Agenda of Waiheke Local Board - Wednesday, 23 April 2025

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Proposed changes to the draft Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy

File No.: CP2025/06421

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board endorsement of the amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy following public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 10 December 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved public consultation on the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy [PEPCC/2024/131 and PEPCC/2024/132].

3. A total of 402 pieces of feedback were received, through consultation and a People’s Panel survey. Overall, there is strong support for the draft strategy but also opportunities to make changes. A detailed feedback report is provided in Attachment A.

4. Having considered public feedback, as well as local board resolutions on the draft strategy, staff propose changes to the draft strategy, the most significant being:

· more explicitly emphasising the importance of equity and accessibility in providing open spaces and play, sport and recreation opportunities (including in the strategic directions, investment principles and policies)

· greater emphasis on the importance of environment and biodiversity outcomes (including in the investment principles and Policy one)

· greater emphasis on the purpose and benefits of regional parks (in Policy two)

· including the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) for open space provision standards (in Policy two)

· refining the strategic directions based on a range of other consultation feedback

· making the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer

· clarifying the meaning of ‘value for money’

· providing clearer direction in the policy section to ensure local boards receive the necessary advice for decision-making

· clarifying that the council attempts to acquire land early in the development process as budget is available.

5. The proposed changes are reflected in the amended strategy (see final draft in Attachment B with track changes).

6. Local boards have called for a better understanding of local impacts. Staff have developed examples of implementation scenarios, existing good practices and potential local applications of the new open space provision standards (see Attachment C), noting that much of how the strategy is implemented is at the discretion of each local board.

7. In addition, staff are working with local board advisors to scope how advice to local boards could be improved to deliver on the strategy. To date, we have identified potential improvements: consolidating information provided to local boards, involving local boards earlier in planning processes, improving alignment between regional and local planning cycles, funding and budgets and providing information on trade-offs (see Attachment D).

8. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider adopting the final amended strategy in May 2025. The agenda report will contain the local board resolutions.

9. If the final amended strategy is adopted, staff will develop an implementation and monitoring plan, including tools and guidance, to support delivery by local boards and the Governing Body. Staff will also continue to scope improvements to local board advice.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) ohia / endorse the final amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy in Attachment B

b) ohia / endorse updating the open space provision standards in the strategy with Option package two – capacity-focused approach: provide more open space than currently enabled in high- and medium-density areas where residents have low or moderate levels of provision.

Horopaki

Context

The draft strategy outlines how we will provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities

10. As a regional public policy, the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy sets the strategic directions we seek to achieve for open space, sport and recreation in Auckland and against which we will monitor progress. It forms a unifying roadmap for the council group to deliver and for other non-council organisations and community groups to contribute.

11. It brings together five existing strategies, policies and plans and provides a refreshed and consolidated approach to planning and investment. It aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders, now and in the future, to improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau.

The development of the draft strategy was supported by an advisory structure

12. The development of the draft strategy was informed by a strong evidence base and supported by an advisory structure that met regularly to provide input and direction.

13. The advisory structure includes the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group (featuring two councillors, two local board members and one Houkura member), an advisory and Māori rōpū (with mana whenua, mataawaka and sector representatives) and key kaimahi from across the council group.

14. Local boards were also engaged throughout the development of the draft strategy via memos, presentations, briefings, workshops and business meetings (refer Attachment A, pages 3-4).

Gathering Aucklanders’ views provides an opportunity to further refine the draft strategy

15. On 10 December 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved public consultation on the draft strategy [PEPCC/2024/131 and PEPCC/2024/132].

16. Consultation was designed to seek Aucklanders’ views on the draft strategy and identify any relevant questions, concerns or additional information to strengthen or modify it.

17. Consultation took place from 10 February to 10 March 2025 and was advertised on Our Auckland and in libraries. Staff also requested that local board engagement advisors and key stakeholders share the consultation opportunity with their communities and networks. The engagement approach involved online submissions via the Have Your Say project page, by email or postal mail, as well as in person drop-in sessions at libraries and Pasifika Festival and hui with the demographic advisory panels, key stakeholders and mataawaka.

18. Staff also ran a People’s Panel survey in December 2024.

19. The five topics we asked for feedback on were:

· Where we are heading (strategic directions)

· Our approach to investment (investment principles)

· Making the most of our open spaces (policy one)

· Providing the right open spaces in the right places (policy two), including two options for open space provision outlined below

· Supporting Aucklanders to be more active more often (policy three).

20. The consultation included the following two option packages to update the open space provision standards:

· Option package one – High-density focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high-density areas

· Option package two – Capacity focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high- and medium-density areas where residents have low or moderate levels of existing provision.

21. These two option packages are explained in more detail from paragraph 31.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The consultation feedback shows we are on the right track

22. We received 149 pieces of consultation feedback, as well as 253 responses to the People’s Panel survey. Attachment A provides a detailed summary of the feedback.

23. Submitters included members of the public, a range of partners and stakeholders (including organisations such as Aktive, Forest and Bird, Healthy Auckland Together, Property Council New Zealand and Te Whānau o Waipareira) and members of the council’s demographic advisory panels.

24. There is strong support for:

· the draft strategy overall

· the five draft strategic directions, with the highest support for Strategic direction five: support Aucklanders to live healthy, active lives

· the four draft investment principles, with the highest support for investment principle one: taking a benefits-led approach to improve the holistic wellbeing of people, places and the environment

· all three policies, with the highest support for Policy one: making the most of our open spaces.

25. Overall, submitters prefer a capacity-focused approach (Option package two) – taking an equity lens to deliver more open space where it is needed most in high- and medium-density areas – rather than a high-density-focused approach (Option package one) – delivering more open space in high-density areas – for open space provision standards.

26. Analysis of the qualitative feedback outlined a range of key themes:

· open and green spaces are essential for mental and physical health

· all Aucklanders must have access to safe, well-maintained open spaces

· open space planning needs to be an integral part of urban planning

· open spaces must serve a wide range of functions

· our resources should be used efficiently.

Staff propose changes to the draft strategy in response to the feedback

27. Staff considered the feedback received and are proposing amending the strategy as a result (see Attachment A, pages 38-47).

28. A summary of the most significant proposed changes is shown in Table One. In addition, staff have made minor changes to address specific feedback, clarify intent and meaning or update technical information.

Table One: Proposed changes to the draft strategy based on consultation feedback

· More explicitly emphasise the importance of equity and accessibility in the strategy on pages 7, 8, 11, 34, 46, 81, 82, 85 and in the glossary

· Include greater emphasis on the importance of environment and biodiversity outcomes on pages 14, 20, 25, 29, 31, 44, 45 and 46

· Include greater emphasis on the purpose and benefits of regional parks on page 78

· Include the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) for open space provision standards and delete the high-density focused approach (Option package one) on pages 46, 48, 49 and 52

· Refine the strategic directions based on a range of other consultation feedback on pages 11, 12 and 14.

Staff also propose changes to the draft strategy in response to local board resolutions

29. Staff have also amended the draft strategy in response to local board feedback received in November and December 2024. The key changes are presented in Attachment A (pages 48-49) and summarised in Table Two below.

Table Two: Proposed changes to the draft strategy in response to local board feedback

· Make the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer, moving the table previously on page 23 to page 9

· Clarify the meaning of ‘value for money’ in the strategy on page 17 and in the glossary

· Provide clearer direction in the policy sections to ensure local boards receive the necessary advice for decision-making on page 28

· Clarify that the council attempts to acquire land early in the development process on page 58.

30. All proposed changes are included in track changes in the amended strategy (Attachment B).

Staff recommend a capacity-based approach to open space provision standards

31. As part of the strategy development, staff are proposing updated provision standards for pocket parks and neighbourhood parks to provide better open space outcomes in high- and medium-density areas and greenfield areas. The provision standards help us to ensure we are providing the right open spaces in the right places so Aucklanders can play, be active and enjoy nature.

Summary of option packages analysis – for more details refer CP2025/06421

A report to local boards and to the Policy and Planning Committee in late 2024 provided detailed analysis of the two option packages. Staff recommended Option package two as the preferred option.

Both packages are outlined below. They reflect different ways of adding to our existing open space network across Auckland to continue serving the needs of a growing population.

Density	Park type	Current provision standards	Option package one: High-density focused	Option package two: Capacity focused (recommended)
High-density areas or other areas developed to an equivalent density	Pocket parks	1000-1500m² provided at no capital cost to the council	1000-1500m² acquired at cost to the council regardless of capacity	1000-1500m² in areas with moderate or low capacity acquired at cost to the council
	Neighbourhood parks (within 400m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	5000m² regardless of capacity	2000m² to 5000m² depending on capacity
Medium-density areas	Pocket parks	No pocket parks	1000-1500m² provided at no capital cost to the council
Medium-density areas	Neighbourhood parks (within 400m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	No change	2000m² to 5000m² depending on capacity
Low-density areas	Neighbourhood parks (within 600m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	3000m²

Urban density is based on the Auckland Unitary Plan zones. Varying provision standards based on planned intensification levels enables us to better provide according to the likely demand for public open space, as well as likely private open space provision levels.

The capacity measure is a proposed addition to the existing policy. While the quantity of open space provision per capita is not a meaningful metric in isolation, it provides a basis of comparison when considering future provision across Auckland’s urban areas. There is no accepted international or national capacity standards. Based on local observations and international examples, we propose that capacity is considered low when below 10m² of open space per person, moderate when between 10 and 20m² and high when more than 20m².

Both packages involve trade-offs, as shown below.

	Trade-offs
Option package one High-density focused	Delivers more open space in high-density areas than current policy but larger parks might be difficult to acquire due to land ownership and cost. Is a simple standard to understand but not tailored to where provision is most needed.


Option package two Capacity focused	Is more affordable than Option package one but does not deliver the same level of additional open spaces in high-density areas. Takes an equity lens by focusing provision where most needed but is more complicated to understand and apply.

32. To illustrate how the two open space provision option packages would apply on the ground, staff have developed some case studies (with maps), which are provided in Attachment C.

Consultation feedback supports the capacity-based approach

33. Overall, respondents expressed the importance of open space for mental and physical wellbeing and their desire for open space provision to be an integral part of neighbourhood planning. Feedback highlighted the importance of taking an equity lens to open space provision, targeting areas where it is needed most.

34. Consultation feedback (see Attachment A, page 33) shows an overall preference for a capacity-focused approach to open space provision (Option package two). The support for Option package 2 amongst Have Your Say submitters is similar across Auckland, and slightly higher in the north area.

Figure One: Preference for open space provision standards

35. Stakeholders and partners also favour Option package two over Option package one.

36. Property Council New Zealand, however, expressed concerns that either package was too rigid and that they would increase the cost of the council’s development contributions levy and ultimately development. The development sector also wishes for more delivery partnerships with the council. This can be investigated at implementation stage.

37. Based on previous analysis and consultation feedback, staff recommend that the final amended strategy includes Option package two.

Staff will continue work to support implementation of the strategy

38. Both local boards and the Governing Body have decision-making responsibilities for the provision of open space, sport and recreations services and assets.

39. Staff have developed examples of local board planning and delivery scenarios and case studies of what good practice looks like (see Attachment C). They provide an overview of how key parts of the strategy could be applied locally and examples of things that are already being done well and we would like to see more of. These are included to aid local board understanding of what delivery could look like. How the strategy would be implemented if adopted would be at the discretion of local boards and the Governing Body in accordance with their decision-making responsibilities.

40. Following feedback from local boards on the draft strategy prior to consultation, staff have been working with local board advisors and operational staff to understand opportunities to improve advice and support to local boards for implementation of the strategy.

41. The multitude of documents, information and processes owned and managed by a range of teams across the council currently makes it difficult to provide concise, consistent and up-to-date advice to local boards. This impacts their ability to understand trade-offs and prioritise decisions to deliver for their communities.

42. Preliminary findings point to potential improvements, such as consolidating information provided to local boards, involving local boards earlier in planning processes, improving alignment between regional and local planning cycles, funding and budgets and providing information on trade-offs (see Attachment D).

43. Staff will continue investigating potential improvements to the advice local boards receive, which will inform the development of an implementation and monitoring plan for the strategy (if adopted).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The draft strategy considers how to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change and work to mitigate it, including by reducing emissions. One of the five strategic directions is to enhance our resilience to climate change and our contribution to mitigation, including through reducing carbon emissions, in line with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

45. The draft strategy outlines what we will do to make this happen, including developing the blue-green network, accelerating the use of nature-based solutions, improving the environmental performance of our open spaces and facilities and adapting our open spaces and facilities on the coast and in flood-prone areas.

46. While we already contribute to this strategic direction, the draft strategy proposes a ’do more’ approach to implementation. This is in recognition of the significant impacts of climate change on Aucklanders now and in the future.

47. The investment approach in the draft strategy also includes a greater emphasis on identifying and quantifying the environmental benefits of our investment and designing initiatives to deliver multiple benefits, such as making recreation parks better able to support stormwater management.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. Kaimahi from across the council group have provided input throughout the development of the draft strategy.

49. Implementing the strategy will span across the investment areas identified in the council’s performance management framework.

50. If the final amended strategy is adopted, an implementation and monitoring plan will be developed to support delivery. Kaimahi from across the council group will continue to provide input into this plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

51. Levels of support for the draft strategy was broadly similar among Have Your Say respondents across the region. Attachment A provides sub-regional breakdowns of the results.

52. Local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the draft strategy. Two local board members were in the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group: Member Sandra Coney and Member Margi Watson. In addition, staff provided memos and briefings and presented at workshops and business meetings.

53. Local boards provided resolutions on the draft strategy going for consultation at their November / December 2024 business meetings.

54. While there was general support for the strategic directions and investment principles in the draft strategy, local boards made a range of resolutions seeking better guidance from staff on open space matters, particularly the understanding of local impacts.

55. Staff have attempted to respond to local boards’ request for more targeted advice (see paragraphs 38 to 43 and Attachment C and Attachment D).

56. Local boards will consider how to deliver on the strategy, if adopted, as part of their local board plans and work programmes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57. The views of mana whenua and mataawaka have been sought throughout the development of the draft strategy.

· The Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group includes one Houkura member, first Tony Kake, replaced subsequently by Pongarauhine Renata.

· Both the advisory and Māori rōpū included mana whenua and mataawaka representatives. All iwi were invited to join the rōpū or engage in the manner that best suited them.

· Mana whenua and mataawaka organisations were kept up to date with progress and invited to provide feedback during the consultation process.

58. Guided by the Māori rōpū, the draft strategy incorporates a te ao Māori lens, one of the expectations of success set by the Governing Body and a key theme identified in the background paper. It is adapted from the te ao Māori framework developed for Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri – Auckland Climate Plan, and builds on a single value, manaakitanga. It includes a focus on investing in ‘by Māori for Māori’ solutions, building the capacity and capability of mana whenua and mataawaka and partnering with mana whenua to co-design our spaces and places.

59. Consultation feedback on the draft strategy highlighted the importance of focusing on equity and addressing barriers to participation for Māori. This can be achieved by targeting investment, supporting Māori-led initiatives, aligning delivery with Māori health providers to improve overall wellbeing and providing spaces and places that are safe, affordable and accessible.

60. Feedback also called for embedding Māori leadership at decision-making and implementation levels, including support for co-governance arrangements which is reflected in the strategy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61. The strategy will be implemented using available budgets set during long-term plan and annual plan processes. When constrained by resourcing, the investment principles will support decision-makers in prioritising investment.

62. The draft strategy reflects the resource constraints faced by the council and the need to deliver value for money. The proposed investment approach emphasises the importance of establishing a robust evidence-based approach to investment and prioritisation to better support elected decision-makers.

63. Advice around investment in open space and sport and recreation will be based on a better articulation of costs and benefits, including in relation to local board plan priorities. This will be supported by a new tool to enable better identification, description and quantification of these benefits to help local boards prioritise investment.

64. Consideration of a broad range of funding and delivery tools will support implementation, including making the most of what we have, delivering differently and partnerships.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

If…	Then…	Possible mitigations…
Local boards do not think the final amended strategy addresses their concerns	They will be less likely to support it, and the committee will be less likely to adopt it. Medium reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Staff have proposed changes to the draft strategy to reflect local board feedback. · Delivery of the strategy will be also supported by an implementation and monitoring plan. The three-yearly plan will set out what we will deliver and track progress against the five strategic directions. As part of this, staff are working to improve advice and support to local boards.
The final amended strategy does not provide clear enough direction to implementers	The strategy may not be incorporated into business as usual. Low reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Implementers provided regular input into development of the final amended strategy. · The implementation context, including financial constraints, has also informed the final amended strategy. · Staff are working with local boards on the advice and support they need for implementation. · Staff will continue to work with colleagues in planning for and supporting delivery, and monitoring progress.
The final amended strategy is perceived as unfunded.	Decision-makers may be less likely to adopt it. Medium financial, reputational and strategic risk.	· The final amended strategy sets strategic directions and investment principles to guide prioritisation and enable better informed discussions on future budget allocation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

66. Staff will include local board views when seeking adoption of the strategy from the Policy and Planning Committee in May 2025. The five existing strategies, policies and plans forming Auckland Council’s open space, sport and recreation policy framework would be rescinded.

67. Staff will present the consultation feedback and proposed changes to the strategy to the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group at its meeting on 11 April 2025. Input and direction from the joint political working group will be reflected in the agenda report to the Policy and Planning Committee.

68. Staff will also present the consultation feedback and proposed changes to the strategy to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum on 14 April 2025.

69. If the final amended strategy is adopted, staff will develop an implementation and monitoring plan for committee’s approval. The plan will be developed with input from relevant staff across the council group, including Governance and Engagement. The plan would help embed the strategy’s investment principles into how we work, deliver on the strategic directions and monitor and evaluate delivery against the directions.

70. Local boards have significant decision-making responsibilities with regards to implementing the strategy at the local level. This involves delivering open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to their communities in line with the strategy through development of their local board plans and work programmes.

71. Staff will continue working with local boards on improvements to advice, recognising that different local boards and / or clusters of local boards may require different and bespoke advice, and that the organisation is pivoting to support this.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback analysis report	19
b ⇩	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (final draft version with track changes)	75
c ⇩	Putting things into practice - scenarios, examples of good practices and applications of the two open space provision option packages (with maps)	175
d ⇩	Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Janine Geddes – Acting Local Area Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for council-controlled organisation activities coming in house

File No.: CP2025/06320

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the proposed approach to allocating decision-making responsibilities between the Governing Body and local boards as part of Annual Budget 2025/2026 decisions. In particular, for urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities which move into Auckland Council as a result of council-controlled organisations (CCO) reform decisions.

2. To identify any additional matters requiring review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The CCO reform package in the Mayoral proposal, considered whether CCOs and the Auckland Council Group are structured in the best way to deliver on the long-term plan and its broader vision for Auckland. The goals of the reform included improving democratic accountability, strategic direction and council group effectiveness and efficiency.

4. In December 2024 the Governing Body confirmed structural changes to move urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into Auckland Council no later than 1 July 2025.

5. This means that decision-making responsibility for the activities currently governed by the Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) boards needs to be allocated by the Governing Body to either the Governing Body or local boards in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This will be recorded in the allocation of decision-making table (allocation table) for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

6. For urban regeneration, staff recommend decision-making for the overall programme and associated budgets, and the city centre and waterfront programme sit with the Governing Body. Decision-making responsibility for implementing agreed priority location programmes would sit with local boards.

7. It is recommended that decision-making responsibility in relation to property and marina management also sit with the Governing Body, noting that further work is underway through the Group Property Review which might result in changes in the future.

8. In the future, new urban regeneration or development programmes could be established. The council proposes to undertake further work to clarify how these processes can best reflect the principle of subsidiarity.

9. For economic development activities staff do not consider that substantive changes to the existing allocation table are required. The allocation table already outlines that decisions on the regional economic development strategy, business improvement district (BID) policy, city centre and Auckland-wide economic development programmes sit with the Governing Body. Local boards have always held decision-making responsibilities for influencing local BID programmes, local economic development plans, projects and other local initiatives.

10. Staff are aware that legislative change is proposed to bring several Auckland Transport functions into the council parent and the matters covered in this report should assist with the process of allocation of those decisions to the Governing Body or local boards in the future.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on staff proposals relating to the allocation of decision-making responsibility for:

i. the urban regeneration and property management activities currently governed by the Eke Panuku board

ii. the economic development activities currently governed by the Tātaki Auckland Unlimited board

to either the Governing Body or local boards in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that staff recommendations and feedback from local boards will be considered at the Governing Body meeting on 29 May 2025 and associated changes to the allocation of decision-making table will be implemented as part of Annual Plan 2025/2026 decisions

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that further work is required in relation to determining the future decision-making allocation on:

i. funding of new priority urban regeneration or development locations as additional programmes are identified

ii. how anticipated demand from local boards for local economic development and urban regeneration advice is to be addressed

iii. property management decisions (undertaken as part of the Group Property Review)

d) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters requiring review.

Horopaki

Context

CCO reform decisions included moving urban regeneration, property and economic development activities in-house

11. The CCO reform included analysis on the rationale for and performance of the current CCO model, and structural reform options for three CCOs – Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited. The goals of the reform are to improve:

i. democratic accountability over projects and services delivered to Aucklanders by CCOs

ii. strategic alignment between council decision making and what CCOs do for Aucklanders

iii. the effectiveness and efficiency of how the Auckland Council Group operates.

12. Decisions on CCO reform were made on 12 December 2024 (GB/2024/179) and included transferring and integrating urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into council. Key reasons for this integration include:

· Urban regeneration – strengthening council’s ability to coordinate planning, strategy and delivery in a place-based way, including around strategic growth opportunities, large-scale developments and urban regeneration.

· Property management – improving processes for buying, managing and selling council assets and improving collaboration across the council group to achieve greater financial and strategic value from property assets.

· Economic development – increasing the council’s economic policy capability, identifying new opportunities and integrating advice on economic development issues into broader decision-making.

13. As a result, there may be some additional decisions to be made by the Governing Body or local boards, that were previously made by the Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited Boards.

Legislation sets how decision-making is allocated, including the use of the subsidiarity principle

14. The basis on which decision-making responsibility is allocated is what is known as the subsidiarity principle, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA). This states that decision-making should be local unless the nature of the activity is such that decision-making on an Auckland-wide basis will better promote the well-being of communities across Auckland because:

· the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area, or

· effective decision-making will require alignment or integration with other decisions (that sit with the GB), or

· the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.

15. The Governing Body is responsible for allocating decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities in accordance with the principles outlined above, after considering the views and preferences expressed by each local board. The allocation of decision-making responsibility is then recorded in the Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards Policy, which is included in each year’s Annual Plan (or the long-term plan every third year). The core part of this policy is what is generally known as the allocation table, which lists the non-regulatory activities for which the Governing Body and local boards have decision-making responsibility.

16. The allocation table, with proposed changes shown, is included at Attachment A. Also included at Attachment B is a list of the current Eke Panuku activities in the local board area, to provide current context.

17. These proposals were workshopped with the Governing Body on 26 March 2025 and a recording of that meeting was emailed to all local board members on 28 March and can be found here. The presentation is available here.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. This section is divided into the three key activities being transferred to Auckland Council: urban regeneration, property management and economic development. It outlines where decision-making responsibility currently sits or is proposed to sit and the rationale.

Allocation of decision-making responsibility for urban regeneration (new section in allocation table)

19. While activities that enable urban regeneration (such as planning, development streetscape improvements) are already covered in the allocation table, staff are proposing identifying urban regeneration as a stand-alone activity to enhance clarity.

20. Given the complexity and advanced state of council’s priority location urban regeneration programme, there is a need to minimise the risk of implementation being slowed down. Staff propose that this change is managed using the following principles:

· delivery of approved urban regeneration programmes will continue, using current business cases and detailed budgets (approved by the Eke Panuku board)

· the Governing Body will allocate budgets to these programmes.

21. The proposed allocations relate to current programmes and in part are in recognition that these must continue without issues despite the structural change. Further decisions will need to be made for new programmes that will be developed over time which cannot be accommodated prior to 1 July. This includes the governance and budget allocation of any new programmes.

Proposed additions to the allocation table

22. The principles set out in Section 17 of the LGACA (set out at Paragraph 14 above) have been applied to existing urban regeneration activities. Table One sets out the proposed additions to the allocation table, with the reasoning for Governing Body or local board decision-making set out below. Note that the high-level wording is consistent with conventions in the existing allocation table.

Table One – Proposed additions to the allocation table for urban regeneration

Proposed Governing Body decision-making

Proposed local board decision-making

· Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme outcomes and objectives

· Urban regeneration in city centre and waterfront

· Overall funding plan for priority locations

· Allocation of budget for priority location plans including sequencing of urban regeneration projects within annual budget envelopes

· Identification of priority locations for urban regeneration programme

· Implementation of priority location plans, within parameters set by the Governing Body

· Local urban regeneration projects that are not part of the Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme, for example streetscape improvements or local service property optimisation projects

Proposed allocation to Governing Body: decision-making over urban regeneration programmes

23. Decision-making responsibility for regional urban regeneration activities is proposed to be allocated to the Governing Body as follows:

· Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme outcomes and objectives – the overall programme has region-wide outcomes, such as commercial and housing development. Therefore, the Section 17 principles of taking a consistent and coordinated approach across Auckland and enabling alignment with other decisions that sit with the Governing Body, are considered to be met.

· Urban regeneration in the city centre and waterfront – these programmes are recommended to sit with the Governing Body because the scale, influence and impact of these programmes extend beyond just the Waitematā Local Board area. The success of the city centre is important for Aucklanders, New Zealanders and visitors as a regional destination.

· Overall funding plan for priority locations – the Governing Body will allocate overall funding for the lifetime of programmes, often over 10-20 years or more.

· Allocation of budget for priority location plans including sequencing of urban regeneration projects within annual budget envelopes - the nature of revenue and funding available for urban regeneration and the manner in which programmes progress, is based on elements such as market forces, and regulatory processes. This means that budgets cannot easily be apportioned to local boards and need to sit with the Governing Body, at least initially.

· Identification of priority locations for urban regeneration programme – decision-making over identification of priority locations for the overall programme is proposed to sit with the Governing Body as new locations and programmes will form part of the Auckland-wide network.

Proposed allocation to local boards: decision-making over urban regeneration programmes

24. The following activities are proposed to be allocated to local boards:

· Implementation of priority location plans, within parameters set by the Governing Body – this will include an annual work programme specifying projects, sites and/or activities in the local board area.

· Local urban regeneration projects that are not part of the Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme, for example streetscape improvements or local service property optimisation projects – these may be projects that a local board has identified as a local priority in its local board plan and has allocated local funding to.

Further work to be done to review urban regeneration decision-making activity

25. In alignment with council’s direction to empower local boards to carry out their local leadership role, staff consider that it may be possible to allocate further responsibilities to local boards. However, further work is required to test this assumption.

26. Staff propose that the current work being overseen by the Joint Governance Working Party also consider ways to give local boards a meaningful role in shaping the case for any new urban regeneration or development priority areas.

Practical application of decision-making for urban regeneration in 2025/2026

27. Table Two outlines how the allocation of urban regeneration responsibilities would work in practice. The table also includes a column outlining the work and decisions that staff would undertake under delegation.

Table Two – Proposed urban regeneration programme decision-making in practice

Governing Body (or Committee)

Local Boards

Staff via Chief Executive general delegation (from GB and local boards)

· Approves Auckland Plan, land use and infrastructure policy

· Approves urban regeneration investment through the LTP/Annual Plan, including:

o Urban regeneration budget

o Revenue target from asset recycling (property sales)

o City Centre Targeted Rate programme

· Approves new priority locations or regional urban regeneration programmes

· Approves parameters for investment in priority locations including strategic outcomes, high-level costs, benefits, and delivery timeframes.

· Decision-maker for city centre and waterfront programmes

· Approves acquisition of property

· Approves disposal of non-service property

· Consulted prior to LTP, annual plan, new priority locations and for city centre and regional programmes

· Endorses high-level programme business case for priority locations, including masterplan

· NEW Approves annual work programme specifying projects, sites and/or activities in the local board area

· NEW Approves annual placemaking and activation plans and budget for its area

· NEW Approves urban regeneration project plans within the parameters set out within approved programme business cases (i.e. scope, cost, location, benefits delivered)

· Provides advice to Governing Body and local boards to inform their respective decisions in relation to urban regeneration

· Implements approved urban regeneration programme business cases and projects in accordance with delegations

· Executes property transactions, including preparing go-to-market strategies for development sites (within parameters set by local boards)

· Provides regular delivery performance reporting to Governing Body and local boards

· Works closely with local boards, both formally and informally, from urban regeneration plans, to design of public realm projects to property optimisation, regular workshops, meetings and site visits

Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for property and asset management

28. Auckland Council will become responsible for Eke Panuku functions including the management of commercial properties, property transactions (sales and acquisitions) and management of significant assets like the city centre marinas.

29. Table Three sets out the statutory decision-making responsibilities of the Governing Body, which may be delegated to local boards. This is outlined in the first section of the Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards Policy.

Table Three – Property and marina management statutory decision-making

Governing Body statutory decision-making	Local board decision-making that is delegated from the Governing Body
· Regulatory decisions and statutory responsibilities e.g. disposals	· Service optimisation decisions over local service property

30. Table Four sets out non-regulatory decisions, which can be allocated to local boards, reflected in the allocation table.

Table Four – Property and marina management non-regulatory decision-making (new text in the ‘facilities and asset management section)

Governing Body decision-making (statutory and non-regulatory activities)

Local board decision-making (non-regulatory and delegated decisions)

· Commercial property and marina management

· Management of the non-service property infrastructure as identified in the Infrastructure Strategy

· Acquisition of new local community facilities (including local libraries, local sport and recreation facilities, local parks and reserves), and their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body

Governing Body decision-making over property and asset management

31. The Governing Body has an overarching statutory responsibility for managing the network of facilities and overall financial oversight of the council.

32. Commercial property and marina management are allocated to the Governing Body because these properties are not delivering local council services and are an important financial contributor to council budgets. This is also the case with management of non-service property in line with the Infrastructure Strategy.

Local board decision-making over property and asset management

33. Local boards oversee the delivery of community services (such as libraries and community services), in ‘local service properties’. The Governing Body has delegated some decision-making to local boards enabling them to oversee the disposal of local service properties and reinvest this to achieve other community outcomes. This is called service property optimisation, for example by merging two council services into one building and selling the other property. Local boards also have decision-making over the acquisition of new local community facilities including their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body.

The Group Property Framework is intended to provide principles, guidance and recommendations which will assist in improving decision-making on council’s property portfolio

34. The group property framework is intended to provide an overarching guide to the management of property across the council group, based on robust principles and agreed definitions. The scope of the group property review was agreed by the Revenue and Expenditure Committee in September 2024 (link to scope).

35. Some local boards have previously expressed concerns around a lack of information and advice on local service and non-service properties, including how property classifications are changed. The draft framework is expected to include recommendations that may address these concerns, for example:

· clarifying whether properties are service, non-service, local and non-local to ensure that local boards are given clear advice and decision-making over optimisation opportunities

· recommending a matrix team be established consisting of key property staff across council to present the full options to local boards for property optimisation options in their area.

Allocation of decision-making for economic development activities

36. Economic development activities currently delivered by TAU are being transferred to Auckland Council. There are no substantive changes proposed for the decision-making responsibility for these activities, as reflected in Table Five.

37. While the allocation of decision-making is not proposed to change, council will need to make additional decisions on economic development initiatives, for example in areas such as the Auckland Innovation Network and the Te Puna creative precinct. This change is intended to increase democratic accountability.

Table Five – Economic development decision-making (no new allocations, some minor changes proposed)

Governing Body decision-making

Local board decision-making

· Regional economic development strategy and Business Improvement District (BID) Policy

· Auckland-wide and city centre economic development programmes and initiatives

· Business improvement district (BID) programmes including establishment of new BIDs within parameters set by the BID Policy and recommending BID targeted rates to the Governing Body

· Local economic development plans, projects and initiatives within parameters set by regional strategies, policies and plans

Business improvement district (BID) programmes

38. In relation to the BID Programmes, the BID Policy outlines key decision-making responsibilities that sit with local boards and expressly recognises that within Auckland Council, local boards are the primary relationship lead with BID operating business associations. Other responsibilities that sit with local boards in relation to BIDs include:

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

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

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

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

39. Local boards may provide additional support to BID-operating business associations and BID programme delivery through their local board annual work programmes and budgets. In business districts or town centres that are not part of (or not big enough to form) a BID programme, some local boards actively partner with local businesses to develop or deliver initiatives that promote local economic development.

Local economic development plans and initiatives

40. In 2024, the reference to local economic development plans, projects and initiatives in the allocation table was removed from the allocation table after TAU funding for local economic development support ceased. The proposal to reinstate this in the allocation acknowledges that budget and resources support an activity rather than define its existence as a council function.

41. Local boards have in the past expressed interest in receiving greater support for developing and implementing local economic development initiatives in their areas. While there is currently no additional resource for local economic development activities, it is anticipated that local boards will continue to seek staff advice on these activities, and this will need to be addressed. Note that some local boards have funded economic brokers to deliver local economic development outcomes.

Clarifications around economic development in the allocation table

42. Staff also propose the following minor edits to the allocation table to bring it up to date with current policies, which are shown in Attachment A:

· removing reference to BID strategic direction in the allocation to local boards. The removal of this acknowledges that the business association is a membership based incorporated society in structure and it is the members of that society who set the strategic direction of the association and its activities. Council can advocate for a common strategic direction between the local BID programme and local board but is not the decision maker of the BIDs strategic direction.

· removing reference to Auckland Economic Development Action Plan 2021-2024 and investment framework from the Governing Body’s allocation because this action plan is out of date.

· removing reference to regional business events, and branding and marketing for the city centre, metropolitan centres and spatial priority areas as set out in the Future Development Strategy from the allocation to Governing Body because these examples aren‘t reflective of current and planned activity delivered by the economic development function.

Other amendments to the allocation table

43. As shown in Attachment A, other changes to the allocation table are designed to enhance clarity. These include formatting changes that separate activities that have been, to date, clustered together in the allocation table e.g. separation of planning and development activities from economic development activities, creation of a facilities and asset management category/activity, incorporating the existing allocation of asset renewals and upgrade responsibilities (currently at the end of the table) into the facilities and asset management section.

44. The changes also include new explanatory notes for new activities e.g. clarification of the purpose of the urban regeneration programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45. No climate impacts have been identified as a result of the changes proposed in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46. The transfer of urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities to Auckland Council will have a range of impacts on the Auckland Council Group. These include direct political direction to staff, improved integration of activities and outcomes and efficiency gains.

47. While there are no new resources or budgets proposed as a result of the transfer of these activities, it is likely that demand for advice and support may increase with direct political decision-making.

48. The Governing Body will make a decision on the proposed allocation of decision-making responsibility for the transferred Eke Panuku and TAU activities on 29 May 2025, and these will be reflected in the allocation table as part of Annual Plan 2025/2026.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. Existing urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities are coming in house from 1 July. The major change local boards will see, is where staff come to them seeking approval of urban regeneration activities, rather than support, endorsement, or for information.

50. As noted elsewhere in this report, when existing urban regeneration programmes are completed, new programmes and activities will be considered. It is expected that local boards will have a greater role in decisions on those.

51. Greater clarity around property management decision-making will be provided in the Group Property Framework.

52. Local economic development remains under local board decision-making responsibility. Until additional resource and/or budget is provided advice on new local economic development activity will not be possible, unless local boards fund this themselves.

53. Changes to decision-making may result in increased local board member workloads, which will be assessed as activities are integrated into council.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. There are no specific Māori impacts identified with the proposals outlined in this report. Engagement with Māori in relation to urban regeneration, property management and economic development is expected to continue in line with current practices.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. No direct financial implications are anticipated from the reallocation of decisions to the Governing Body or local boards. Staff advice to support decision-making will continue, even if the decision-maker changes (for example some decisions made by the Eke Panuku Board will now be made by local boards).

56. There will be financial implications if new urban regeneration or economic development programmes or projects are started. Local boards wishing to undertake new programmes or projects will need to fund them.

57. The financial implications of integration of urban regeneration, property management and economic development functions into council (for example the dis-establishment of Eke Panuku as an entity) are being addressed by other workstreams under in CCO Reform programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. The proposals in this report are intended to ensure a seamless transfer of urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into council. Any issues that arise are not anticipated to be significant and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

59. With activities coming in house, political scrutiny and oversight may increase and create the need to change direction. This is considered to be more likely with new programmes than with current programmes but will need to be monitored and managed. This risk is balanced against the benefits of improved democratic accountability.

60. As outlined in this report, a number of decisions will need to be made as existing urban development programmes advance to a point where resources are freed up to develop new programmes. As part of this it is anticipated that a review of current decision-making will be undertaken to ensure particularly local boards have the right degree of decision-making over local programmes and associated budgets. Staff consider there is time to manage this change and in terms of the allocation of decision-making, any further change can be reflected in Annual Plan 2026/2027.

61. Some local boards may advocate for additional or new urban regeneration and/or economic development programmes in their areas. This may be reflected in local board plans which new local boards will develop post-Election 2025. A process to manage that will need to be established. Some local boards may also wish to fund such programmes to support commencement and resource needs will need to be carefully considered to respond to this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. The Governing Body will make decisions on the allocation of decision-making responsibility on 29 May 2025. Local board feedback and resolutions will be reflected in the staff report. Any changes to the allocation table will be included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026, which is due to be adopted by the Governing Body on 26 June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed changes to the allocation table of decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards	215
b ⇩	List of current Eke Panuku projects in the local board area	233

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Waiheke Play Plan 2025

File No.: CP2025/05818

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Waiheke Play Plan 2025, which provides guidance on emerging play issues and opportunities for non-playground play projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Waiheke Play Plan 2025 provides Waiheke Local Board with general information and specific project suggestions to increase the range of play opportunities it offers.

3. The play plan has been developed with community and council staff guidance. The local board has provided feedback on an earlier draft of the document. The final version of the Waiheke Play Plan 2025 is now offered to the local board for adoption.

4. A Supplementary Information document has also been provided. It includes relevant demographic information for the local board area, and insights from Regional Sports Trusts and the council’s Advisory Panels. This information has informed the advice staff provide to Waiheke Local Board regarding play.

5. The play plan does not commit the local board to funding any particular play project. Instead, it will serve as a tool to support work programme planning each year.

6. The report recommends that Waiheke Local Board adopt the Waiheke Play Plan 2025 and use it as a resource for the future development of play.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) whai / adopt the Waiheke Play Plan 2025 as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

7. Auckland Council’s play advocacy function promotes play opportunities beyond investment in traditional playgrounds, with play regarded as ‘an everywhere activity’.

8. The play advocacy approach complements local boards’ capital investments in play. It does not however replace the ongoing need for investment in playgrounds.

9. Staff engaged with Waiheke Local Board at various workshops in 2023 and 2024. A play advocacy activity was included in the local board’s annual work programme in the 2023/2024 and the 2024/2025 financial years. In the 2024/2025 financial year a budget of $2,000 was allocated.

10. In the 2023/2024 work programme, staff committed to delivering a ‘play plan’ for Waiheke Local Board. This document provides advice on how play outcomes can be achieved with operational expenditure (OPEX) funding. It also provides guidance on relevant play issues that the local board might like to consider.

11. A draft version of the Waiheke Play Plan 2025 was circulated to the local board in December 2024. Elected member feedback was incorporated into the final draft. Staff are seeking adoption of the plan which is attached to the report as Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The Waiheke Play Plan 2025 (‘the play plan’) is aligned with the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2023. It is intended to be a live document for the life of the local board plan. The play plan will be revised throughout the 2026 – 2029 term of the local board.

13. The play plan complements previous staff advice about play and other council work programmes that provide play outcomes. This includes play provision assessments and play network gap analyses completed by the Specialist Operations team, and the activation programme delivered by the Out and About Auckland team.

14. The play plan highlights the need to engage effectively with rangatahi regarding play. The gap in play provision for rangatahi is well known across Tāmaki Makaurau, and the play plan offers suggestions about how this can be addressed through both operational (OPEX) and capital (CAPEX) investment.

15. Accessible play is a growing focus within the play sector. The play plan provides guidance to Waiheke Local Board about the different needs of tamariki with invisible and visible disabilities. It also discusses ways that the council can address these groups’ play requirements.

16. All-ages play is also a topic of interest to most local boards. The play plan addresses this by highlighting opportunities for intergenerational play. It also advocates for greater engagement with rangatahi to learn more about this demographic’s play interests. It provides some suggestions for ways to better provide play for rangatahi and adults in formal play spaces.

17. The play plan presents elected members with specific project ideas to increase play provision across Waiheke, and suggestions of local board advocacy for broader play outcomes. The project suggestions are indicative only and do not commit the local board to funding any particular project. Language has been added to the play plan to this effect.

18. In response to feedback from a range of local boards, all play plans have been revised as follows:

· a Chair’s Message has been included at the beginning of the document

· operational details such as proposed project costs have been removed, to better reflect the strategic nature of the Play Plan and the local board’s governance-level decision-making role

· a page has been inserted to acknowledge the opportunity for play to support the wellbeing of older adults

· the document has been divided into two separate parts: the Waiheke Play Plan 2025, which is action-focused; and the Waiheke Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information document, which includes supporting insights and other reference materials.

19. Staff will use the play plan to inform discussions during work programme development. Each year, the local board may choose to allocate a budget toward play through its annual work programme development process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. The play advocacy approach has an enduring positive climate impact. It encourages whānau to embrace their streets, local parks and public spaces as sites for play. This reduces the need to drive to playgrounds.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The play plan has been written with input from the council’s Activation and Events teams within the Community Wellbeing department. Further review and feedback has been provided by staff in the Pools and Leisure and the Parks and Community Facilities departments.

22. The play plan highlights the value of integrating play into other council work programmes, and in the work of Council-Controlled Organisations like Auckland Transport and Watercare.

23. The Supplementary Information document includes insights from the council’s various Advisory Panels, which each represent different groups in the community. Staff engaged directly with the Advisory Panels and sought their feedback regarding play issues relevant to them.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. Play is of perennial interest to the wider community, with most families aware of its benefit to their tamariki. As freedom to roam and play without adult supervision has declined for tamariki in Tāmaki Makaurau during the past three decades, there has been growing pressure on the council to build and maintain playgrounds. The play advocacy approach, as set out in the play plan, both acknowledges the importance of playgrounds, and offers other ways to provide opportunities to play.

25. Tāmaki Makaurau’s four Regional Sports Trusts have the capacity to engage directly with tamariki in a school setting, and the Play Leads at each Regional Sports Trust have done so at several primary schools. The insights gathered have informed staff advice to Waiheke Local Board about how to provide play beyond a playground setting. In particular, tamariki voice has identified a widespread appetite for more adventurous play.

26. The Supplementary Information document contains demographic information from the 2023 Census, highlighting changing ethnic demographics in Waiheke. Analysis of the local board’s demographic data has contributed to staff advice to Waiheke Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The play plan references the Māori outcomes identified in the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2023. It highlights several ways that play can support Māori outcomes, including:

· using Te Aranga Māori Design principles in the design of playgrounds, to communicate iwi narratives through colour choices, cultural motifs, and other elements

· developing and installing māra hūpara – Māori playgrounds that draw on pre-colonial play traditions from local iwi

· exploring ways that the Te Kete Rukuruku dual naming project could create opportunities for playful interpretation of the narratives behind gifted te reo names

· providing Māori play activations through the Out and About Auckland programme.

28. The play plan acknowledges the importance of taking an iwi-led approach for any play provision that is aligned with Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Although the play plan includes potential play projects, it is not a prescriptive document and does not commit the local board to funding any of the projects. Language has been included in the play plan to make this clear to all readers.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following table identifies risks associated with Waiheke Local Board adopting its play plan and sets out appropriate mitigation measures.

Risk	Mitigation
Adopting the play plan raises community expectations regarding investment in new play projects	Language within the play plan to emphasise the non-prescriptive nature of the document and its purpose as a guide for potential play investment only
Adopting the play plan results in concern from the community that investment in CAPEX play will not continue	Language within the play plan to confirm that non-playground play is intended to complement and not replace wider investment in play assets

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Staff will participate in annual work programme planning, drawing on the play plan to advise the local board of project opportunities.

32. The Waiheke Play Plan 2025 will be revised on a three-year basis, to ensure it remains aligned with the Waiheke Local Board’s local board plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waiheke Play Plan 2025	241
b ⇩	Waiheke Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information	273

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacquelyn Collins - Play Portfolio Lead

Authorisers

Pippa Sommerville - Manager Sport & Recreation

Janine Geddes – Acting Local Area Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Public feedback on proposed changes to cemetery bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06428

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Governing Body Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend Auckland Council’s Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and to revoke the Code of Practice.

2. To delegate one or more board members to present those views to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Staff have prepared a summary of public feedback to enable the local board to provide its views on how the Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and revoke the Code.

4. The Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend the Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 and to revoke the Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

5. The proposal seeks to improve council’s administrative efficiency, and to better minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment through structural changes to the Bylaw and Code framework.

6. Council received responses from 33 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 23 February 2025. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules and to revoke the Code of Practice.

· Proposal 2: Clarify when council approval is required (2A) and to clarify rules about adornments (2B), maintenance (2C), preparing a casket or shroud for burial and cremation (2D) and monument work and physical works (2E).

· Proposal 3: Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.

7. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the appointed Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address feedback from people in the local board area. Taking this approach will assist the Panel in making recommendations to the Governing Body about whether to adopt the proposal.

8. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited number of people and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

9. Local boards can (if they wish) present their views to the Panel on 13 June 2025. The Panel will consider board views and all public feedback before making recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision in mid-2025

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback from people in the local board area to the Governing Body proposal to amend the Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and to revoke Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code) in the agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address public feedback to the proposal in (a) to assist the Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint a replacement to any appointed member in (c) who is unable to present to the Panel.

Horopaki

Context

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on public feedback

10. The local board in accordance with council’s collaborative governance model^{^[1]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal.

11. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Panel at a meeting scheduled for 13 June 2025.

12. The nature of the local board views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board:

ü could indicate support for matters raised in public feedback

ü could recommend how the Policy and Bylaw Panel address matters raised in public feedback

û should not express its views on the proposal itself (that opportunity was provided prior to public consultation, the focus now is on how to respond to public feedback).

The Bylaw and Code help to manage council cemeteries and crematoria

13. To help manage council cemeteries and crematoria, council uses the Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code).

14. The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, distress to families, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment at council cemeteries and crematoria (not for example, ash scattering in public places).

15. Council operates approximately 29 active (operational) and 26 inactive (no new plots for sale; no longer in regular use; function as local parks) cemeteries. This includes cemeteries with crematoria at Waikumete, Manukau Memorial Gardens and North Shore Memorial Park.

16. The Governing Body has delegated authority to make, amend and revoke the Code to the Regulatory and Safety Committee, and to administer the Bylaw and Code to cemetery and Aotea Great Barrier Island staff and the Waikumete Urupā Komiti.^{^[2]}

17. The Bylaw and Code form part of a wider regulatory and strategic framework including the:

· Burial and Cremation Act 1964 that enables council to provide cemetery services

· Cremation Regulations 1973 that regulates cremations

· Health (Burial) Regulations 1946 that regulates funeral directors, mortuaries, burials at sea, handling and transportation of dead bodies and approved disinfectants

· Burial and Cremation (Removal of Monuments and Tablets) Regulation 1967 that provides for the removal of dilapidated or neglected monuments and tablets

· Auckland Unitary Plan^{^[3]} that regulates activities at cemeteries to protect heritage^{^[4]}, meet the needs of the community, maintain or enhance the local environment and amenity values and to protect conservation values and natural qualities of open space conservation zones (which include non-operational cemeteries).

The Governing Body has proposed amending the Bylaw and revoking the Code

18. On 12 December 2024, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend the Bylaw and revoke the Code for public consultation (GB/2024/182). A Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel was appointed to consider all public feedback and make recommendations to the Governing Body before a final decision is made (RSCCC/2024/82).

19. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw and Code (see Figure below).

20. The proposal seeks to improve council’s administrative efficiency, and to better minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment through structural changes to the Bylaw and Code framework.

21. Main proposals in comparison to the current Bylaw and Code are outlined in the table below.

Main proposals
Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules in a way that allows cemetery staff to manage the daily operation of council cemeteries and crematoria, and to revoke the Code of Practice.
Clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation.
Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.

22. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January until 23 February 2025. Council received feedback from 31 people and two organisations (total of 32).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. A total of three people from the Waiheke Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

24. There was majority support for Proposals 1 and 3, and parts of Proposal 2 (clarify rules about maintenance and preparing a casket or shroud for burial or cremation), split support to clarify rules about monument work and physical works (Proposal 2E), and majority opposition to clarify rules about adornments (Proposal 2B).

25. In contrast, there was majority support for all three proposals from people who provided feedback Auckland-wide.

Overview of local board area and Auckland-wide support for proposed changes

Topic (Proposals P1 to P3)		Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic (Proposals P1 to P3)		Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1	Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules and to revoke the Code of Practice	67 per cent	33 per cent	85 per cent	15 per cent
P2A	Clarify when council approval is required	67 per cent	0 per cent	85 per cent	4 per cent
P2B	Clarify rules about adornments	0 per cent	67 per cent	63 per cent	17 per cent
P2C	Clarify rules about maintenance	33 per cent	0 per cent	86 per cent	4 per cent
P2D	Clarify rules about preparing a casket or shroud for burial and cremation	33 per cent	0 per cent	96 per cent	0 percent
P2E	Clarify rules about monument work and physical works	33 per cent	33 per cent	79 per cent	7 per cent
P3	Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.	67 per cent	0 per cent	85 per cent	11 per cent

Note: percentages do not add up to 100. ‘I don’t know’ responses are not recorded in Table.

26. The proposal, proposed bylaw and current bylaw and code can be viewed in the links. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

27. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Governing Body Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel on 13 June 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. The proposal does not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the proposal focuses on ensuring that memorials do not cause safety risks and adornments do not obstruct maintenance, rather than regulating the climate impact of common practices. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The proposed changes impact the Cemetery Services and the Aotea Great Barrier Island service centre which provide council cemetery services.

25. Relevant staff input was sought to inform the statutory bylaw review, options and proposal, and staff are aware of the impacts of the changes and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views from interested local boards were sought on draft options and proposal.

27. In October and November 2024, 12 interested local boards provided formal views on draft options and a proposal. A summary of local board views can be viewed in the 3 December 2024 Regulatory and Safety Committee agenda (Attachment C to Item 10).

28. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. The proposal supports whanaungatanga, rangatiratanga, manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga in Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulation that supports council services to meet social, cultural and physical needs, and supports the role of the Waikumete Urupā Komiti (Komiti) at Te Urupā o Waikumete (Waikumete Cemetery).^{^[5]}

30. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

31. Six per cent (two) of the total responders identified as Māori.

32. Both supported the proposal to amend the Bylaw, remove the Code, update the Bylaw structure, definitions and wording and to clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation.

33. One disagreed with clarifying the rules about monument and physical works, noting that other cultures may disagree with what is a culturally acceptable New Zealand monument and suggested that a maximum size be placed on monuments to ensure compliance.

34. Both commented on the adornments. One about the mess associated with plastic adornments, and the other about what are suitable materials to hold flowers.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. The cost of the public consultation and implementation of the proposal (if adopted) will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited number of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. On 13 June 2025 the Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in mid-2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the cemetery bylaw	303
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Waiheke Local Board area	323

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Janine Geddes – Acting Local Area Manager

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06694

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Dog Policy and Bylaw.

2. To delegate one or more local board members to represent local board views on the public feedback to the Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Staff have prepared a summary of public feedback to enable the local board to provide its views on how the Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Dog Policy and Bylaw.

4. The Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 in December 2024, and appointed a Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made.

5. The proposal to adopt an amended policy and bylaw seeks to improve council’s approach to dog management in Auckland by minimising the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment, risk of not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners and the inherent risk of conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.

6. Council received responses from 5,207 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 23 February 2025. All public feedback is summarised in Attachment A. Feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B. A user-friendly view of the feedback related to the local board by proposal can be viewed on council's AKHaveYourSay web page.

7. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Limit to number of dogs walked (six on leash, with maximum three of the six off leash at any one time)	· Proposal 12B: Muriwai Regional Park
· Proposal 2: Auckland Botanic Gardens	· Proposal 12C: Tāwharanui Regional Park
· Proposal 3: Hunua Ranges Regional Park	· Proposal 12D: Wenderholm Regional Park
· Proposal 4: Long Bay Regional Park	· Proposal 13A: Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules
· Proposal 5A: Mahurangi Regional Park East	· Proposal 13B: Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered
· Proposal 5B: Mahurangi Regional Park West	· Proposal 13C: Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications
· Proposal 5C: Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	· Proposal 13D: Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property
· Proposal 6: Pākiri Regional Park	· Proposal 13E: Clarify how dog access rules are set
· Proposal 7: Shakespear Regional Park	· Proposal 13F: Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules
· Proposal 8: Tāpapakanga Regional Park	· Proposal 13G: Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules
· Proposal 9: Te Ārai Regional Park	· Proposal 13H: Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules
· Proposal 10: Waitawa Regional Park	· Proposal 13I: Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)
· Proposal 11: Whakanewha Regional Park	· Proposal 13J: Remove outdated/duplicated bylaw content
· Proposal 12A: Ambury Regional Park

8. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Panel should address feedback from people in the local board area, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel in making recommendations to the Governing Body about whether to adopt the proposal.

9. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

10. Local boards can (if they wish) present their views to the Panel on 23 May 2025. The Panel will consider local board views and all public feedback before making recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision mid-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback from people in the local board area to the Governing Body proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 in the agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback to the proposal in (a) to assist the Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint a replacement to any appointed member in (c) who is unable to present to the Panel.

Horopaki

Context

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on public feedback

11. The local board in accordance with council’s collaborative governance model^{^[6]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal.

12. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Panel at a meeting scheduled for 23 May 2025.

13. The nature of the local board views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board:

ü could indicate support for matters raised in public feedback

ü could recommend how the Policy and Bylaw Panel address matters raised in public feedback

û should not express its views on the proposal itself (that opportunity was provided prior to public consultation, the focus now is on how to respond to public feedback).

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

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

15. Council’s objective is to ‘keep dogs a positive part of the life of Aucklanders’ by:

· maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs to public places

· adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs (including by promoting responsible dog ownership)

· protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

16. The rules are enforced by the Animal Management unit using a modern regulator approach to compliance (for example information, education and enforcement).

17. The policy and bylaw are part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the following:

· The Dog Control Act 1996 manages matters relating to dog ownership, including their care, control and owner responsibilities for damage caused by their dog.

· The Animal Welfare Act 1999 ensures that owners of animals and persons in charge of animals attend properly to the welfare of the animal.

· The Code of Welfare for Dogs 2018 provides information to the owners and persons in charge of dogs about the standards they must achieve to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

The Governing Body proposed amending matters of regional significance in the policy and bylaw for public feedback

18. On 12 December 2024, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Kaupapa no ngā Kurī / Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture ā Rohe Tiakina Kurī / Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (GB/2024/181). It also appointed a Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

19. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Dog Policy and Bylaw (see figure below).

20. The proposal seeks to improve council’s approach to dog management in Auckland by minimising the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment, risk of not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent risk of conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.

21. The main proposals are outlined in the Table below:

Main proposals
Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time)
Auckland Botanic Gardens · Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan. · Prohibit dogs from waterways. · Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor Centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden. · Clarify rules in other areas.
Hunua Ranges Regional Park · Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).
Long Bay Regional Park · Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged). · Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.
Mahurangi Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash). · Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season). · Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.
Pākiri Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.
Shakespear Regional Park · Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash). · Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).
Tāpapakanga Regional Park · Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season) · Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at the campgrounds and bach, and during lambing).
Te Ārai Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks. · Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.
Waitawa Regional Park · Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash. · Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash. · Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks. · Clarify other areas where dogs are prohibited (such as farm paddock during lambing, campground and bach).
Whakanewha Regional Park · Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.
Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks · Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).
Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including: · using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure · clarifying approach to setting dog access rules · clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments · clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways · removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks · updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains) · removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.

Main proposals

Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time)

Auckland Botanic Gardens

· Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan.

· Prohibit dogs from waterways.

· Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor Centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden.

· Clarify rules in other areas.

Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).

Long Bay Regional Park

· Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged).

· Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.

Mahurangi Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash).

· Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season).

· Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.

Pākiri Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.

Shakespear Regional Park

· Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash).

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).

Tāpapakanga Regional Park

· Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season)

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at the campgrounds and bach, and during lambing).

Te Ārai Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks.

· Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.

Waitawa Regional Park

· Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash.

· Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash.

· Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks.

· Clarify other areas where dogs are prohibited (such as farm paddock during lambing, campground and bach).

Whakanewha Regional Park

· Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.

Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks

· Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).

Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including:

· using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure

· clarifying approach to setting dog access rules

· clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments

· clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways

· removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks

· updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)

· removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.

22. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January until 23 February 2025.

23. Council received feedback from 5,186 people and 30 organisations (5,207 in total)

· 4,046 on the proposal to limit the number of dogs walked and the general policy and bylaw matters and

· 3,084 on the proposal to clarify or change regional park dog access rules.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. A total of 171 people from the Waiheke Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

25. There was majority support for the proposals to limit the number of dogs walked, to reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content and proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at Auckland Botanic Gardens, Hunua Ranges, Pākiri, Shakespear, Te Ārai, Waitawa, Whakanewha, Ambury and Tāwharanui Regional Parks, split support for proposals to change dog access rules at Long Bay, Mahurangi and Wenderholm Regional Parks, and majority opposition for the remaining proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at other regional parks.

26. Key themes from the Auckland-wide feedback highlighted concerns with limiting the number of dogs and clarifying or changing the dog access rules at most of the regional parks.

27. While some proposals may not be supported, public feedback also seeks alternatives other than the status quo. For example:

· for Proposal 1: limit to number of dogs walked, of the 66 per cent (2,397) of Auckland-wide feedback opposed to the proposal:

o six per cent (146) supported a limit of four dogs, with no more than two off-leash

o five per cent (113) supported a limit of four dogs, with no more than two off-leash unless licence obtained

o four per cent (100) supported a limit of eight dogs, with no more than four off-leash

o 638 comments (around 30 per cent) supported introducing a dog walker license for qualified dog walkers.

· for proposed changes to regional park rules, Auckland-wide individuals who opposed the changes:

o generally wanted council to provide more dog-friendly or off-leash areas

o some were not opposing the proposals, but instead expressing the view that the current rules are too restrictive.

Overview of local board area and Auckland-wide support for proposed changes

Topic (Proposals P1 – P13)		Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic (Proposals P1 – P13)		Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1	Limit the number of dogs walked (six on leash, with maximum three of the six off leash at any one time)	66 per cent	32 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	64 per cent	27 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	71 per cent	14 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	40 per cent	40 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	20 per cent	20 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	20 per cent	20 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	25 per cent	25 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	50 per cent	25 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	60 per cent	40 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	25 per cent	50 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	50 per cent	17 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	67 per cent	0 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	55 per cent	26 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	50 per cent	17 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	20 per cent	40 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	75 per cent	0 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	33 per cent	33 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	85 per cent	8 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	96 per cent	4 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	96 per cent	0 per cent	83 per cent	6 per cent
P13D	Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property	84 per cent	12 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	88 per cent	4 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	92 per cent	4 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	92 per cent	4 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	92 per cent	4 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	75 per cent	8 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	92 per cent	4 per cent	81 per cent	7 per cent

Note: percentages do not add up to 100. For example, ‘I don’t know’ responses are not included in Table.

28. The proposal, proposed policy and bylaw can be viewed in the links. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area to meet council’s statutory requirements is in Attachment B. A more user-friendly view that consolidates the comments from all public feedback related to the local board by proposal can be viewed on council's AKHaveYourSay web page.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

29. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Governing Body Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel on 23 May 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The Dog Policy and Bylaw do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the Policy and Bylaw focuses more on keeping dogs as a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders.

31. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. The Dog Policy and Bylaw impacts the operations of several council departments, including Animal Management, Biodiversity, Regional Parks and Natural Environment teams. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The Dog Policy and Bylaw impact local governance and are of high interest.

34. Views from all local boards on a draft proposal were sought in October 2024 and are summarised in the 3 December 2024 Regulatory and Safety Committee agenda (Attachment C to Item 11).

35. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

37. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

38. Six per cent (369) of the public feedback received was from people who identified as Māori. Of that feedback:

· 74 per cent (166) did not support the proposal to limit the number of dogs that could be walked, with 58 per cent preferring no change to the current rule

· there was general overall support (more than 50 per cent) to reorganise, simplify and clarify the Policy and Bylaw content, however there was less support (47 per cent) to update dog access rules for Tupuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)

· there was generally opposition to proposed changes to regional park dog access rules.

39. Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust supported the majority of the proposals to simplify and clarify the Policy and Bylaw content and proposed changes to Long Bay, Mahurangi, Pākiri, Shakespear, Tāwharanui, Te Ārai and Wenderholm Regional Parks.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Dog Policy and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited number of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. The Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision mid-2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the dog policy and bylaw (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in Waiheke Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill – Principal Advisor Advisor Regulatory Practice

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager, Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Janine Geddes – Acting Local Area Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 April 2025

Deliberation on the proposed changes to the local dog access rules

File No.: CP2025/07025

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To assist the Board’s decision-making on whether to adopt proposed changes to local dog access rules in its local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To assist the Board’s decision-making on whether to adopt the proposed changes, staff have summarised public feedback and provided a structure for deliberations.

3. The proposed changes aim to respond to structural problems with the current rules (problems that place responsible dog owners, their dogs, other people, animals or property at significant risk or unreasonably restrict responsible dog owner access).

4. The Board received 1094 public feedback responses across all proposed changes. This includes feedback from 2 organisations and 2 pro forma with 5 submissions.

5. A summary of all feedback is in Attachment D, an extract of feedback by proposal is in Attachment E and a copy of individual feedback in its original form is in Attachment F.

6. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic and description	Topic and description
· Proposal 1 Big Oneroa Beach (372 responses)	· Proposal 2: Blackpool Beach (268 responses)
· Proposal 3 Onetangi Beach (449 responses)	· Other matters

7. Staff recommend the Board consider all public feedback on the proposed changes and then decide whether to adopt the proposed changes in accordance with its decision-making requirements. This approach will complete the statutory process the board must follow.

8. There is a reputational risk that some people or organisations who provided feedback may not feel that their views are addressed. This risk can be mitigated by the board considering all public feedback contained in this report and providing reasons for its decision.

9. Following a final decision of the Board, staff will publicly notify the decision and publish any changes as part of a regional process and install any updated signage funded by the Board. Animal management staff will provide compliance services for any changes and community facilities staff will maintain any signage, within existing budgets.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

[NOTE: Local board to pass resolution (a) BEFORE commencing deliberations]

a) mihi / thank those people and organisations who gave feedback on the proposed changes to local dog access rules in the local board area.

[NOTE: Local board to pass remaining resolutions AFTER deliberations]

b) whai / adopt the decisions contained in the deliberations table attached to this resolution in the minutes of this meeting of the local board that:

i) respond to the public feedback on the proposed changes

[NOTE: Text ii) to iv) to be amended as required to reflect decisions in deliberations table]

ii) whai / adopt the proposed changes as publicly notified at [insert locations, delete iii) if not applicable]

iii) whai / adopt with amendments, the proposed changes at [insert locations, delete iii) if not applicable]

iv) reject the proposed changes and retain the current rules at [insert any locations, if not applicable].

[NOTE: Delete (c), (d), (e) and (f) if no changes made]

c) whai / adopt amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 contained in the comparison table attached to this resolution in the minutes of this meeting of the local board that gives effect to the decisions in b), with a commencement date of 1 August 2025.

d) whakaū / confirm that the amendments to the policy in c):

i) are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for deciding dog access rules in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019

ii) are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019

iii) are in accordance with all relevant legislative requirements, in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

e) tāpae / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the manager responsible for the policy on dogs to make editorial changes or to correct errors or omissions to the amendments in c).

f) allocate up to $1,000 from the local board’s capital budget for costs to implement the amendments in the policy in c) and request advice from Parks and Community Facilities staff to incorporate the cost as part of the 2025/2026 work programme.

Horopaki

Context

Local dog access rules provide spaces for dogs and their owners that are safe for everyone, are adopted by local boards and enforced by council staff

10. The Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019 contains dog access rules that seek to provide a balanced use of public places for dogs and their owners that is safe for everyone. This includes people, animals, the environment and property.

11. The Board has delegated authority to decide dog access rules on local park, beach and foreshore areas in their local board area (GB/2012/157).

12. Council’s Animal Management Team uses a modern regulator approach to increase voluntary compliance. This includes a focus on education through website information, signage and interactions with dog owners during patrols. Where appropriate Animal Management can issue $300 infringement fines.

The Board proposed changes to local dog access rules for public consultation

13. On 11 December 2024, the Board adopted a proposal to amend local dog access rules in the local board area contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 (WHK/2024/137).

14. The proposal arose in response to requests for changes to local dog access rules that met regulatory criteria contained in the Board’s delegated authority, Policy on Dogs 2019, Dog Control Act 1996 and Local Government Act 2002 (See Attachment C)

15. The proposal seeks to improve rules that balance the needs of dogs, people, animals, the environment and property in public places in the local board area by amending rules at:

· Big Oneroa Beach

· Blackpool Beach

· Onetangi Beach.

16. Details on the current and proposed rules are contained in Attachment A.

The proposal received 1094 public feedback responses

17. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January to 23 February 2025. During that period, council received 1094 feedback from individuals and two organisations.

18. Public consultation initiatives for proposed changes to local dog access rules were combined with public consultation for proposed changes to local dog access rules in nine other local board areas and proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

19. The consultation initiatives had a media reach to an audience of over 3.7 million (print, online, TV, Radio) and the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received about 29,000 visits.^{^[7]}

20. The Table below summarises public consultation initiatives and responses.

Public awareness initiatives

· Notification in New Zealand Herald and local papers^{^[8]}

· Articles on ‘Our Auckland’ on 3 December 2024, 4 December 2024, 21 January 2025

· Email notification of known registered dog owners by using email or mailing address provided to council

· Email notification to external stakeholders (e.g. SPCA)

· Email notification to mana whenua and mataawaka

· Appearance on radio and TV interviews^{^[9]}

· Information ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events^{^[10]}

· Information on the akhaveyoursay website

Public feedback opportunities

· In writing online, by email or post from 20 January to 23 February 2025

· In person or online at ‘drop-in’ sessions or at ‘Have Your Say’ events

· The Waiheke drop-in session and Have Your Say event was on 15 February 2025

· Verbally by phone.

Public responses

· The local board received 1094 feedback responses from people and organisations through the online feedback form or by email..

· Four people attended the Waiheke ‘Have Your Say’ event. The verbal feedback was submitted on the individuals’ behalf.

21. Attachments A to F in this report contain a deliberations table (A), proposal (B), summary of regulatory decision-making requirements (C), consultation feedback summary (D) and full copy of public feedback received online or by email, post or verbally (E), at ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events (F). All feedback in Attachments D and F can be found at the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/dog-policy-bylaw-and-access-rules.

22. Note there is a separate report on the agenda that provides summary feedback for the proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019 to seek the Board’s feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public feedback generally supported two proposed changes but opposed one

23. To assist the Board in its deliberations, staff have summarised the public feedback into topics in Attachment A. This enables the Board to deliberate and record its decisions on each topic to meet statutory requirements.

24. The statutory requirements also include publishing the date, time and venue of the deliberation. This information will be placed on the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage, making it available for submitters and public who can attend the deliberations to observe (noting there are no speaking rights at deliberations).

25. The majority of public feedback opposed the proposed changes for Blackpool Beach, but supported the proposed changes for Big Oneroa and Onetangi Beach.

Topic	Total support from local board area	Total support from people across Auckland
Proposal 1: Big Oneroa Beach	62 per cent support (62 of 100 responses) 36 per cent do not support	70 per cent (259 of 372 responses)
Proposal 2: Blackpool Beach	44 per cent support (32 of 72 responses) 44 per cent do not support	34 per cent (92 of 268 responses)
Proposal 3: Onetangi Beach	39 per cent support (56 of 145 responses) 59 per cent do not support	52 per cent (232 of 449 responses)

The Board must comply with regulatory decision-making requirements when considering public feedback and making a final decision

26. The Board must comply with regulatory requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, Dog Control Act 1996, Policy on Dogs 2019 and its delegated authority (See Attachment C). This includes the Board:

· giving all public feedback due consideration with an open mind

· being consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules

· not being inconsistent with any region-wide dog access rule

· having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996

· providing a clear record or description of the decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Input from relevant council teams was sought to inform the development of the proposal and the deliberations report, and those teams are aware of the impacts of any final decision and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Local dog access rules have a direct impact on the use of public places of local significance.

30. A total of 399 responses identifying with the local board area provided feedback on the proposed changes (Summary in Attachment D, extract of feedback by proposal in Attachment E and copy in Attachment F).

31. The Board has delegated authority to decide local dog access rules in their area. This means the Board must consider all public feedback before making a final decision.

32. Staff have summarised public feedback and provided a structure for deliberations to assist the Board in making a decision on whether to adopt the proposed changes (Attachment A).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Local dog access rules support whanaungatanga (vibrant communities), manaakitanga (quality of life) and kaitiakitanga (sustainable futures) in Houkura | the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance by helping to protect the safety of people and the environment.

34. Staff engaged with mana whenua and mataawaka during the public consultative process to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on the proposal.

35. No particular impact on mana whenua and mataawaka has been identified. Feedback from individuals who identified themselves as Māori shows no marked difference to the feedback provided from non-Māori. The summary of feedback from individuals who identified themselves as Māori are provided below:

Topic	Total support from Māori
Proposal 1: Big Oneroa Beach	72 per cent support (13 of 18 responses) 22 per cent opposed
Proposal 2: Blackpool Beach	24 per cent support (4 of 17 responses) 71 per cent opposed
Proposal 3: Onetangi Beach	36 per cent support (8 of 22 responses) 50 per cent opposed

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. There may be financial cost to the Board of up to $1000 if all the proposed changes were adopted as publicly notified:

· $200 for the Big Oneroa Beach proposal- $200 - this covers the replacement of two detailed signs with maps and three big signs with a courier cost

· $200 for the Blackpool Beach proposal - $200 - this covers three big signs and two detailed signs with maps, and courier cost.

· $500 for the Onetangi Beach proposal - this covers the replacement of 12 big signs, five detailed signs with maps and courier cost.

37. The Board would need to fund the cost, most likely out of capital budgets.

38. The Board should progress this discussion with Parks and Community Facilities staff as part of the 2025/2026 work programme development budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. The following risks have been identified:

If…	Then…	Mitigation
Some people or organisations feel their feedback was not considered or addressed	There may be a reputational risk of negative public perception about the decision-making process.	The Board ensures it considers all public feedback contained in this report and records its decisions (with reasons).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Following a final decision of the Board:

· staff will publicly notify the decision and publish any changes on council’s website and Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 as part of a regional process that includes changes adopted by the Governing Body and other local boards

· staff will install any updated signage funded by the Board

· animal management staff will provide compliance services for any changes and community facilities staff will maintain any signage, within existing budgets.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deliberations table	357
b ⇩	Statement of Proposal - Click here to view	367
c	Local board decision-making criteria	369
d ⇩	Summary of public feedback - Click here to view	371
e ⇩	Extract of feedback by proposal	373
f ⇩	Copy of individual feedback – Click here to view	433
g ⇩	Drop-in sessions and Have Your Say sessions feedback	435

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Amelia Lawley - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Janine Geddes – Acting Local Area Manager

[1] The Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws – Agreed Principles and Processes 2019.

[2] Committee supporting Te Urupā o Waikumete (at Waikumete Cemetery) in partnership with council.

[3] D17 Historic Heritage Overlay; H7 Open Space Zones; H24 Special Purpose – Cemetery Zone, K Designations.

[4] For example, the works that impact historic memorials or places in Sch 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage or with designations.

[5] Committee has an advisory role for Te Urupā o Waikumete in partnership with council.

[6] The Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws – Agreed Principles and Processes 2019

[7] The ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage included proposed changes to the Dog Policy and Bylaw and local dog access rules in 10 local board areas. The website had around 29,000 visits over the consultation period, comprised of over 6000 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey). Overall there were also over 18,000 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document) which included around 1700 people who downloaded the statement of proposal for proposed changes to local dog access rules).

[8] Franklin County News, Manukau and Papakura Courier, Central Leader, Eastern Bays Courier, North Shore Times, Rodney Times, Western Leader, The Times, Gulf News, Waiheke Weekender, Pohutukawa Coast Times

[9] NZTV (1 time), Media Works (11 times) and Radio NZ (10 times)

[10] An online drop-in session and an in-person Have Your Say event (at Town Hall) were held for proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Dog Policy and Bylaw and plus 11 in-person drop-in sessions and ten Have Your Say sessions were held for the proposed changes to local dog access rules.

Chairperson	Cath Handley
Deputy Chairperson	Kylee Matthews
Members	Bianca Ranson
	Robin Tucker
	Paul Walden