate to time, costs and legal obligations, and any options will need to be workshopped further.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Upon receiving the endorsement to proceed with the sale to deliver urban renewal outcomes in Old Papatoetoe, Eke Panuku will progress with the sale by completing any necessary statutory processes and procuring a suitable development partner.

38. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board will continue to be updated regularly on progress of the sale and negotiations.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Financial Summary - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maria Walker – Team Leader Masterplanning and Urban Design, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Property Optimisation - Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Richard Davison - Priority Location Director, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Feedback on options to address local board operating cost pressures for Annual Budget 2025/2026

File No.: CP2025/04239

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on options to manage local board cost pressures in the context of Fairer Funding, for reporting back to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) in April 2025, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP). This included new funding of $84 million operating and $50 million capital over two years to transition most local boards significantly closer to funding equity. $35 million of new operating funding was planned for in 2025/2026 and allocated to local boards through the LTP.

3. Through the council’s Annual Budget 2025/2026 refresh process, staff have identified that some costs are forecast to be higher than previously anticipated, and operating revenue budgets set in the LTP are at risk of not being achieved. In a memorandum to the Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications.

4. Thirteen local boards (identified as funded below their equitable levels) were allocated a portion of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 exceeding their individual cost pressures, however there are eight local boards (that were identified as funded at or above their equitable levels) which were allocated little or no additional funding, and staff anticipate the level of implementable advice and options available to these local boards will be insufficient to fully mitigate the size of their individual cost pressures without materially impacting service levels.

5. After a recent budget refresh exercise, which concluded in February, the revised total cost pressures and revenue shortfalls identified for local community services is $13.9 million across 21 local boards, comprising of:

· Known variations to asset schedules within full facility contracts (subject to final price negotiation) were not budgeted for in the LTP, $5.1 million

· Utilities costs (driven primarily by Electricity and Gas forecasted prices), $5.8 million

· Improved libraries rostering to meet health and safety requirements, reduce the likelihood of unplanned facility closures and deliver planned levels of service, $1.5 million

· Revenue shortfalls from pools and leisure facilities and venue for hire, $2.4 million

· Improvements in leasing revenue is an overall net positive contribution of $0.3 million, however this differs by local board. Where they are net positive, this could be used to mitigate the effect of cost pressures. Leasing revenue improvements can arise because of local board decisions.

6. While this initial budget refresh exercise has been completed, staff are continuing to investigate the cost pressures to identify mitigations and other offset opportunities.

7. Between 4 and 6 March 2025, finance staff have workshopped with all local boards the updated local board budget position (based on the best available information), including individual local board positions, and options to manage the collective local board cost pressures. A further budget update since these workshops has occurred (and local boards informed through a memo), reducing the overall cost pressures for local boards from $18 million to $13.9 million.

8. This report seeks local board feedback on the three potential options and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views including other matters relating to local cost pressures to the Joint Governance Working Party, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on the three identified options to manage local board cost pressures in the short term.

b) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters relating to local board cost pressures and budgets.

Horopaki

Context

9. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP) to transition towards significant funding equity for most local boards over four years, including the allocation of $35 million of new operating funding to 13 local boards for 2025/2026. Eight local boards have been allocated little to no new funding.

10. Cost pressures can arise when the costs of delivering a service are forecast to increase beyond what is projected in the LTP. These can occur as new information becomes available after the adoption of an LTP or Annual Plan, and budgeting assumptions are updated.

11. The total net operating cost pressures identified for local community services for 2025/2026 is $18 million and relate to ‘asset-based services’. This is the total across all 21 local boards and does not include cost pressures relating to any other area of the council group operations.

12. Operating cost pressures relating to networks of asset-based services (e.g. pools, libraries, open space maintenance) have historically been managed across local boards at a regional level by the Governing Body. In this approach additional levers are available, such as changes to the level and distribution of general rates funding and minimum service levels. There is also the ability for staff to drive efficiencies across the regional network, and to manage “unders and overs” across that network.

13. Local boards have two main levers for responding to cost pressures in the short term. These are:

a) utilising new operating funding from their share of the $35 million in 2025/2026 provided to support a transition to Fairer Funding, or

b) by making changes to services including prioritisation and trade-off decisions across their service portfolio.

14. Staff also have some levers available to help manage the costs and revenues for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

15. The eight local boards that will not receive sufficient new funding would need to respond to cost pressures by reviewing service levels, making prioritisation and trade-off decisions to remain within their existing funding levels, and then work with staff to ensure the efficient delivery of those services. However, staff do not expect the level of implementable options and advice available for 2025/2026 to be sufficient to cover the full amount of their individual cost pressures.

16. On 14 February 2025, staff presented a report to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) about cost pressures for local boards, how local boards can currently manage these cost pressures, and possible transitional support which the JGWP could recommend to the Governing Body as part of annual budget decision making. This report is included in Attachment A. At this time the updated local cost pressure position was unknown, however since then, updated estimates of cost pressures have been forecasted.

17. The JGWP resolved (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) on three potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term, and has requested staff seek formal local board feedback on these to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

18. As operating cost pressures are ongoing, local boards should also consider in their feedback, how this would be managed for future years.

19. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the JGWP in April to support a recommendation to the Governing Body, per JGWPC/2025/4 c).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Through the budget refresh process staff identified $13.9 million of net operating cost pressures related to delivering existing levels of service for local community services. The distribution by local board is presented below. Staff are continuing to investigate these cost pressures, including identifying mitigations, and have identified some regional scheduled maintenance costs were incorrectly attributed to local boards. A memo was distributed to all local boards on 12 March 2025 explaining the corrections, and this has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million from the $18 million presented in workshops, as presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: distribution of cost pressures to local boards

21. Analysis was completed to compare the level of individual local board cost pressures against each local board’s allocation from the new operating funding in 2025/2026. This is because the new funding is yet to be allocated towards a service or activity, and if this was used to cover cost pressures, there would not be an impact to existing service levels.

22. Analysis showed that 13 local boards had sufficient new operating funding to cover their individual cost pressures, however this would result in a reduction of up to 61 per cent in their new operating funding, which was provided for the purpose of funding equity and which local boards expected to deliver additional outcomes for their communities.

23. Eight local boards with little to no new funding would only have the option to look across existing services to find cost reductions or revenue opportunities to offset cost pressures. However, advice on strategic options and opportunities for local boards to change asset-based services to reduce cost will initially be limited. Advice is more readily available for activities currently funded from ‘Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)’ operating funding which is a only a small proportion of the local board operating costs.

24. For these eight local boards, this could mean between 36 per cent and 84 per cent funding reduction from their existing ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ programme of services and activities. Changes at this level are likely to be material to existing levels of services, as most of these services and activities have been ongoing for many years and are designed to achieve local board plan outcomes. Any material changes to existing levels of service are likely to trigger a requirement for public consultation; however local boards were not recommended to consult in detail on specific opportunities in the Annual Budget 2025/2026 consultation. Therefore this gives rise to a risk that certain opportunities may not be implementable unless further consultation is held.

Table 2: analysis of cost pressures compared to available funding by local board

Supporting a transition to fairer funding

25. To support this significant shift in the way local boards are funded, some key principles and assumptions were agreed as part of the adoption of Fairer Funding:

· No local board is worse off in its level of funding (than under the prior ABS/LDI funding model).

· Achieving significant funding equity for most local boards in four years.

26. The level of implementable advice across local community services and environmental management may not be available for the Annual Budget 2025/2026 to fully cover the full quantum of local boards individual cost pressures. Additional options to address local cost pressures in the short term have been developed for JGWP consideration to help all local boards transition to the new way of funding.

Options analysis for addressing local board cost pressures

27. The Joint Governance Working Party on 14 February 2025 (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) requested staff to seek local board feedback on the following potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

28. A combination of options will likely be needed to resolve the full range and quantum of cost pressures for 2025/2026, but consideration should also be given to whether these options should be temporary (e.g. one year) or implemented for a longer period (e.g. two years, or on an ongoing basis).

29. Based on of the current projected size of local cost pressures it is unlikely any overall funding changes to local boards would be considered significant (per council’s Significance and Engagement Policy), and therefore would not require public consultation to implement. However, changes to local funding levels requires a Governing Body decision.

30. A Governing Body decision is required to implement options 2 and 3 as these involve a change to how funding for local boards is distributed and involves a departure from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

31. This option requires local boards to fund services within LTP funding allocations, including any new funding received. This is in line with the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, makes progress towards bringing 19 local boards to within 5 per cent of their equitable funding level in 2025/2026, and places no additional burden on ratepayers.

32. Under this approach local boards would address cost pressures by:

i) Utilising new operating funding

ii) Adopting and seeking staff advice on opportunities to increase revenue or reduce costs in some areas to make room for increased costs in others. These may include minor changes to services, or trade-off decisions across a range of locally funded services and must be implementable in time to support the 2025/2026 Annual Budget (including re-consultation if significant)

iii) Working with staff during the financial year to continuously seek out cost efficiencies and revenue enhancements for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

33. Local boards that will not receive any new funding, or that will receive insufficient new funding to address cost pressures, are limited to available staff advice on opportunities and changes to services. The implications of delays to the provision of advice over their portfolio of services until 2026/2027 may mean that local boards look to more flexible areas of their funding, which are well understood and supported with staff advice (for example services and activities previously funded from LDI). Reducing these services may impact on the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

34. Based on initial estimates of local cost pressures, staff had advised that local boards did not need to consult on significant service level changes, therefore seven of the eight local boards with little to no new funding consulted broadly on priorities. This limits the level of implementable opportunities without having to further consult.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

35. Of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 provided to support the transition to funding equity, a portion could be used to provide temporary support for local boards unable to fully offset cost pressures. Some of the additional funding may not otherwise be utilised if there are insufficient options and advice on new and increased service levels. This would involve allocating funding to local boards with little to no new funding to address cost pressures from the $35 million new funding, then distributing the remainder based on the equitable rankings.

36. The impact of using this option is that local boards that were allocated additional operating funding would see a reduction to that level of operating funding, with the reduction in the level of operating funding used to cover cost pressures from other local boards.

37. Based on the budget information at end of February 2025, modelling was carried out and presented to local boards showing the impact should all local cost pressures be covered from the $35 million new funding first, with the remainder distributed equitably as per the Local Board Funding Policy 2025. Since then there has been a reduction to the overall size of local cost pressures from $18 million to $13.9 million, which means the modelled impact is expected to be less than what was presented through workshops.

38. However this is only one possible scenario, and there are various ways this option can be applied, including:

· whether all local cost pressures are covered from the $35 million first, or only for those local boards that cannot cover their own

· the proportion of local cost pressures covered from the $35 million first, and this could be on a scale from zero per cent to 100 per cent.

39. This option would represent slightly less progress towards funding equity for the 2025/2026 year than anticipated in the LTP. This approach remains consistent with a transition to equitable funding over four years and places no additional burden on ratepayers should it be used temporarily, until sufficient advice is available and implementable for local boards to manage cost pressures over their full portfolio of services.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures, including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

40. The Governing Body is responsible for decision making on the overall funding level for local boards and could allocate additional local funding to support cost pressures. This could be achieved without increasing general rates within the existing overall LTP funding level if there are sufficient improvements to other assumptions (such as interest rates and depreciation costs), or by balancing the application of funding across a wider range of services including regional activities. These options are not available to local boards, and any new local targeted rates could not be implemented in time for 2025/2026.

41. Once budget projections have been fully updated across the group, it will be clearer whether or not the emerging cost pressures for local services can be accommodated within the currently projected rates increase for 2025/2026. If it can be, then it will be up to the Governing Body to approve that allocation, after considering budget trade-offs across the group. If it cannot be, then the Governing Body is expected to be able to have some flexibility to make minor adjustments to the rates increase as part of its final budget decision-making in May 2025. However, the current political direction on this is clear that a higher rates increase is the last resort.

42. While progress will still be made towards funding equity, any permanent direct funding provided to individual local boards to address cost pressures is an inequitable way of distributing general rates funding and would increase the challenge of progressing towards full funding equity. This also departs from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

43. Under this option, additional funding could be provided for one or more years until sufficient advice is available for local boards to manage cost pressures, and could be managed at a regional level to be provided to local boards as needed to minimise the impact on funding equity.

44. The Joint Governance Working Party resolved specifically for staff to investigate whether the Delivering Differently budget could be used to temporarily resolve local cost pressures. The majority of the funding for this programme is debt funded (such as capital grants) which cannot be re-purposed to mitigate local operational cost pressures. The remaining funding is for the purpose of supporting local boards shift away from asset-based service provision and future unaffordable renewals, and it‘s important that progress on this work continues.

Summary of options and risks

45. The following table summarises the impact, risks and alignment to the proposed principles for each option. A combination of options may be used to resolve the level of cost pressures for local boards in both 2025/2026 and beyond.

Option

Risks and/or impacts

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

· Advice not fully ready across local board service portfolio to implement for 2025/2026.

· Activities and services with advice to respond this year may be limited to those tailored to local priorities and reducing these will impact the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

· Funding equity gap between local boards would be slightly larger than planned (5 per cent of funding equity by 2025/2026).

· A one-year approach would mean local boards may have cumulative cost pressures to solve in the next year.

· Continued application would slow progress to significant funding equity in subsequent years.

· Perceived retreat on historical commitments made through the LTP for individual local boards.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

· Could impact on other services, including regional services, as a result of funding reallocation.

· Inequitably allocating additional funding to local boards departs from funding policy and slows progress towards equitable funding.

Improvements to budget and cost allocation accuracy

46. Through the Annual Budget 2025/2026 budget refresh process, staff identified over $25 million of costs and budget held in regional community services but are related to the delivery of existing levels of local community services. These relate to services that are managed across the region (or at a network level), with financials also historically being managed at a regional level.

47. Implementing these cost allocation changes through Annual Budget reviews will impact local funding envelopes and funding equity. While changes to baseline budgets are typically made when the Fairer Funding model is refreshed in the next LTP to align with the frequency of review specified in the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, some necessary improvements to the accuracy of budgets may be required to support effective management and local board governance.

48. Allocation of these costs and funding will not be based on an equitable distribution as these are considered adjustments to baseline budgets, instead of new local funding. An example would be where there are Pools and Leisure centralised costs to be allocated to local boards, only those local boards with Pools and Leisure sites will receive an allocation of costs and funding. Changes that impact baseline budgets would impact funding equity analysis and local board rankings, however should not impact the total cost to the council or planned service levels, as they are a change to how costs and funding is allocated only.

49. There will be no cost pressures for 2025/2026 associated with these cost and funding transfers for local boards, nor any impacts on the existing levels of service being delivered in each local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have climate impacts.

51. In particular, local boards contribute to climate outcomes through their local environmental work programmes (currently funded through their LDI operating funding) and therefore the scale of cost reductions required to fund the cost pressures could result in significant impacts to local environmental work programmes. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on the level of funding that can be allocated towards local environmental work programmes. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Staff from the Finance and Community divisions provided input into the report for the Joint Governance Working Party and have developed the list of local community cost pressures for the 2025/2026 Annual Budget through reviewing the costs of delivering existing levels of services.

53. Staff will continue to improve the quality and range of advice for local boards over the four years transitioning to significant funding equity. This could have impacts on the operations of the Community Division which may need to adapt to the new funding structure of local community services, and improvements to how local services are being budgeted.

54. Some options for feedback in this report require Governing Body decisions on funding and may need to be considered together with the entire council group financial position and budget updates. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55. In a memorandum to Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications. Seven local boards have consulted broadly on priorities but not specific cost reduction initiatives.

56. Finance staff workshopped the updated budget position and options to manage the collective cost pressures with local boards between 4 and 6 March 2025. This report seeks local board feedback on the options presented and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views to the Joint Governance Working Party.

57. The identified $13.9 million net operating cost pressures is over a third of the $34.6 million additional operating funding provided to local boards to progress towards funding equity. Individual local board impacts were workshopped with local boards, based on the $18 million cost pressures identified at that time. However subsequently staff identified through a detailed review, updates to the budgets presented, which has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million (Table 1 in this report).

58. Under Fairer Funding, 13 local boards are able to cover their individual cost pressures using new operating funding allocated to achieve funding equity purposes, however this will reduce the level of new operating available to these local boards to improve community outcomes. The proportion of new operating funding required to cover cost pressures for individual local boards can be up to 61 per cent of their allocated new operating funding.

59. Eight local boards would be unable to address their individual cost pressures without making reductions to existing services, and there is unlikely to be sufficient cost reduction or revenue generating options available for local boards which can be implemented for 2025/2026 to offset the entirety of their cost pressures.

60. The options provided intend to assist all local boards in transitioning to funding equity over time, and depending on the combination of options may change individual local board funding envelopes compared to the LTP.

61. A feedback template has been provided (Attachment C) to assist local boards in providing feedback to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have Māori impacts depending on each local board’s specific community.

63. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on local board work programming which is the process where local boards prioritise their available funding towards achieving local board plan outcomes for their community, including impacts to their Māori community. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Some of the options proposed in this report for further engagement will impact local board funding decisions and council’s overall funding levels for this Annual Budget 2025/2026, but would be subject to further Governing Body decision making. Full detail on risks, mitigation and implications are outlined in the earlier sections of this report, and in more detail below.

65. Feedback on this report informs the Joint Governance Working Party and inputs into Governing Body Annual Budget decision making.

66. Some options for managing cost pressures would have no impact to rates by requiring these to be managed within existing local board funding envelopes or the wider Auckland Council Group (subject to Governing Body decision making). However, there may be a risk that an increase in rates is required to fund cost pressures, and this would only be clear once the Governing Body is presented with a budget update for the Auckland Council Group.

67. The final decisions to manage local cost pressures may have a direct impact on the level of funding each local board is allocated and may vary the funding levels set out in the LTP.

68. Options where the level of funding to local boards are set on a non-equitable distribution, including any targeted operating funding support provided, requires the decision maker, which is Governing Body, to agree to a temporary departure from the Local Board Funding Policy 2025 adopted through the LTP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There are significant risks identified with the uncertainty of local board annual funding envelopes and available funding, which has resulted in challenges for staff to plan for and engage with local boards to participate effectively in work programme discussions and to meet key annual budget timelines with sufficient levels of clarity and understanding. This is because options which alter local board funding require Governing Body decision-making, and based on the current timeline, Annual Budget decisions are set to be made on 28 May 2025. A mitigation being confirmed is for a recommendation from the JGWP to be presented to the Budget Committee on 16 April 2025, seeking indicative support for later formal decision-making by the Governing Body.

70. There is a risk should the Governing Body not decide to provide additional support to local boards. Given the updated size of local cost pressures it is unlikely that options with a minor impact to service levels could fully mitigate these for local boards not receiving top-up funding. Eight local boards are therefore at risk of not being able to approve a balanced budget by June 2025 without additional support or further consultation in a short timeframe on further reductions which are considered significant (under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

71. Some proposed options will have financial and reputational risks to council as these could be perceived as changes to the commitments made in the LTP, such as changing the allocation of funding levels for individual local boards.

72. There are also risks relating to the timeframe for the council to develop the necessary improvements to financial budget data and process improvements, and to develop the capability to provide local boards with advice on options for changing service levels and how local services can be more efficiently delivered. Some improvements to local board data and increased staff advice are expected from 2026/2027, however these will not be across the full portfolio of services. A longer-term solution is anticipated to require the full transition period to funding equity of four years.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the Joint Governance Working Party on 11 April 2025 to seek recommendations from JGWP to the Governing Body for Annual Budget decision making.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options to address local board operating cost pressures and their impact on Fairer Funding implementation – (14 February 2025 JGWP)	209
b ⇩	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures – additional information (2 Dec 2024)	221
c ⇩	Feedback template	225

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

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18 March 2025

Amendment to the 2022-2025 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2025/04025

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for three meeting dates to be added to the 2025-2026 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the Annual Budget 2025-2026 (Annual Plan).

2. Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board adopted its 2022-2025 meeting schedule on Tuesday, 6 December 2022.

4. At that time, the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement as part the Annual Budget 2025-2026 were unknown.

5. The local board is being asked to approve three meeting dates as an addition to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board meeting schedule so that the modified the Annual Budget 2025-2026 timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) approve the addition of three meeting dates to the 2022-2025 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board schedule to accommodate the Annual Budget 2025-2026 timeframes as follows:

i) Tuesday, 29 April 2025, 2 pm

ii) Tuesday, 10 June 2025, 2 pm.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

7. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

8. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board adopted its 2022-2025 business meeting schedule at its Tuesday, 6 December 2022 business meeting.

9. The timeframes for local board decision-making concerning the Annual Budget 2025-2026 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

10. The local board is being asked to make decisions in late November 2024 and late April and early June 2025 to feed into the Annual Budget 2025-2026 processes. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The local board has two choices:

i) Add the meetings as additions to the meeting schedule.

ii) Add the meetings as extraordinary meetings.

12. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the Annual Budget 2025-2026 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting, there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled.

13. For option two, only the specific topic the Annual Budget the 2025-2026 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the Annual Budget the 2025-2026 process could be considered at this meeting.

14. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option one, approving this meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule, as it allows more flexibility for the local board to consider a range of issues. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. If the local board decides not to add this business meeting to their schedule this would result in the input of this local board not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for itsr consideration and inclusion in the Annual Budget 2025-2026.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Darshita Shah - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Apulu Reece Autagavaia
Deputy Chairperson	Vi Hausia
Members	Dr Ashraf Choudhary, QSO, JP
	Dr Ofa Dewes, MNZM
	Topou Folau
	Li'amanaia Lorenzo Kaisara
	Albert Lim

Application ID	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Amount recommended
2425OPEA42	Yolitzintlayektli cultural event in Mexico	$2,000.00	$0.00
2425OPEA61	Global League Tournament in Queenstown	$1,500.00	$200.00
Total		$3,500.00	$2,00.00

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